Re: D of C - Who Signs?

[Derek Walton]

Dear all,

we have been advised by our CB ( and  acredidation requires you ) to update key
documents when changes occur: I read the D of C to be such a document.

Derek Walton

John Allen wrote:

> Hi Folks
>
> I disagree strongly with Scott's assessment that the DoC has to be resigned
> for several very important and pragmatic reasons:
>
> a) To-date I have yet to see any official EU or other substantive document
> to support his viewpoint.
>
> b) People are always "coming and going" - it is a fact of business life,
> and new personnel inherit the legal responsibilities of the old.
> (That said, the "old" personnel could still be prosecuted for knowingly
> breaking the law if they had falsely signed a DoC).
>
> c) If Scott's viewpoint were widely held we would all be continuously
> updating and reissuing our DoC's. In fact we would have little time for
> anything else - like developing new products!
>
> d) The date of the signature then becomes critical - and could force a
> complete review of the product against the latest versions of the
> appropriate referenced standard(s).
>
> The problem comes if those standards have themselves been updated since the
> date of the first signature - in which case a product might have to be
> modified merely because the person signing the original DoC had left the
> company!
>
> The latter proposition is plainly ludicrous and not envisaged in the
> Directives or in the harmonised standards, which allow you to continue
> manufacturing an unaltered compliant product for some considerable number
> of years after the last date you are allowed to certify to a particular
> issue level of a standard.
>
> e) The only realistic and supportable reasons for updating the DoC are thus
> that :
> (i) The product itself changes;
> (ii) The standard(s) change, and you are going to continue manufacturing
> beyond last date at which it is permissable to to manufacture and certify
> to the particular issue level of the standard(s);
> (iii) The company and/or model names/number change.
>
> The above opinion is my own, but I can see no reason why we - or any other
> company - should take any different view.
>
> Regards
>
> John Allen
> Product & System Safety Manager
> Racal Defence Electronics Ltd
> Bracknell
> UK
>
> --
> From:   Scott Douglas[SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
> Sent:   11 November 1999 13:39
> To: reyno...@pb.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:RE: D of C - Who Signs?
>
> The DoC must be re-signed.
>
> Scott
> s_doug...@ecrm.com
> ECRM Incorporated
> Tewksbury, MA  USA
>
> -Original Message-
> From: reyno...@pb.com [mailto:reyno...@pb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:16 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: D of C - Who Signs?
> Importance: Low
>
>  Hello!
>
>  Forgive me for asking a possibly dumb question but here goes:
>
>  If the EU Declaration of Conformity is signed by a
>  responsible/technically competent person who has been nominated on
>  behalf of the company's Directors and then that person leaves the
>  company,  does his/her replacement who assumes the same level of
>  responsibility need to go back and re-issue all of the old D of C's
>  with their signature on the document.
>
>  In other words is it acceptable to issue D of C's to
>  suppliers/customers which have been signed by someone who has left
> the
>  company.
>
>  Thankyou in advance.
>
>  Tony Reynolds
>  Pitney Bowes (UK) Ltd
>  Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
>  Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118
>  e-mail: reyno...@pb.com
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: FCC Part 15 Subpart B and Subpart C Emissions

[Tom Cokenias]

Sandy

Paragraph 15.31k says that if the two devices are subject to different
technical standards, each device is to comply with its specific standard.
One could therefore have a transmitter subject to 15.209 limits (same as
class B in the 30-1000 MHz operating region) running with a class A device.
If the TX met the 15.209 limits and the class A met criteria and limits for
a non-residential digital device, it's legal.

Some recent experience with FCC application bears this out.

Best regards


Tom Cokenias
Consultant, EMC & Radio Approvals



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Railway Crossing Gate

[Rich Nute]

>   Will a child hold on to the gate as it opens in order to=
>   "ride" it and if so what prevents injury. 

As I child, I was a paper boy.  The papers were delivered
to our town by train.  We picked up our route package at 
the train station as it was thrown from the baggage car
and then we delivered the papers.

Normally, we were at the train station before the train
arrived.  I remember one occasion when the Greyhound bus
that crosses the tracks at the station had stopped a foot
or so beyond the crossing gate (but well away from the
tracks).  The gate came down and struck the bus on its 
roof, and then rested there.  Small dent in the metal
roof.

This was exciting stuff for us paper boys!

We found that one paper boy, approximate age 10, pushing 
down on the counterweights, could easily lift the gate 
above the roof of the bus.

I'm not sure if one of us could ride the gate on its
upswing.  We'd never do it because we'd have to do it in
front of 4 lanes of stopped traffic.  I'm not at all sure 
that the gate would lift a 10-year-old.  

Anyway, it never crossed our minds.

But, I do know that once the gate was up, a 10-year-old
boy could not force the gate down by pushing on the
counterweights.  It was clearly locked in the upright
position.


Best regards,
Rich




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: hot-swap disc drives

[Robert Macy]

Hi, Hans,

Are you thinking of Four Phase ??

Weren't they a competitor to Tandem Computers?

Don't know who did the first "hot swap" disk drives.  Patent search tell
you?  Remember at one time it was really important to be able to pull out a
hard drive and secure it away in a safe someplace.  Boy, have times changed.

There were two others (I think):

  Ed Sussman, VP Tech Dev
Knowledge Access International
Marine Way
Mtn View, CA

and

  Michael Lindberg
OMNI solutions
E. Evalyn
Mtn View, CA

What you looking for?

   - Robert -


-Original Message-
From: Hans Mellberg 
To: emc-pstc 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 12:26 PM
Subject: hot-swap disc drives


>
>Does anyone recall when the first hot-swap disk drive
>was used? I recall something in the early 80's for
>govt and industry by some company named phase-four? or
>something like that.
>
>
>
>=
>Best Regards
>Hans Mellberg
>EMC Consultant
>__
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
>-
>This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Line Filters for test lab

[Charles Martin]

 Hello all,
 
 I am looking for line filters to put in my lab for circuits going to 
 test benches, two circuits: 120vac, 20A & 240vac, 20A, for each bench, 
 5 in total, 10 circuits . Here's a brief description of my lab it's on 
 the fourth floor, we are expanding our present lab, the floor will be 
 covered with 1/8th inch aluminum sheets that will come up the wall and 
 go behind a new electrical panel. What I envisioned was the panel, to 
 a enclosed line filter, to each bench, all in conduit.  This will 
 hopefully give us clean power at each bench without contaminating 
 others. I figured about 40db filter. Is there anything off the self to 
 do this without making a custom filter or buying a big filter for 
 500.00 each (I need a total of 10).
 
 Thank you in advance 
 Charlie Martin

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Railway Crossing Gate

[Crane, Lauren]

I suspect, but don't know, that such a device may be covered by a different
directive concerned with railway issues. 

I suspect this because I notice exceptions in a few directives for railway
carriages. 

If there is not a directive for railway line equipment then I think the
Machinery Directive would apply.

A call to the European Commission Delegation in NY may be fruitful
212 371-3804

Regards, 
Lauren Crane
Eaton Corporation. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Lanzillotto [SMTP:rl...@concentric.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:24 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Railway Crossing Gate
> 
> Is the machinery directive applicable for the such a gate
>  and it's control electronics? Appreciate any comments.
>  
> Rich Lanzillotto
> rl...@concentric.net 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: EN 55024 and Performance Criteria Applicability

[Guy Story]

Sandy, I believe that the performance criteria applies for all voltages 
on 
all of the immunity testing.  When I used to work at KTL Dallas (the old 
ICC), that is how we applied the criteria.  I have not seen anything in the 
generic immunity standards to indicate otherwise.  The generic performance 
criteria is what we would use if the client did not tell us a specific 
perf. criteria to use.  I had clients who wanted better performance that 
required and then others who said, "If it does not permantly damage the 
machine then anythig else was fine".  I developed the point of view that if 
a EUT has a low threshold to any immunity standard then I was less likely 
to purchase anything from that company.  I am in Amatuer Radio so 
everything in the ham shack needs to be up to snuff.

Guy Story
Compliance Technician
Interphase Corporation
phone: 214.654.5161
fax: 214.654.5406
gst...@iphase.com

-Original Message-
From:   Sandy Mazzola [SMTP:mazzo...@symbol.com]
Sent:   Thursday, November 11, 1999 12:18 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:EN 55024 and Performance Criteria Applicability


To All,

 With specifics to EN 55024  Information Technology Equipment-Immunity 
Characteristics-Limits and Measurements and the  EN 61000-4-2 ESD 
requirement.  ESD requirement of +/-8 Kv Air Search and  +/- 4 KV 
Contact/Indirect is usually tested gradually for example +/- 2KV, +/- 4 KV 
and +/- 8KV.EN 55024 calls out for performance Criteria B.  The 
question is:

  Is the performance criteria the same for all voltages tested ?   For 
example is it also performance criteria B for the voltages below the 
maximumm requirement or does it roll up to performnce criteria A for less 
then max requirement.
I hope I have phrased the question correctly.

 Thanks in advamnce for any responses.

Sandy Mazzola

Sandy Mazzola
Regulatory Engineering
Symbol Technologies Inc.
Phone: (516)  738-5373
Fax  (516) 738-3318
E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Railway Crossing Gate

[Alan Brewster]

Richard,
The Machinery Directive is applicable and would definitely be concerned
with the control electronics from a number of points of view. The
interesting issue with these types of products are the "Human Nature"
hazards. Will a child hold on to the gate as it opens in order to "ride"
it and if so what prevents injury. Single fault and interlock issues are
also priorities as improper actuation exposes the user group to hazards.

There is a possibility that you may actually need the involvement of a
Notified Body as under certain circumstance the equipment could be
defined as a safety device.
Maybe you could offer some more details for comment.

Alan 

_ 
Alan Brewster 
Compliance Certification Services 
1366 Bordeaux Drive 
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1005 
Tel: 408-752-8166 ext. 122 
Fax: 408-752-8168 
e-mail: abrews...@ccsemc.com 
http://www.ccsemc.com 

-Original Message-
From: Richard Lanzillotto [mailto:rl...@concentric.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:24 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Railway Crossing Gate


Is the machinery directive applicable for the such a gate
 and it's control electronics? Appreciate any comments.
 
Rich Lanzillotto
rl...@concentric.net

RE: D of C - Who Signs?

[Scott Douglas]

John,

Good that you disagree, wouldn't want everybody just following along.

I said the DofC should be re-signed for the following reasons:

If the original signatory is no longer employed by the manufacturer, then
fine. All of the product shipped prior to the departure of the signatory is
okay and nothing needs done for that.

As for product shipped after the departure of the signatory, I think those
DofC's are no longer valid unless re-signed by a new signatory. Consider
what is the purpose of the signature except to advertise a name for the
enforcement folks to go after. If the name was not important, then why have
it signed at all, why not just use the company name instead? The signature
says that a responsible person certifies that the product complied when it
was first designed and tested. But it also says that nothing has changed
since then and what is made today is as compliant today as what was made
back when the form was first signed.

Or think of it this way. You work for my company and you sign the DofC. We
make, test and ship hundreds of the product. All our procedures are
compliant, etc.  Then you leave my company and we keep shipping product with
a DofC with your signature. One day, the person running the hipot tester at
the end of the production line quits and, as a cost savings measure, the
manufacturing manager decides to not replace the person. No more hipot
testing and nobody told me about that. But the product still gets through
customs in the EU because of your signature on the DofC. Somebody gets
electrocuted by a defective product. When the lawyers go looking for the
person that signed the DofC, I will tell them where to find you. After all,
you signed the form and said the product was compliant, right?

No offense intended, sir. Now to answer your points directly:

a) Not a good reason. Look to the spirit and intent of the requirement, not
just to whether or not it is being enforced.

b.) Again not a good reason. You get a new CFO, treasurer, whatever. Do they
leave the old guy's signature on your paycheck? Things change and people
move on. Keeping up is part of the process.

c.) This too is part of the process. Your signatory is not replaced on a
monthly basis. People usually stay in a job a little longer than that. And
reviewing and updating your DofC should be happening anyway to update
standards tested to or whatever. We are not re-issuing DofC's for product
already shipped, just what will be shipping tomorrow. Updated versions can
be implemented by effectivity dates and should be an ongoing process.

d.) Maybe so or maybe not. Let me tell you how I do it. Our DofC is a blank
form with all the compliance stuff preprinted. The signature is a real
signature, but is preprinted on the blank form, just like on your paycheck.
Then, at shipping time, the packer fills in the blanks for product model and
serial number and for the date. The DofC is then folded up and stuck in one
of those plastic envelopes on the side of the shipping box. Key point here
is that the signature is preprinted but the model, serial # and date are
not. Keep in mind that which standard and which version/date of that
standard this particular DofC are claiming compliance to are listed,
preprinted. There is no reviewing the products because you are declaring
compliance to whatever standard you originally tested them to and are
declaring you are still building/testing them the same way.

As for the part where the standards have been updated since the original
signature, that is true. But here again, we make conscious decisions to
build a product a certain way. That may be to old standards, current
standards or future standards. And, when new requirements come along, like
when the CE mark became mandatory, we all adapt and adjust. Your point e.)
is valid, no argument there. I just don't see why, when a new signature is
placed on the form, it changes anything. If nothing has changed from the
original design, then the new signatory is saying the same as the old, the
product is compliant to a certain version of a particular standard. No need
to update products for that. Conversely, if the standard has been updated
and the optional period has gone by, then you have to update both the
product and the DofC regardless of who the signatory is.

As for not being envisioned by the creators of the directives and standards,
that is not unusual nor unacceptable. There are oft many cases where
unintended consequences occur because someone made something become a rule
we all have to follow. That is why standards get updated and directives
replaced. Or why companies choose to stop sending certain products to
certain places.

All that said, am I so far off in the outfield as to be playing in a
different game? I think our process not unreasonable and follows the spirit
and intent. But, I am willing to listen and, if I really am out there,
somebody please tell me. I'd like to find an easier way.

Regards,
Scott
s_doug...@ecrm.com
EC

carbon-impregnated foam pyramids

[Tony J. O'Hara]

Re:How to measure the absorption characteristics of the carbon-impregnated
foam pyramids?
This is a very difficult measurement to make! Dr. Robert Johnk at NIST
(National Institute of Science and Technology) in Boulder, Colorado has
recently developed a new method of doing this. He can be contacted at
303-497-3737 or e-mail  at jo...@boulder.nist.gov
Tony

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: carbon-impregnated foam pyramids

[Ken Javor]

I assume you mean rf absorption.  I have never done this test, but this is
how I would do it.  In principle, you connect a four-port directional
coupler (dc) to the output of a signal source, and an appropriate antenna to
the dc.  Boresight the antenna at a right angle to a bare metal wall.
Monitor forward and reverse power.  Now interpose absorber-under-test
between antenna and wall, and repeat.  While maintaining the same signal
source power, monitor  forward/reverse power from dc.  The difference in
say, reverse power before and after is proportional to the absorbed power.

This test technique should work well when the antenna can be placed close to
the wall.  The larger the cone (the lower the frequency of absorption), the
farther the transmit antenna must be from the wall, and the lower the
dynamic range of the test (absorber usually specs out to 50 dB).  If the
XMIT antenna must be placed far from the wall, then you may need a separate
receive antenna which outputs directly into a receiver, without going
through the attenuation of the reverse power dc port.

--
From: "Yao" 
To: 
Subject: carbon-impregnated foam pyramids
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 1999, 2:27 AM


Hello group,

Does anybody know how to measure the absorption characteristics of the
carbon-impregnated foam pyramids? And is there any standard related to this?

Thanks in advance.

Lucian Yau

RE: EN 55024 and Performance Criteria Applicability

[Bailey, Jeff]

Interesting question,  

I have always gone under the assumption that the requirement would be the
same
for all levels tested up to the maximum voltage. I of course have no hard
proof
that this is the actual requirement.  

Regards,

Jeff Bailey
EMC Technologist
SST - A Division of Woodhead Canada Ltd.
Phone: (519) 725 5136 ext. 363
Fax: (519) 725 1515
Email: jbai...@sstech.on.ca
Web: www.sstech.on.ca

All comments contained in the message are my own and do not necessarily
express the views of SST/Woodhead Canada Limited. 



-Original Message-
From: Sandy Mazzola [mailto:mazzo...@symbol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:18 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN 55024 and Performance Criteria Applicability



To All,

 With specifics to EN 55024  Information Technology Equipment-Immunity
Characteristics-Limits and Measurements and the  EN 61000-4-2 ESD
requirement.  ESD requirement of +/-8 Kv Air Search and  +/- 4 KV
Contact/Indirect is usually tested gradually for example +/- 2KV, +/- 4 KV
and +/- 8KV.EN 55024 calls out for performance Criteria B.  The question
is:

  Is the performance criteria the same for all voltages tested ?   For
example is it also performance criteria B for the voltages below the
maximumm requirement or does it roll up to performnce criteria A for less
then max requirement.
I hope I have phrased the question correctly.

 Thanks in advamnce for any responses.

Sandy Mazzola
  
Sandy Mazzola 
Regulatory Engineering
Symbol Technologies Inc.
Phone: (516)  738-5373
Fax  (516) 738-3318
E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com

 


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: carbon-impregnated foam pyramids

[Robert Bonsen]

Hi Lucian,

I'm assuming you're talking about the wide-band pyramidal absorbers usually
found in anechoic chambers. Their attenuation characteristics are typically
measured one of three ways, depending on the frequency range of interest:
a. coaxial waveguide: for very low frequencies, from DC to the cutoff
frequency of the first TM mode (depends on dimensions, ~up to 200 MHz), in
TEM mode
b. square waveguide: for "mid" frequencies, around 300-500MHz, in TEM mode
c. plane wave methods: two horns suspended on an arch positioned above the
absorber at a height at least equal to the far-field distance, >1 GHz.
All three methods try to emulate free-space far-field conditions in which a
plane wave (E and H vectors perpendicular to the propagation vector)
impinges upon the absorber, after which the backscattered reflection is
measured. There are some other methods under development but those are not
widely practised (yet).

In all setups, a carefully calibrated vector network analyzer is used to
measure the reflection coefficient of the system. Other instrumentation can
be used as well but can be cumbersome to use, inaccurate and typically does
not allow for the use of a gate to isolate the absorber response. 

The basic procedure is to measure the reflection of the test setup without
the absorber as a reference (i.e. the response of the back of the coax or
square waveguide, or a metal reference plate in the case of the plane wave
method) and measuring the reflection levels with the absorber in place. The
difference between the two is the absorption of the absorber. 

Although the basic principles are simple, obtaining valid measurements with
these setups is very tricky. There are a lot of measurement and setup
issues to consider.

There is not an official standard for performance measurements of absorbers
that I'm aware of. The de facto absorber test standard referenced by most
absorber manufacturers is a university of Michigan report describing the
arch method (plane wave). 

Hope this helps. 
-Robert


Robert Bonsen
Principal Consultant
Orion Scientific
email: rbon...@orionscientific.com
URL:   http://www.orionscientific.com
phone: (512) 347 7393; FAX: (512) 328 9240


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Part 68 Training

[Victor L. Boersma]

>>We have a new engineer learning Part 68/IC CS-03 that we would like to 
enroll in a seminar or training course.  Is anyone aware of any seminars or

training courses for Part 68/IC CS-03.

Best Regards,

Jody Leber

jle...@ustech-lab.com
http://www.ustech-lab.com

U. S. Technologies
3505 Francis Circle
Alpharetta, GA 30004

770.740.0717
Fax:  770.740.1508<<

Jody,

Every two years or so, TIA puts on a seminar where people are led through 
Part 68 and CS-03.  Last one was in February 1998 so perhaps it is that
time 
again.  Their price is right.

If not, I am prepared to put one on at a small price. 

Ciao,


Vic Boersma

FCC Part 15 Subpart B and Subpart C Emissions

[Sandy Mazzola]

To all,

   With regard to FCC Part 15 Subpart B and  Subpart C.   

  An intentional radiator it is certfied to Subpart C  which 
essentially calls for Class B emission performance.If the radio is approved 
as a module and then inserted into another product and  that same product is 
used as a commercial/industrial product the digital portion only had to meet 
Class A emissions performance for that product.Can the  new product be 
"split " into two parts and say that the radio portion must meet Class B but 
the digital portion only has to meet Class A.
Or is it once a radio is inserted into the product the entire product 
has to meet class B regardless of where it is used. ?There does not seem to 
be a definitive statement in  CFR (47) Part 15 regarding this situation.

If the product can be split, how is it done when some of the digital 
activity is probably based on radio interface.

  Thank You in advance for any thoughts on the above.

Sandy Mazzola


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: D of C - Who Signs?

[SBarrows]

I guess a good corollary would be the US currency. When we have a new
Secretary of the Treasury, we do not recall all of the old bills. 

Whenever a shipment of product needs to be made (after the departure of the
old signatory), a DOC with the new signature is produced.

Scott Barrows
KTL - Dallas

> -Original Message-
> From: John Allen [SMTP:john.al...@rdel.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:55 AM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: D of C - Who Signs?
> 
> 
> Hi Folks
> 
> I disagree strongly with Scott's assessment that the DoC has to be
> resigned 
> for several very important and pragmatic reasons:
> 
> a) To-date I have yet to see any official EU or other substantive document
> 
> to support his viewpoint.
> 
> b) People are always "coming and going" - it is a fact of business life, 
> and new personnel inherit the legal responsibilities of the old.
> (That said, the "old" personnel could still be prosecuted for knowingly 
> breaking the law if they had falsely signed a DoC).
> 
> c) If Scott's viewpoint were widely held we would all be continuously 
> updating and reissuing our DoC's. In fact we would have little time for 
> anything else - like developing new products!
> 
> d) The date of the signature then becomes critical - and could force a 
> complete review of the product against the latest versions of the 
> appropriate referenced standard(s).
> 
> The problem comes if those standards have themselves been updated since
> the 
> date of the first signature - in which case a product might have to be 
> modified merely because the person signing the original DoC had left the 
> company!
> 
> The latter proposition is plainly ludicrous and not envisaged in the 
> Directives or in the harmonised standards, which allow you to continue 
> manufacturing an unaltered compliant product for some considerable number 
> of years after the last date you are allowed to certify to a particular 
> issue level of a standard.
> 
> e) The only realistic and supportable reasons for updating the DoC are
> thus 
> that :
> (i) The product itself changes;
> (ii) The standard(s) change, and you are going to continue manufacturing 
> beyond last date at which it is permissable to to manufacture and certify 
> to the particular issue level of the standard(s);
> (iii) The company and/or model names/number change.
> 
> The above opinion is my own, but I can see no reason why we - or any other
> 
> company - should take any different view.
> 
> Regards
> 
> John Allen
> Product & System Safety Manager
> Racal Defence Electronics Ltd
> Bracknell
> UK
> 
> 
> --
> From: Scott Douglas[SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
> Sent: 11 November 1999 13:39
> To:   reyno...@pb.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: D of C - Who Signs?
> 
> 
> The DoC must be re-signed.
> 
> Scott
> s_doug...@ecrm.com
> ECRM Incorporated
> Tewksbury, MA  USA
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: reyno...@pb.com [mailto:reyno...@pb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:16 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: D of C - Who Signs?
> Importance: Low
> 
> 
> 
>  Hello!
> 
>  Forgive me for asking a possibly dumb question but here goes:
> 
>  If the EU Declaration of Conformity is signed by a
>  responsible/technically competent person who has been nominated on
>  behalf of the company's Directors and then that person leaves the
>  company,  does his/her replacement who assumes the same level of
>  responsibility need to go back and re-issue all of the old D of C's
>  with their signature on the document.
> 
>  In other words is it acceptable to issue D of C's to
>  suppliers/customers which have been signed by someone who has left
> the
>  company.
> 
>  Thankyou in advance.
> 
>  Tony Reynolds
>  Pitney Bowes (UK) Ltd
>  Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
>  Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118
>  e-mail: reyno...@pb.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.vol

hot-swap disc drives

[Hans Mellberg]

Does anyone recall when the first hot-swap disk drive
was used? I recall something in the early 80's for
govt and industry by some company named phase-four? or
something like that. 



=
Best Regards
Hans Mellberg
EMC Consultant
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

EN 55024 and Performance Criteria Applicability

[Sandy Mazzola]

To All,

 With specifics to EN 55024  Information Technology Equipment-Immunity 
Characteristics-Limits and Measurements and the  EN 61000-4-2 ESD requirement.  
ESD requirement of +/-8 Kv Air Search and  +/- 4 KV Contact/Indirect is usually 
tested gradually for example +/- 2KV, +/- 4 KV and +/- 8KV.EN 55024 calls 
out for performance Criteria B.  The question is:

  Is the performance criteria the same for all voltages tested ?   For 
example is it also performance criteria B for the voltages below the maximumm 
requirement or does it roll up to performnce criteria A for less then max 
requirement.
I hope I have phrased the question correctly.

 Thanks in advamnce for any responses.

Sandy Mazzola
  
Sandy Mazzola 
Regulatory Engineering
Symbol Technologies Inc.
Phone: (516)  738-5373
Fax  (516) 738-3318
E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com

 


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Railway Crossing Gate

[Richard Lanzillotto]

Is the machinery directive applicable for the such a gate
 and it's control electronics? Appreciate any comments.

Rich Lanzillotto
rl...@concentric.net

SCV IEEE Talk on SSO and EMI

[Hans Mellberg]

For those of you that missed the presentation by Dr.
Richard Wheeler and/or requested copies of his
presentation on Simultaneous Switching Noise in the
z-direction.. can view the paper on his website:
www.wheeler.com


=
Best Regards
Hans Mellberg
EMC Consultant
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Part 68 Training

[Jody Leber]

We have a new engineer learning Part 68/IC CS-03 that we would like to 
enroll in a seminar or training course.  Is anyone aware of any seminars or 
training courses for Part 68/IC CS-03.

Best Regards,

Jody Leber

jle...@ustech-lab.com
http://www.ustech-lab.com

U. S. Technologies
3505 Francis Circle
Alpharetta, GA 30004

770.740.0717
Fax:  770.740.1508

RE: D of C - Who Signs?

[John Allen]

Hi Folks

I disagree strongly with Scott's assessment that the DoC has to be resigned 
for several very important and pragmatic reasons:

a) To-date I have yet to see any official EU or other substantive document 
to support his viewpoint.

b) People are always "coming and going" - it is a fact of business life, 
and new personnel inherit the legal responsibilities of the old.
(That said, the "old" personnel could still be prosecuted for knowingly 
breaking the law if they had falsely signed a DoC).

c) If Scott's viewpoint were widely held we would all be continuously 
updating and reissuing our DoC's. In fact we would have little time for 
anything else - like developing new products!

d) The date of the signature then becomes critical - and could force a 
complete review of the product against the latest versions of the 
appropriate referenced standard(s).

The problem comes if those standards have themselves been updated since the 
date of the first signature - in which case a product might have to be 
modified merely because the person signing the original DoC had left the 
company!

The latter proposition is plainly ludicrous and not envisaged in the 
Directives or in the harmonised standards, which allow you to continue 
manufacturing an unaltered compliant product for some considerable number 
of years after the last date you are allowed to certify to a particular 
issue level of a standard.

e) The only realistic and supportable reasons for updating the DoC are thus 
that :
(i) The product itself changes;
(ii) The standard(s) change, and you are going to continue manufacturing 
beyond last date at which it is permissable to to manufacture and certify 
to the particular issue level of the standard(s);
(iii) The company and/or model names/number change.

The above opinion is my own, but I can see no reason why we - or any other 
company - should take any different view.

Regards

John Allen
Product & System Safety Manager
Racal Defence Electronics Ltd
Bracknell
UK


--
From:   Scott Douglas[SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
Sent:   11 November 1999 13:39
To: reyno...@pb.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: D of C - Who Signs?


The DoC must be re-signed.

Scott
s_doug...@ecrm.com
ECRM Incorporated
Tewksbury, MA  USA


-Original Message-
From: reyno...@pb.com [mailto:reyno...@pb.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:16 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: D of C - Who Signs?
Importance: Low



 Hello!

 Forgive me for asking a possibly dumb question but here goes:

 If the EU Declaration of Conformity is signed by a
 responsible/technically competent person who has been nominated on
 behalf of the company's Directors and then that person leaves the
 company,  does his/her replacement who assumes the same level of
 responsibility need to go back and re-issue all of the old D of C's
 with their signature on the document.

 In other words is it acceptable to issue D of C's to
 suppliers/customers which have been signed by someone who has left
the
 company.

 Thankyou in advance.

 Tony Reynolds
 Pitney Bowes (UK) Ltd
 Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118
 e-mail: reyno...@pb.com




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).





-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

NPSS Vendors' Night (17 NOV) - SOLD OUT!! Dinner ReservationsNeeded

[Art Michael]

Hello pstc-ers,

The Northeast Product Safety Society Inc's 5th Annual Vendors' Night is
SOLD OUT. YES, we've sold all 48 tables (in addition to the NPSS and IEEE
EMC Society tables).  It's going to be the electrical product safety
compliance industry's best show in the country; there's plenty of
EMC-related exhibitors too.

If you are planning to attend and dine with us, we need your dinner
reservations before the close of business on Friday.

Full show details, including a Vendors' List and Dinner Reservation form 
can be found at  

Hope to see you there,

Regards, Art Michael, President, NPSS, Inc.





-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Operating Tolerance

[jrbarnes]

Jess,
Most of my reference sources show the US as 120VAC +/-5% 60Hz +/-0.3% and
Argentina as 220VAC +/-10% 50Hz +/-2%.  The 1996 "World Electricity Supplies"
shows:
*  Charlotte, North Carolina as 120VAC +5-2.5% 60Hz +/-0.06%.
*  Detroit, Michigan as 120VAC +4-6.6% 60Hz +/-0.2%.
*  Los Angeles, California as 120VAC +/-5% 60Hz +/-0.2%.
*  Miami, Florida as 120VAC +/-5% 60Hz +/-0.3%.
*  Pittsburg, Pennsylvania as 120VAC +/-5% for lighting, +/-10% for power,  60Hz
+/-0.3%.
*  San Francisco, Callifornia as 120VAC +/-5% 60Hz +/-0.08%.
*  Toledo, Ohio as 120VAC +/-5% 60Hz +/-0.08%.

*  Argentina as 220V +/-10% for overhead cables, +/-7% for underground cables,
50Hz +/-2%.

   John Barnes  Advisory
Engineer
   Lexmark International





sbtan%ctlsg.creaf@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/11/99 05:27:28 AM

Please respond to sbtan%ctlsg.creaf@interlock.lexmark.com

To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:(bcc: John Barnes/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  Operating Tolerance




Hi,

Could someone please advise if the supply voltage tolerance for US &
Argentina should be
+6-10% or +/-10%  of 120V for US & 220V for Argentina ?


Thanks in advance!

Jess


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).









-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: D of C - Who Signs?

[Brian Kunde at LECO]

Tony,

Very good question.  The person that signs the DOC is doing so as a
representative of the company he/she works for.  If he/she ends their
employment the replacement person does not have to re-issue the DOCs.  It is
the company that is making the declaration, not the individual.  The company
gives the signatory the authority to sign on their behalf.  If the authority
is given to a different person, for what ever reason, it doesn't effect the
validity of previously signed DOCs.

Think of it this way. If a company signed a contract with another company,
neither company can break the contract simply by firing the person who
signed it. Right?  It is the same concept.

Brian Kunde






- Original Message -
From: Tony Reynolds 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:15 AM
Subject: D of C - Who Signs?



 Hello!

 Forgive me for asking a possibly dumb question but here goes:

 If the EU Declaration of Conformity is signed by a
 responsible/technically competent person who has been nominated on
 behalf of the company's Directors and then that person leaves the
 company,  does his/her replacement who assumes the same level of
 responsibility need to go back and re-issue all of the old D of C's
 with their signature on the document.

 In other words is it acceptable to issue D of C's to
 suppliers/customers which have been signed by someone who has left the
 company.

 Thankyou in advance.

 Tony Reynolds
 Pitney Bowes (UK) Ltd
 Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118
 e-mail: reyno...@pb.com




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).





-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Manuals

[Nick Williams]

Annex 1 section 1.7.4 of the Machinery Directive contains as good a basic
desciption of what should be contained in an instruction manual as I know
of (although it's only in very general terms, of course). You can get the
full Annex free from

http://www.conformance.co.uk/CE_MARKING/ce_mech_anx1.html

As has already been stated by others, more specific guidance will be found
in product standards, although in my experience the requirements of product
standards are usually pretty general except maybe for a few very specific
requirements.

Balancing the genuine safety concerns with the 'no brainer' warnings is not
always easy. It's ultimately almost impossible to be objective about this
and it's one of the areas where some independent assistance from people not
overly familiar with your particular product might be helpful. (That could
be read as a plug for consultancy services, but it's not always necessary
to pay for good engineering advice - most engineers I know have friends and
acquantainces who would be happy to help out by reading through a draft
manual.)

I deal a lot with consumer goods, and I'd certainly recommend giving as
many 'no-brainer' warnings as possible with most domestic products. What
you're not allowed to do, however, is rely for safety on a warning to the
user against something which you know they are going to do anyway. CE mark
directives all require the manufacturer to consider 'foreseeable misuse'
and to take steps to prevent hazards becoming significant risks from such
misuse. For example, in the instructions for a hairdryer one can put a
warning that the user should not use the appliance with wet hands, but
you've also got to be pretty certain that the product is actually safe to
use with wet hands, since you know that's how a significant proportion of
your customers _will_ use it.

Taking the example of the 'unplug before servicing' warning, I'd think
carefully about leaving basic and common warnings such as this out of
instruction manuals even for products which are only ever going to be used
by experienced personnel. It's not difficult to see the logic which says
that since most equipment has a warning like this in the instructions, any
equipment which does not must be safe to service while still plugged in.
(It's not a line of logic I'd apply myself, but it's not difficult to
imagine a lawyer trying to apply it.)

The machinery directive specifically requires manufacturers to consider the
'acumen' of the users of equipment when preparing instructions and there's
an obvious difference between the requirements for (say) shop floor
operators and service technicians. However, consider for a moment that
someone trained as a mechanical technician probably won't know much about
electrical safety (and vice-versa) but in a busy factory environment, both
electrical and mechanical fitters may be called to work on any particular
fault. Each will need warnings that that other does not. It seems to me
that the primary difference which the acumen of the user will make is how
the information is presented, not which warnings should be in and which
should be left out.

Regards

Nick.


At 15:53 -0500 10/11/99, Russell, Ray wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>In this day and age of trying to cover your butt, from liability (especially
>in the USA), I have found it interesting that the  information in some User
>manuals are going to the extreme to warn the consumer, while other similar
>products have very few warnings.
>
>In addition, our European partner is balking at the warnings we now have.
>They state that since the instructions require that installation or service
>should only be a "qualified personnel" then this person should know some of
>the obvious dangers, such as unplugging the device before servicing.
>
>Now assuming that a product is approved to US and European standards, can
>someone recommend a guide that would help to define additional manual
>requirements for US and Europe?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Ray Russell
>Regulatory Compliance Engineer
>

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: CB Scheme Points of Interest

[Nikolassy, Anton]

Just go to www.cbscheme.com for a lot of information on the CB Scheme.

Anton (Tony) J. Nikolassy
Project Engineer, Electrical Section
Factory Mutual Research Corp.
Ph: 781-255-4819
Fx: 781-762-9375
e-mail: anton.nikola...@fmglobal.com


-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:40 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: CB Scheme Points of Interest



There are several questions that periodically arise regarding
country standards and so on.  A page in a recent CB Bulletin
summarizes a good deal of information that may be helpful.

CB Bulletin OJ
No. 94AI, March 1999
Page 97

The matrix on this page lists:

31 participating CB Scheme countries

31 country abbreviations often used for each country in CBs

24 countries which list their "National" standard

18 countries indicate presence of Group differences
   (to IEC 60950 2nd ed. + Amendments 1,2,3,4)

15 countries indicate presence of National differences
   (to IEC 60950 2nd ed. + Amendments 1,2,3,4)

 9 countries indicate presence of both Group and National
   differences (included in the 18 + 15 above)

 7 countries indicate no Group or National differences

 4 countries listing a National standard, but no differences

 1 country (Greece) where NCB recognizes, but does not issue,
   CB Certificates/Test Reports

The publishing body (IECEE) allows reproduction of articles or
parts of CB Bulletins as long as the source is mentioned.  You
may request a fax copy from me, but I cannot guarantee when
this will occur if the number of requests exceeds a dozen or so.

Regards,

George Alspaugh
Lexmark International Inc.



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: D of C - Who Signs?

[Scott Douglas]

The DoC must be re-signed.

Scott
s_doug...@ecrm.com
ECRM Incorporated
Tewksbury, MA  USA


-Original Message-
From: reyno...@pb.com [mailto:reyno...@pb.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:16 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: D of C - Who Signs?
Importance: Low



 Hello!

 Forgive me for asking a possibly dumb question but here goes:

 If the EU Declaration of Conformity is signed by a
 responsible/technically competent person who has been nominated on
 behalf of the company's Directors and then that person leaves the
 company,  does his/her replacement who assumes the same level of
 responsibility need to go back and re-issue all of the old D of C's
 with their signature on the document.

 In other words is it acceptable to issue D of C's to
 suppliers/customers which have been signed by someone who has left
the
 company.

 Thankyou in advance.

 Tony Reynolds
 Pitney Bowes (UK) Ltd
 Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118
 e-mail: reyno...@pb.com




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).





-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Operating Tolerance

[Crabb, John]

BSI World Electricity Supplies quotes +/-10% for overhead cable and
+/-7% for underground cables for 220V in Argentina.
For the US, there are tolerances quoted for some cities.
Worst is +/-10% for Pittsburgh for "power" as opposed to "lighting".
Regards
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Jasmine TAN [SMTP:sb...@ctlsg.creaf.com]
> Sent: 11 November 1999 10:27
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Operating Tolerance
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Could someone please advise if the supply voltage tolerance for US &
> Argentina should be
> +6-10% or +/-10%  of 120V for US & 220V for Argentina ?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Jess

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: New standards -404 error

[David Instone]

Actually in the original posting the line wrap put the remaining
characters on the next line so they didn't get included in the 'link'.
If you click as before and then when you get the 404 add 't.html' to the
end of your 'location' window and hit  it works just fine.

In simple terms the url should end with reflist.html and not reflis
 
Just one of the problems of telling your mailer to auto wrap lines
exceeding a certain length!

Dave Instone


Ehler, Kyle wrote:
> 
> This link:
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg03/directs/dg3b/newapproa/eurstd/harmstds/reflis
>  s>
> Produces a '404' for me.
> I get as far as http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg03/directs/dg3b/
>  s> before the pages are unavailable.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kyle
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-- 
Regards

Dave Instone
 Test Systems, MP24/22
 Xyratex, Langstone Rd., Havant, Hampshire, P09 1SA, UK.
Tel +44 (0)1705 486363 ext 3071
or  +44 (0)1705 443071 (direct line)
Fax +44 (0)1705 499315
http://www.xyratex.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Operating Tolerance

[Jasmine TAN]

Hi,

Could someone please advise if the supply voltage tolerance for US &
Argentina should be
+6-10% or +/-10%  of 120V for US & 220V for Argentina ?


Thanks in advance!

Jess


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

D of C - Who Signs?

[Tony Reynolds]

 Hello!
 
 Forgive me for asking a possibly dumb question but here goes:
 
 If the EU Declaration of Conformity is signed by a 
 responsible/technically competent person who has been nominated on 
 behalf of the company's Directors and then that person leaves the 
 company,  does his/her replacement who assumes the same level of 
 responsibility need to go back and re-issue all of the old D of C's 
 with their signature on the document.
 
 In other words is it acceptable to issue D of C's to 
 suppliers/customers which have been signed by someone who has left the 
 company.
 
 Thankyou in advance.
 
 Tony Reynolds
 Pitney Bowes (UK) Ltd
 Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479
 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118
 e-mail: reyno...@pb.com
 
 


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

carbon-impregnated foam pyramids

[Yao]

Hello group,

Does anybody know how to measure the absorption characteristics of the 
carbon-impregnated foam pyramids? And is there any standard related to this?

Thanks in advance.

Lucian Yau

Re: Humidity Test

[Matthew Meehan]

> Can anyone steer me to an appropriate standard that would specify
> Humidity tests for a heavy industrial product?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bill Jacowleff

Bill,
"Appropriate" covers a lot of ground.  Especially since you didn't specify
your market (country, equipment category (e.g. semiconductor machinery)).
You also didn't mention if you are interested in compliance - or if you're
just looking for a little light reading.
If you're looking for international standards try searching:

http://www.iec.ch/

Since you have not specified I'll just stick with the general standards
(there may be a more suitable product family standard).

IEC 60204-1 (1997-10)
Electrical equipment of industrial machines - Part 1: General requirements
Provides a requirement stating that machines must be capable of correct
operation at 40 degress C (humidity <=50%).
This requirement can be altered however by agreement with your customer (see
Appendix B).

You might also consider the following standards:

IEC 60068-2-56 - Ed. 1.0 - Bilingual
Title: Environmental testing - Part 2: Tests. Test Cb: Damp heat, steady
state, primarily for equipment
Publication date: 1988-12
TC: 104 (ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, CLASSIFICATION AND METHODS OF TEST)
Pages: 15
Price: 36.00 CHF (price code : H).
Abstract: Determines the suitability of electrotechnical products,
principally equipment, for use and storage under conditions of high
humidity.
You would also need the IEC 60068-1 as well.   I imagine a few different
tests plans are described in the standard.

IEC GUIDE 106 (1996-07)  Ed. 2.0  CHF 27.00 17 pages
Guide for specifying environmental conditions for equipment performance
rating
This standard is listed in the bibliography of the IEC 60204

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Matt



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

FW: re: Data acquisition for AST

[Barry Ma]

Hi EMC-PSTC group,

Some of Compliance Engineers in this group would be interested in Reliability 
tests.
AST = Accelerated Stress Test.
Barry
---
From: “Bailin Ma” , on 11/10/99 4:09 PM:

Hi Harry,

You said that STRIFE is HP's HALT. Actually there's a slight difference between 
HALT and STRIFE in my understanding.

Please allow me to review three different limits before discussing the 
difference between HALT and STRIFE: (1) Specs limit,  (2) Operating limit, and 
(3) Destruction limit. Let's take a printer for example. Assuming the operating 
temperature range of 0 to 50 C degree has been specified in your user's manual. 
But your printer still works well when raising the environment temperature from 
50 all the way to 80 C degree. Then the printer couldn't work from 80 to 110 C 
degree. But it would go back to normal when reducing the environment 
temperature to the range of 0 to 50 C. After 110 C degree the printer would be 
permanently damaged and could not go back to normal any more. Now we may say 
that
Specs limit = 50 C, Operating limit = 80 C, and Destruction limit = 110 C.

In typical STRIFE, people test the printer over 50, then 80, and then usually 
stop somewhere between 80 to 110. In HALT, however, people won't stop until 
after 110. They have to know where both Operating limit and Destruction limit 
are.

In conclusion, STRIFE is a subset of HALT. They are not the same thing

Best Regards,
Barry Ma 
Anritsu Company
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
www.anritsu.com

P.S.
I usually heard of HASS (Highly Accelerated Stress Screening) and HALT (Highly 
Accelerated Life Test). Is HASA in your Email below the same as HASS, or you 
just misspelled it?

-- Original Text --

From: "McLean, Harry" , on 11/9/99 1:47 PM:


At HP, we used a dedicated test platform on Unix for driving our printers in 
HASA as well as in STRIFE (HP's HALT).  This worked well but required that a 
dedicated (contract) programmer be allocated every time a new printer was 
designed.  This was a very high volume environment and a new printer was 
developed about every three months.

At AT&T we use LabView as the test platform to access on board diags.  This si 
VERY time consuming and at least two individuals are writing LV full time.  The 
results are just as good as the HP results.  Our volumes to date are moderate 
and should reach very high volume early in 2K.  We average a HALT every three 
weeks.

I have run a very large number of HALTs in which data acquisition was done 
manually.  The results were just as good as the two cases above but this does 
require one to pay close attention and to be accurate in data reading and 
writing.

As you can see all three methods work well it just depends on how you want to 
get there.  I understand that QualMark is offering test development as a 
business to support HALT.  You may want to contact Ann Marie (I've included her 
on the distribution list).  Her phone is (303) 254-8800.

 --
 From:  Morelli, Mark[SMTP:mark.more...@otis.com]
 Sent:  Tuesday, November 09, 1999 11:10 AM
 To:'accelerated-stress-test...@majordomo.ieee.org'
 Subject:   Data acquisition for AST

  The Test Engineering organization at my company is attempting to improve   
the process used to specify the data acquisition equipment used in  design   
AST such as HALT and temperature/humidity cycling tests.
  
  In the past we have primarily used in-house designed/built systems   
controlled by PCs using custom Visual Basic or Labview software programs   and 
associated hardware depending on the type of signals being recorded.   We are 
finding this approach, which requires significant human  resources,   can not 
keep with our test volume, which is about one new HALT and one   temp/humidity 
test per week.
  
  I would like to explore all possible options including outsourcing the   
design/fab of data acquisition systems or performing some of the tests  at   
outside labs.
  
  If the members of this e-mail group could suggest the approach that has   
worked best for you I would appreciate it. In addition, we may want to   
benchmark organizations to help in the improvement process.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Mark L. Morelli [mailto:mark.more...@otis.com]
  Sr. Reliability Engineer
  Otis Elevator Co.
  Farmington
  860-676-6140
  




__
Open your mind.  Close your wallet.
Free Internet Access from AltaVista. http://www.altavista.com


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive

[Paul Cook]

Kevin  & Listmates

I broke down and decided to check out EN 50103-4.  Here is what I found:

CENELEC EN 50130-4:1995 Alarm systems - Part 4: Electromagnetic
compatibility - Product family standard: Immunity requirements for
components of fire, intruder and social alarm systems

There is an amendment  -  Amendment A1:1998 to EN 50130-4:1995

It supercedes generic standards, but will not be a manadatory replacement
for them until
Jan 01, 2001.

Several observations:

1) EN 50130-4 can hardly conflict with the EMC directive.  The directive is
a bland
motherhood and apple pie document saying thou shall not make alot of noise,
and thou
should not be really susceptible to noise & legal signals.

2) I asume you meant to say that EN 50130-4 and its ammendments conflict
with
the generic immunity standards for residential or immuEN 50082-1 or 82-2.
But they are intended to do exactly that.  The dirty little secret of
immunity testing is that the generic standards are so generic, they are
almost meaingless.  Product family standards seek to improve this situation
by giving more specific deatils on testing such as operating configuration
of the EUT and specific pass fail criteria that better addresses the purpose
and function of products in that specific product family standard.

3)

>(snip)  . . What path do you
>recommend I follow to demand the repeal of these clauses?.
>

Were these international standards, such as the IEC, IEEE, SAE etc, you
might have some path for appeal.  CENELEC and EN standards are focused on
Europe, and the great unwashed mongol hordes of the rest of the world
(Americans, Canadians, etc.) don't amount to even a hill of beans.:):)  Some
would even suggest that's why they built fortress Europe, to make your life
more difficult. :):)

4) Sometimes there just isn't much you can do to avoid multiple testing.  If
you need lab A to bless your product, and they wont take your EMC data, then
you need to have them retest it or not have lab A bless your product.
Probably the best way to handle things is to do your own internal testing to
standards higher than the Europeans mandatory reqs, make your product pass
it, and then coast thru the final Eurpoean compliance test at Lab A for
certification.  Several companies I know have internal EMC standards that
are more severe than the European standards, because they have found out the
hard way that it really is a cold cruel world out there, with real unhappy
customers caused by preventable immunity failures.


I hope this helps.


Best Regards,

Paul Cook
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer
Alpha EMC Inc
8540 West River Rd
Minneapolis, Minnestoa 55444
Tel # (612)-561-2844
Fax #(612)-561-3400
E-mailpaulc...@skypoint.com
Specialty  -  EMC Consulting






-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) 
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) ; 'Kevin Harris'

List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive


>
>Kevin,
>
>I cannot believe that we are all cowards here.   However, it may be that we
>are unfamiliar with your subject matter.   I, for one, have never heard of
>the EMC standard EN50130-4, don't know if it falls under the new approach
>EMC Directive or not, and don't know what other EN standards it may be in
>conflict with.   In other words, I cannot shed light on your subject.   I
>would not be surprised if many have the same problem.   It might help if
you
>get a bit more specific here, such as, what are the conflicting EN
>standards, and what are the specific conflicting clauses.
>
>Tania Grant,   tgr...@lucent.com 
>Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group
>
>
>--
>From:  Kevin Harris [SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com]
>Sent:  Tuesday, November 09, 1999 3:01 PM
>To:  EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
>Subject:  RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive
>
>
>Hello Again Group,
>
>Well the group's total silence on this point is indeed interesting. Does
>nobody know how to proceed or is everyone just keeping their corporate
heads
>down :
>Please reply offline if you feel uneasy answering this question in a public
>forum.
>
>
>Regards
>
>Kevin Harris
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:38 AM
>To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
>Subject: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive
>
>
>
>Greetings,
>
>Is there an established procedure for demanding the withdrawal of EMC
>clauses within standards who's primary purpose is industry regulation, not
>EMC. In my company's industry there is an established product family
>standard for EMC (EN50130-4) but the good people at CENELEC seem to be
>ignoring the EMC directive, and have published within the last year or two,
>EN standards which include EMC testing clauses, with methods that are at
>odds with the EMC document EN50130-4 published in the OJ. Especially
>troubling to me is the fact that all of the test organisations that

RE: EMC and Safety of equipment used in aircraft

[Munford, Stefen]

There is a web site for RTCA which lists the current revisions and the
prices,
http://www.rtca.org/nonmember/
from just checking the site, the latest revision is DO-160D.


Stefen J. Munford
EMC Engineer

Gateway Regulatory/Compliance
610 Gateway drive MD Y-03
N. Sioux City, SD 57049

Phone - 605.232.2230 x 26773
FAX - 605.232.2814 
e-mail stefen.munf...@gateway.com
e-mail2 munfo...@gateway.com


-Original Message-
From: Robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 11:25 AM
To: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC and Safety of equipment used in aircraft



Take a look at Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) Document
No. DO-160B, "Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne
Equipment"

The copy I have is dated July 20, 1984 Wow time flies!

The cover page is ISO 7137 if that's any help.

Basically, RTCA/DO-160 is about 1 inch thick of graphs, charts,
requirements, test setups, etc for equipment that goes airborne.

Most of what I saw was electrical, but I'm sure there's environmental in
there, too.

 - Robert -

AJM Electronics408 286 3985
619 North First Stfax 408 297 9121
San Jose, CA  95112 m...@california.com


-Original Message-
From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 8:49 AM
Subject: EMC and Safety of equipment used in aircraft


>
>Group,
>What safety and EMC standards would I have to consider for a piece of
>equipment initially intended for use in a TV studio, but that is requested
to be
>able to be used in a helecopter or plane? I am also interested in what
other
>requirements and standards there may be for shock and vibration, temperture
and
>humidity and for acoustic noise in such an application. I am also sure that
the
>creepage and clearance distances in the product safety standards do not
hold
>true at elevated altitudes so what happens here?
>any info would be greatly recieved.
>Regards,
>Duncan.
>
>
>


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).