Re: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Rich Nute]

Hi Barry:


Thanks for the URL.

An even better paper at the FCC web site is:

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#56

OET Bulletin Number 56 (Fourth Edition August 1999) 
Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and 
Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic 
Fields 

This is an informative bulletin written as a result 
of increasing interest and concern of the public 
with respect to this issue.  The expanding use of 
radiofrequency technology has resulted in speculation 
concerning the alleged "electromagnetic pollution" of 
the environment and the potential dangers of exposure 
to non-ionizing radiation.  This publication is designed 
to provide factual information to the public by answering 
some of the most commonly asked questions.  It includes 
the latest information on FCC guidelines for human 
exposure to RF energy. 

This document includes a very good and comprehensive 
description, annotated, of the various health effects of 
RF energy, including the non-heating effects.  It includes
information on power output of cell phones and possible
health effects.  It appears to answer all of the questions 
brought up here in this discussion.


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: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed
some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone
at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! 

-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM
To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?



The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts.
Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is
the maximum.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?



Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones?  Just
on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low.

Anyway know the power output on cordless phones?

Thanks, Max

Max Kelson
Peripherals Engineer

Evans & Sutherland
600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT  84158
http://www.es.com/  
Telephone:  801-588-7196 / Fax:  801-588-4531
mailto:mkel...@es.com  


-Original Message-
From:   Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com]
Sent:   Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM
To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly'
Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards?


No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one
of my red flags
was the eyes.  The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave
radiation.  

Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct.
The typical
levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much
greater than cell
phones.

I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas.  He
was responsible
designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong
fields for years.
These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far
stronger that a cell
phone.  He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a
daily basic.  At age
43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general
population.  Now he
is fine today, retired a few years back.  

What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took
over 20 years to
damage the most sensitive part to the body.  Were talking
about 5 watts of
power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts
at 800 MHz.  

In summary: I think a lot of "Bad Science" has been applied.
The levels and
frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage
being reported.

P.S.  I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work
with 3.5 Kilowatt
microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts.


Al Patrick  

 -Original Message-
From:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] 
Sent:   Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM
To: 'Patrick, Al'
Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards?

Al,
You've posted a very intriguing statement.  Why "the eyes go
first? (In the
past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity
tests).
"microwave engineers understand the risks" - than what the
fuss is all
about?  Or are you saying that since one has not got
cataract, he/she is
safe?

Regards
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM
> To:   'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com';
> emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
> 
>   Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is
"Bad Science".
> People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his
name too badly)
> with CBS has had several news shows on "Bad Science".  Now
there is one,
> in the press, that understands.  
> 
>   Those of us that were/are microwave
engineers understand the
> risks.  I have been exposed the microwave radiation many
times, but I know
> "the eyes go first.  If people that use cell phones were
getting
> cataracts, you bet I would pay attention. 
> 
>   I better quit talking before I get upset.
> 
>   Al Patrick
   

RE: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Pettit, Ghery]

I'd love to see how they performed that measurement.  At a typical user to
antenna distance, one is pretty close to the near field / far field
boundary.  The measurement method must have been interesting.

Ghery
-Original Message-
From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [mailto:gra...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 2:34 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?


Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed
some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone
at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! 

-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM
To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?



The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts.
Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is
the maximum.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?



Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones?  Just
on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low.

Anyway know the power output on cordless phones?

Thanks, Max

Max Kelson
Peripherals Engineer

Evans & Sutherland
600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT  84158
http://www.es.com/  
Telephone:  801-588-7196 / Fax:  801-588-4531
mailto:mkel...@es.com  


-Original Message-
From:   Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com]
Sent:   Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM
To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly'
Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards?


No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one
of my red flags
was the eyes.  The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave
radiation.  

Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct.
The typical
levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much
greater than cell
phones.

I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas.  He
was responsible
designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong
fields for years.
These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far
stronger that a cell
phone.  He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a
daily basic.  At age
43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general
population.  Now he
is fine today, retired a few years back.  

What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took
over 20 years to
damage the most sensitive part to the body.  Were talking
about 5 watts of
power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts
at 800 MHz.  

In summary: I think a lot of "Bad Science" has been applied.
The levels and
frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage
being reported.

P.S.  I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work
with 3.5 Kilowatt
microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts.


Al Patrick  

 -Original Message-
From:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] 
Sent:   Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM
To: 'Patrick, Al'
Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards?

Al,
You've posted a very intriguing statement.  Why "the eyes go
first? (In the
past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity
tests).
"microwave engineers understand the risks" - than what the
fuss is all
about?  Or are you saying that since one has not got
cataract, he/she is
safe?

Regards
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM
> To:   'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com';
> emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
> 
>   Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is
"Bad Science".
> People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his
name too badly)
> with CBS has had several news shows on "Bad Science".  Now
there is one,
> in the press, that understands.  
> 
>   Those of us that 

GFCI suppliers

[David_L_Tarnowski]

 
 Does anyone know about how much of the Ground Fault Circuit Interrupt 
 (GFCI) market share each of these companies have?
 
 1.  Eagle
 
 2.  Arrow Hart
 
 3.  Hubble
 3a.   Bryant (made by Hubble?)
 
 4.  Leviton
 
 5.  Square D
 
 6.  Pass and Seymour
 
 
 Any information will help.
 
 David Tarnowski
 Whirlpool Corp.
 


-
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: Cell Phone Hazards?

[rbusche]

Interestingly enough, today on one of the independent radio
networks, a commentator interviewed numerous persons associated with the
investigation of radiation on the human body from Cell phones. One professor
from the University of Washington (Seattle) claims to have evidence that
radiation in rats has been proven to alter chromosomes. 

Another claims that no one in the US would test Cell Phones
for power output and report on them by brand name. The phones were taken to
Europe for testing. 

Yet another claims that research money was granted to study
the issue and then withheld once the evidence started to point towards this
destructive chromosome problem. 

Another man whose wife spent 150 hrs a month on the cell
phone believes that her fatal brain tumor was a direct cause of the phone.
He claims that the tumor (CAT scan) when held near the antenna was a halo of
the antenna itself. He went on to say that the US government had evidence
for the risk of radiation published in Mil Hdbk 239. This document was
subsequently withdrawn and the replacement document no longer addresses that
risk.

Who knows... 

Just wanted to add more fuel to the discussion.




-
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: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Price, Ed]

Ralph:

A few months ago, I did an RF ambient survey on the San Francisco BART
stations. I found that the strongest fields (between 300 KHz and 18 GHz)
inside a typical station came from cell phones, PCS phones and public
service transceivers carried by system personnel and the public. At a two
meter distance, these sources create a 5 to 10 V/M field strength.

Ed


:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
619-505-2780 (Voice)
619-505-1502 (Fax)
Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Cameron [SMTP:ral...@igs.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:04 PM
> To:   Edward Fitzgerald; 'Robert Macy'
> Cc:   mkel...@es.com; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
> 
> 
> Edward:
> 
> There was a medical assessment donw in a paper entitled," Mdeical
> Equipment
> Interference: "Risk and Minimization", by Bernard Segal.   This was
> published in Scientific Progress, under Wireless Phones and Health, pages
> 283-295, (Kluwer Academic Publishers , Boston)
> 
> What the article does is make the very studies of internal reflections in
> the hospital environment .e.g  hallways with and without obstructions and
> certain types of material walls and inside rooms to show where the
> radiation
> from cell phones is concentrated.   From this, planning for isolating
> certain hospital areas has been designed so tht cell phone radiation
> minimizes the impact on radiosensitive equipment.
> 
> In my view, at no time has there been a consideration that designers of
> sensitive equipment play a role in the issue. What is perceived as
> "interference" could eaually be argued that it is lack of immunity.  From
> studies done in Canada in 1983, the ambient radiation in large cities such
> as Toronto and  Montreal was deemed to be about 1v/m.  Some hospital
> equipment malfunctioned when exposed to one tenth of that amount.
> 
> The other concept that seems to prevail is that  that only certain popular
> communication bands such as CB ( 27Mhz), public service (  150- 170Mhz )
> and
> 450-470Mhz) could cause disturbance to such devices.  In fact, reference
> to
> allocation charts will show many "interfering" sources so that in
> designing
> for freedom from such undersireable effects a swept frequncy approach will
> uncover anomalies that can and do occur. Such effects become more
> pronounced
> as  the physical device size or elements approach resonance in any given
> frequncy range.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is safety can be compromised unless both the
> emitter and receiving device are designed with this in mind.   This is an
> opinion based on suppressing many devices after they have entered the
> market.  Current devices bearing the CE mark have almost total immunity to
> current users of the spectrum.
> 
> Ralph Cameron
> EMC Consultatnt and Suppression of Consumer elelctronic equipment
> (After Sale)
> - Original Message -
> From: Edward Fitzgerald 
> To: 'Robert Macy' 
> Cc: ; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
> 
> 
> >
> > Back in 1991/2 I worked with a design engineer in the UK who had
> > developed (privately) a test meter for measuring the EM fields in open
> > environment.
> > One of his studies was the variations and concentrations of EM fields
> > within buildings. I don't have any of the papers or results he prepared,
> > but I do recall that a sweep of our office unit (which included
> > manufacturing, test lab, R&D, purchasing and stores) one evening showed
> > a high EMF concentration level in one stairway linking R&D and the
> > manufacturing floor.  There were hiVoltage power lines within 500
> > meters, but we could only conclude that the modern reinforced concrete
> > construction had some effect on the concentration levels.
> > Digital mobile phones were not around at that time and there wasn't a
> > particularly high density of analogue cellphones in use within the
> > building.
> >
> > On another point, a recent UK press article has been claiming that the
> > use of headsets/ear-pieces typically connected to mobile phones via
> > 2.5mm jack are even worse than using the mobile next to your head.
> > Their claim being that the two core audio cable is induced with
> > radiation from the phone and carried up the length of the upper body?
> > Has anyone heard of this angle in the media within your part of the
> > world, or if any studies on this topic are including handsfree
> > accessories?
> >
> > Having read a number of articles on the subject of ElectroMagnetic field
> > Radiation that reach essentially two conclusions: -
> >  1. Definite link to effects upon human cell structure
> >  2. In

Re: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Barry Ma]

Hi,

Introduced by our local EMC chapter (SCVemc.org), I visited 
http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/ and surfed to FCC OET Bulletin 65 
"Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to RF 
Electromagnetic Fields" from there. Those who are concerned may go there.

Barry Ma
Anritsu

__
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).

Fwd:RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?

[Jim Bacher]

forwarded for Roger.  Jim

Forward Header_
Subject:RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?
Author: "Roger Magnuson" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   12/09/99 5:33 PM

Joe,

To the best of my knowledge, the implementation of RTTE differs from all
previous telecoms
directives as *all* Member States *must* start using it on April 8, 2000. The
current TTE
Directive   is valid until April 7, 2000. As you know, the current Directive
took much too long
to implement in certain countries (no names...) and I guess this is the reason
for this unusal
approach.


Roger Magnuson
Manager, Marketing & Business Development

TGC AB
Dalvagen 28, 169 56 SOLNA, Sweden
TEL: +46 856250050 (direct)
FAX: +46 856250045
mobile: +46 707770594
mailto:ro...@tgc.se
internet: http://www.tgc.se




-Original Message-
From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On
Behalf Of j...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:13 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
Subject: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?


Listmembers:

I have a question that perhaps some of you can help me with.  I'm developing
a regulatory compliance plan for a new telecom product that is scheduled to
begin shipping in the first quarter of 2000.  The exact date is not certain,
but it is likely to be before the April 8, 2000 date that appears in the RTTE
directive.

If possible, I would like to avoid the whole notified body route called out
by the current directive 98/13/EC, especially since it would only be required
for the brief period until April 2000.

I seem to recall that a new directive can be used as soon as *any* member
state has transposed it into national law.  If so, this suggests that the
RTTE directive could be used prior to April 2000 if at least one member state
has transposed it into national law.

In the case of the UK, however, recent postings on the emc-pstc listserver
indicate that the draft legislation for the UK calls out an effective date of
April 8, 2000.  In other words, even if the UK transposes the directive prior
to April 2000, the national law itself will call out an effective date of
April 8.  I do not know what the other member states are planning to do.

So, am I stuck with using directive 98/13/EC and the notified body route if
the product ships prior to April 8, 2000?


Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, 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: Open Frame EMI Filters

[Frank West]

Hi Doug!

Ignoring the EMC questions (as I can safely do, being
a product safety division engineer at TUV!) the
enclosure of the open frame supply would have to meet
the same safety requirements as any other enclosure
around a hazardous voltage circuit.  The creepage and
clearance distances between the exposed hazardous
voltage components and the accessible surfaces in
finished product would have to be adaquate.  

Of course, if you are just producing the filter that
is not your concern!

Regards,

Frank West
Sr. Engineer
TUV Rheinland NA


--- "POWELL, DOUG"  wrote:
> 
> Hello once again,
> 
> I have already received a number of replies to my
> query indicating that the
> metallic enclosure is required for low inductance
> coupling to the components
> or to prevent radiation between circuits within the
> product.  This is not my
> question.
> 
> Please remember that one of the criteria that I
> described for the open frame
> is the passing all applicable EMC tests.  This means
> that the open-frame
> design that I propose meets both radiated and
> conducted emissions levels,
> without the metallic box.  My questions deals more
> with why is the enclosure
> required if product passes the tests without it.  In
> the past I have
> designed a few products with a simple PCB for
> emissions control.  I
> compensated for the internal re-radiation problem.  
> 
> Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company
> that says the enclosure
> is required and that the encapsulant is a
> requirement.  I disagree.
> 
> -doug
> 
> ===
> Douglas E. Powell
> Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> m/s: 2018
> ---
> 970-407-6410 (phone)
> 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
> 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
> mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
> http://www.advanced-energy.com
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Hello group,
> > >
> > > For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom
> EMI filters 
> > with a fully
> > > enclosed metal canister.  Why is this enclosure
> required?  Are there
> > > specific provisions in the standards?  My idea
> is to build 
> > up the filter
> > > circuit on a printed circuit board and  make it
> an integral 
> > part of the
> > > power supply.
> > >
> > > I am currently looking at EN133200 which has
> certain seal 
> > tests but after
> > > reviewing these, they all appear to be related
> to climatic or
> > environmental
> > > conditions.  If the product passes these tests
> without the 
> > enclosure it
> > > would seem that the product has passed, period.
> > >
> > > Alternatively I have considered removing the
> nomenclature 
> > "EMI filter" and
> > > simply call it an input module, then evaluate it
> as a part 
> > of the overall
> > > system.  If it passes the EMC and Product Safety
> 
> > requirements, can I call
> > > the job complete?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > ===
> > > Douglas E. Powell
> > > Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> > > Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> > > 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> > > Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> > > m/s: 2018
> > > ---
> > > 970-407-6410 (phone)
> > > 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
> > > 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
> > > mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
> 
> > > http://www.advanced-energy.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).
> 
> 
> 


=
Frank West
Senior Engineer
TUV Rheinland of North America
NW/Portland OR Office
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

RE: Boilerplate Disclaimer?

[georgea]

Tania,

One could also ask "what are the liability risks for IEEE - EMC/PSTC,
etc. when NOT posting such a message under their banner!"  Maybe no
one should post anything because of the crazy legal system we have?

My goal was for some statment that at least indicates "intent", i.e.
personal exchanges between professionals with no fees nor warranties
implied.

George




tgrant%lucent@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/09/99 02:36:19 PM

To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com,
  George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: Boilerplate Disclaimer?



George,

This is an excellent idea;-- however, knowing how litigious this country is,
what are the liability risks for IEEE - EMC/PSTC, etc. when posting such a
message under their banner!   Inversely, would it do the rest of us any
good, or would some lawyer come after the unfortunate individual and
successfully argue him/her into the poor house!

Tania Grant,   tgr...@lucent.com 
Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group


--
From:  geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent:  Thursday, December 09, 1999 7:09 AM
To:  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:  Boilerplate Disclaimer?


This is merely a suggestion for consideration by the "managers" of this
listserver, to whom we are all indebted for their services.  Many postings
contain some form of disclaimer such as:

These comments reflect the personal opinions of the writer and do not
necessarily represent the views of the writer's employer.

Since this forum is a free exchange of information between professionals
with similar interests, aren't ALL comments basically personal opinions?

I recommend that some generic disclaimer be added to the present emc-pstc
"tag" which clearly states that all appended comments are considered as
personal opinions and are not to be taken as the official position of the
writers' employers.

This would save us all from typing some caveat with our inputs.  Most,
including myself, simply do not take the time to add this important legal
comment.

George Alspaugh
Lexmark International



-
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: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Barry Ma]

Edward,

IMHO, we are able to deal with the case described in that article: " 
headsets/ear-pieces ...even worse than using the mobile phone next to your 
head". Because we are EMC engineers. That's our job to reduce the radiations 
from attached cables. Please forward my opinion to the author of the article. 
Thanks.

Best Regards,
Barry Ma
Anritsu
--
On Wed, 08 December 1999, Edward Fitzgerald wrote:

...[clipped]

On another point, a recent UK press article has been claiming that the use of 
headsets/ear-pieces typically connected to mobile phones via 2.5mm jack are 
even worse than using the mobile next to your head. Their claim being that the 
two core audio cable is induced with radiation from the phone and carried up 
the length of the upper body? Has anyone heard of this angle in the media 
within your part of the world, or if any studies on this topic are including 
handsfree accessories?

clipped]...


__
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: Open Frame EMI Filters

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Go ahead and put it on the pwb. We do it anf
it works very well. There is a caveat though -
pay a lot of attention to the layout and final
installation.

-Original Message-
From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail); Treg Listserv (E-mail)
Subject: Open Frame EMI Filters



Hello group,
 
For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters with a fully
enclosed metal canister.  Why is this enclosure required?  Are there
specific provisions in the standards?  My idea is to build up the filter
circuit on a printed circuit board and  make it an integral part of the
power supply.  
 
I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal tests but after
reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or environmental
conditions.  If the product passes these tests without the enclosure it
would seem that the product has passed, period.
 
Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature "EMI filter" and
simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part of the overall
system.  If it passes the EMC and Product Safety requirements, can I call
the job complete?
 
Any thoughts?
 
===
Douglas E. Powell
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
1625 Sharp Point Dr.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
m/s: 2018
---
970-407-6410 (phone)
970-407-5410 (e-fax)
800-446-9167 (toll-free)
mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com  
http://www.advanced-energy.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: Boilerplate Disclaimer?

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

George,

This is an excellent idea;-- however, knowing how litigious this country is,
what are the liability risks for IEEE - EMC/PSTC, etc. when posting such a
message under their banner!   Inversely, would it do the rest of us any
good, or would some lawyer come after the unfortunate individual and
successfully argue him/her into the poor house!

Tania Grant,   tgr...@lucent.com   
Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group


--
From:  geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent:  Thursday, December 09, 1999 7:09 AM
To:  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:  Boilerplate Disclaimer?


This is merely a suggestion for consideration by the "managers" of this
listserver, to whom we are all indebted for their services.  Many postings
contain some form of disclaimer such as:

These comments reflect the personal opinions of the writer and do not
necessarily represent the views of the writer's employer.

Since this forum is a free exchange of information between professionals
with similar interests, aren't ALL comments basically personal opinions?

I recommend that some generic disclaimer be added to the present emc-pstc
"tag" which clearly states that all appended comments are considered as
personal opinions and are not to be taken as the official position of the
writers' employers.

This would save us all from typing some caveat with our inputs.  Most,
including myself, simply do not take the time to add this important legal
comment.

George Alspaugh
Lexmark International



-
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: Boilerplate Disclaimer?

[georgea]

Robert,

You raise a good point, one worth airing over the server.

1.  I view inputs from subscribers of the listserver like pages from a book.
The
 book may have disclaimers at the beginning.  If one copies a page without
 the disclaimers, and this subsequently creates a problem for the author(s),
 it can be legally argued that the text was passed along without the
original
 disclaimers.  The burden is on the individual who forwarded the material to
 preserve any original "modifiers".  BTW, the forwarder can delete my own
 macro as easily as the emc-ptsc tag.

2.  I do not use "macro" signatures, as I would need many different versions
 depending on the nature of the communication, e.g. personal, departmental,
 corporate, external, etc.  As a rule I try to avoid the use of ANY macros
that
 normally add no value to the note.

3.  A "standard" disclaimer attached by the listserver can be "adequately
 vague", e.g.  "All contents submitted to this listserver are considered to
be
 the opinions of the authors and not that of their employers."  The key word
 is "considered".

I still vote for a generic disclaimer..

George




macy%california@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/09/99 11:48:16 AM

Please respond to macy%global.california@interlock.lexmark.com

To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  Re: Boilerplate Disclaimer?



Good point, but maybe some comment might be official.

Since any of one's comments may go elsewhere, wouldn't the responsibillity
of a disclaimer lie with the originator, not the one who carries it
(distributes it) on?

Just add the disclaimer to your "macro" signature.

   - Robert -

-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 8:21 AM
Subject: Boilerplate Disclaimer?


>
>This is merely a suggestion for consideration by the "managers" of this
>listserver, to whom we are all indebted for their services.  Many postings
>contain some form of disclaimer such as:
>
>These comments reflect the personal opinions of the writer and do not
>necessarily represent the views of the writer's employer.
>
>Since this forum is a free exchange of information between professionals
>with similar interests, aren't ALL comments basically personal opinions?
>
>I recommend that some generic disclaimer be added to the present emc-pstc
>"tag" which clearly states that all appended comments are considered as
>personal opinions and are not to be taken as the official position of the
>writers' employers.
>
>This would save us all from typing some caveat with our inputs.  Most,
>including myself, simply do not take the time to add this important legal
>comment.
>
>George Alspaugh
>Lexmark International
>









-
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: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Ralph Cameron]

Edward:

There was a medical assessment donw in a paper entitled," Mdeical Equipment
Interference: "Risk and Minimization", by Bernard Segal.   This was
published in Scientific Progress, under Wireless Phones and Health, pages
283-295, (Kluwer Academic Publishers , Boston)

What the article does is make the very studies of internal reflections in
the hospital environment .e.g  hallways with and without obstructions and
certain types of material walls and inside rooms to show where the radiation
from cell phones is concentrated.   From this, planning for isolating
certain hospital areas has been designed so tht cell phone radiation
minimizes the impact on radiosensitive equipment.

In my view, at no time has there been a consideration that designers of
sensitive equipment play a role in the issue. What is perceived as
"interference" could eaually be argued that it is lack of immunity.  From
studies done in Canada in 1983, the ambient radiation in large cities such
as Toronto and  Montreal was deemed to be about 1v/m.  Some hospital
equipment malfunctioned when exposed to one tenth of that amount.

The other concept that seems to prevail is that  that only certain popular
communication bands such as CB ( 27Mhz), public service (  150- 170Mhz ) and
450-470Mhz) could cause disturbance to such devices.  In fact, reference to
allocation charts will show many "interfering" sources so that in designing
for freedom from such undersireable effects a swept frequncy approach will
uncover anomalies that can and do occur. Such effects become more pronounced
as  the physical device size or elements approach resonance in any given
frequncy range.

The point I'm trying to make is safety can be compromised unless both the
emitter and receiving device are designed with this in mind.   This is an
opinion based on suppressing many devices after they have entered the
market.  Current devices bearing the CE mark have almost total immunity to
current users of the spectrum.

Ralph Cameron
EMC Consultatnt and Suppression of Consumer elelctronic equipment
(After Sale)
- Original Message -
From: Edward Fitzgerald 
To: 'Robert Macy' 
Cc: ; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) 
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:49 AM
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?


>
> Back in 1991/2 I worked with a design engineer in the UK who had
> developed (privately) a test meter for measuring the EM fields in open
> environment.
> One of his studies was the variations and concentrations of EM fields
> within buildings. I don't have any of the papers or results he prepared,
> but I do recall that a sweep of our office unit (which included
> manufacturing, test lab, R&D, purchasing and stores) one evening showed
> a high EMF concentration level in one stairway linking R&D and the
> manufacturing floor.  There were hiVoltage power lines within 500
> meters, but we could only conclude that the modern reinforced concrete
> construction had some effect on the concentration levels.
> Digital mobile phones were not around at that time and there wasn't a
> particularly high density of analogue cellphones in use within the
> building.
>
> On another point, a recent UK press article has been claiming that the
> use of headsets/ear-pieces typically connected to mobile phones via
> 2.5mm jack are even worse than using the mobile next to your head.
> Their claim being that the two core audio cable is induced with
> radiation from the phone and carried up the length of the upper body?
> Has anyone heard of this angle in the media within your part of the
> world, or if any studies on this topic are including handsfree
> accessories?
>
> Having read a number of articles on the subject of ElectroMagnetic field
> Radiation that reach essentially two conclusions: -
>  1. Definite link to effects upon human cell structure
>  2. Inconclusive or no link.
>
> As an engineer I am very sceptical of the validity of any report or
> study on this subject given the various claims that many reports in this
> area over the past two decades have been biased to both sides of the
> argument!  Short of doing your own studies - what is an engineer to
> believe?
>
> Edward Fitzgerald
> Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
> GSM Tel. : +44 4685 33 100
>
>
> European Technology Services (EMEA)
> Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy
> Regional Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK.
>
> Global Telecom / Radio Intelligence Site 
> psst... spread the word !
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com]
> Sent: 04 December 1999 00:15
> To: mkel...@es.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
>
>
>
> Near our building near downtown San Jose, in what are called "the county
> buildings", one county building wing had 15 cases of very rare form of
> brain
> tumors.  The incidence of a single case is very rare but to have so many
> in
> one building and only in one wing of that building is statistically
> in

RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?

[Roger Magnuson]

Joe,

To the best of my knowledge, the implementation of RTTE differs from all 
previous telecoms
directives as *all* Member States *must* start using it on April 8, 2000. The 
current TTE
Directive   is valid until April 7, 2000. As you know, the current Directive 
took much too long
to implement in certain countries (no names...) and I guess this is the reason 
for this unusal
approach.


Roger Magnuson
Manager, Marketing & Business Development

TGC AB
Dalvagen 28, 169 56 SOLNA, Sweden
TEL: +46 856250050 (direct)
FAX: +46 856250045
mobile: +46 707770594
mailto:ro...@tgc.se
internet: http://www.tgc.se




-Original Message-
From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On
Behalf Of j...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:13 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
Subject: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?


Listmembers:

I have a question that perhaps some of you can help me with.  I'm developing
a regulatory compliance plan for a new telecom product that is scheduled to
begin shipping in the first quarter of 2000.  The exact date is not certain,
but it is likely to be before the April 8, 2000 date that appears in the RTTE
directive.

If possible, I would like to avoid the whole notified body route called out
by the current directive 98/13/EC, especially since it would only be required
for the brief period until April 2000.

I seem to recall that a new directive can be used as soon as *any* member
state has transposed it into national law.  If so, this suggests that the
RTTE directive could be used prior to April 2000 if at least one member state
has transposed it into national law.

In the case of the UK, however, recent postings on the emc-pstc listserver
indicate that the draft legislation for the UK calls out an effective date of
April 8, 2000.  In other words, even if the UK transposes the directive prior
to April 2000, the national law itself will call out an effective date of
April 8.  I do not know what the other member states are planning to do.

So, am I stuck with using directive 98/13/EC and the notified body route if
the product ships prior to April 8, 2000?


Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.

RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?

[H.T. Hildering]

The situation is simple,

The European Commission has stated that the R&TTE directive will come
effectively in force on the 8th of April 2000 for all EU countries.
Therefore all member countries are obliged to transpose it into their
national regulation before that date.
All member countries shall start to use the R&TTE directive at the 8th of
April.

Best regards

Theo Hildering








-Original Message-
From:   owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
j...@aol.com
Sent:   08 December 1999 22:13
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
Subject:Using RTTE directive before April 2000?


Listmembers:

I have a question that perhaps some of you can help me with.  I'm developing
a regulatory compliance plan for a new telecom product that is scheduled to
begin shipping in the first quarter of 2000.  The exact date is not certain,
but it is likely to be before the April 8, 2000 date that appears in the
RTTE
directive.

If possible, I would like to avoid the whole notified body route called out
by the current directive 98/13/EC, especially since it would only be
required
for the brief period until April 2000.

I seem to recall that a new directive can be used as soon as *any* member
state has transposed it into national law.  If so, this suggests that the
RTTE directive could be used prior to April 2000 if at least one member
state
has transposed it into national law.

In the case of the UK, however, recent postings on the emc-pstc listserver
indicate that the draft legislation for the UK calls out an effective date
of
April 8, 2000.  In other words, even if the UK transposes the directive
prior
to April 2000, the national law itself will call out an effective date of
April 8.  I do not know what the other member states are planning to do.

So, am I stuck with using directive 98/13/EC and the notified body route if
the product ships prior to April 8, 2000?


Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, 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: Open Frame EMI Filters

[Art Michael]

Hi Jim,

This thread takes me 'back to the eighties' (when I first entered the c-a
field and was working with UL 478: You are correct with your comments
regarding the perceived flammability of line filter caps.

The scenerio is/was that live parts are required to be "enclosed" (in the
US, per the NEC and ANSI/UL standards).  All can agree to that, I believe. 
X-caps were (are still?) available both with a flame-rated potting
compound and without.  Those not meeting requisite flame-ratings for
polymeric enclosures were required to be "enclosed" (which could be
accomodated by properly flame-rate barriers, potting, or the outer
"enclosure" of the device in which they were contained). 

Also, since standards allow the filter-caps to be wired-in prior to the
switch and fuse/s, they are continually "at risk" for equipment that is
plugged-in all the time.

Regards, Art Michael

Int'l Product Safety News
A.E. Michael, Editor
166 Congdon St. East
P.O. Box 1561 
Middletown CT 06457 U.S.A.

Phone  :  (860) 344-1651
Fax:  (860) 346-9066
Email  :  i...@connix.com
Website:  http://www.safetylink.com
ISSN   :  1040-7529
--
 

On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Jim Eichner wrote:

> 
> A couple of other thoughts:  
> 
> - Used to be that everyone thought X and Y cap's were hideously
> fire-hazardous.  Perhaps the UL and CSA standards for line filters
> require a can (ie fire enclosure) around them, even if they are approved
> and even if the filter goes inside the outer (equipment) enclosure.
> 
> - Potting will allow you to meet reduced creepage and clearance that may
> be crucial in obtaining decent high frequency attenuation from the
> filter.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jim Eichner
> > Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> Statpower Technologies Corporation
> jeich...@statpower.com
> http://www.statpower.com
> Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really
> exists.  Honest.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   POWELL, DOUG [SMTP:doug.pow...@aei.com]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, December 08, 1999 2:20 PM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Treg Listserv (E-mail)
> > Subject:RE: Open Frame EMI Filters
> > 
> > 
> > Hello once again,
> > 
> > I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating
> > that the
> > metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the
> > components
> > or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product.  This is
> > not my
> > question.
> > 
> > Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open
> > frame
> > is the passing all applicable EMC tests.  This means that the
> > open-frame
> > design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions
> > levels,
> > without the metallic box.  My questions deals more with why is the
> > enclosure
> > required if product passes the tests without it.  In the past I have
> > designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control.  I
> > compensated for the internal re-radiation problem.  
> > 
> > Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the
> > enclosure
> > is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement.  I disagree.
> > 
> > -doug
> > 
> > ===
> > Douglas E. Powell
> > Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> > Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> > 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> > Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> > m/s: 2018
> > ---
> > 970-407-6410 (phone)
> > 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
> > 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
> > mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
> > http://www.advanced-energy.com
> > ===
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > > > Hello group,
> > > >
> > > > For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters 
> > > with a fully
> > > > enclosed metal canister.  Why is this enclosure required?  Are
> > there
> > > > specific provisions in the standards?  My idea is to build 
> > > up the filter
> > > > circuit on a printed circuit board and  make it an integral 
> > > part of the
> > > > power supply.
> > > >
> > > > I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal 
> > > tests but after
> > > > reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or
> > > environmental
> > > > conditions.  If the product passes these tests without the 
> > > enclosure it
> > > > would seem that the product has passed, period.
> > > >
> > > > Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature 
> > > "EMI filter" and
> > > > simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part 
> > > of the overall
> > > > system.  If it passes the EMC and Product Safety 
> > > requirements, can I call
> > > > the job complete?
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > ===
> > > > Douglas E. Powell
> > > > Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> > > > Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> > > > 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> > > > Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> 

Boilerplate Disclaimer?

[georgea]

This is merely a suggestion for consideration by the "managers" of this
listserver, to whom we are all indebted for their services.  Many postings
contain some form of disclaimer such as:

These comments reflect the personal opinions of the writer and do not
necessarily represent the views of the writer's employer.

Since this forum is a free exchange of information between professionals
with similar interests, aren't ALL comments basically personal opinions?

I recommend that some generic disclaimer be added to the present emc-pstc
"tag" which clearly states that all appended comments are considered as
personal opinions and are not to be taken as the official position of the
writers' employers.

This would save us all from typing some caveat with our inputs.  Most,
including myself, simply do not take the time to add this important legal
comment.

George Alspaugh
Lexmark International



-
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 60950 Checklist

[WOODS]

We obtained an electronic copy from our European based safety agency. Ask
them.

Richard Woods

--
From:  teck...@apcc.com [SMTP:teck...@apcc.com]
Sent:  Thursday, December 09, 1999 9:23 AM
To:  rbus...@es.com
Cc:  emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:  Re: EN 60950 Checklist


The Regulatory Compliance Information Center web site has ECMA
TR-39,
Compliance Verification Report, available on-line.

http://www.rcic.com/reg/tr39page.cfm?p=1&d=content

The information is not in a form that can be downloaded, but it does
give
you a general idea of what is available from ECMA.

Ted Eckert
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
American Power Conversion

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of
the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader.  The
writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing
APC?s
official position on any matter.



Please respond to rbus...@es.com

To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: rbus...@es.com on 12/08/99 04:47 PM
Subject:  EN 60950 Checklist

<>

-
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: Open Frame EMI Filters

[teckert]

You do not need a metal case for an EMI filter.  It is perfectly acceptable
to put a pair of Y capacitors, a common mode choke and an X cap on a
circuit board to form a basic line filter.  (Be careful; if you use Y1
capacitors, a single capacitor may be used between line and earth.  If you
use Y2 or Y4 capacitors,  you must use two capacitors in series.)

The main reason for a metal case is to prevent radiated coupling of noise
from one side of the filter to the other.  If you have a metal enclosure,
use a metal encased bulkhead filter.  This is the best situation because it
will provide a high level of EMI suppression.  If your product is in a
non-metallic enclosure, the filter case has less of an effect.  Just make
sure that the filter is as close to the power entry as possible.  If you
have a lot of unfiltered power lines around the electronics, noise can
radiate around the filter causing problems with conducted emissions.
Conversely, noise on the power lines can radiate around the filter and
cause problems with susceptibility.  The filter will still help, but it
will not be as effective as a bulkhead filter with a metal enclosure.

Ted Eckert
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
American Power Conversion

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader.  The writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC’s
official position on any matter.



Please respond to "POWELL, DOUG" 

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, "Treg Listserv (E-mail)"
  
cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: "POWELL, DOUG"  on 12/08/99 04:19 PM
Subject:  RE: Open Frame EMI Filters




Hello once again,

I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating that the
metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the
components
or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product.  This is not
my
question.

Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open
frame
is the passing all applicable EMC tests.  This means that the open-frame
design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions levels,
without the metallic box.  My questions deals more with why is the
enclosure
required if product passes the tests without it.  In the past I have
designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control.  I
compensated for the internal re-radiation problem.

Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the enclosure
is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement.  I disagree.

-doug

===
Douglas E. Powell
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
1625 Sharp Point Dr.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
m/s: 2018
---
970-407-6410 (phone)
970-407-5410 (e-fax)
800-446-9167 (toll-free)
mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
http://www.advanced-energy.com
===



> >
> > Hello group,
> >
> > For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters
> with a fully
> > enclosed metal canister.  Why is this enclosure required?  Are there
> > specific provisions in the standards?  My idea is to build
> up the filter
> > circuit on a printed circuit board and  make it an integral
> part of the
> > power supply.
> >
> > I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal
> tests but after
> > reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or
> environmental
> > conditions.  If the product passes these tests without the
> enclosure it
> > would seem that the product has passed, period.
> >
> > Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature
> "EMI filter" and
> > simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part
> of the overall
> > system.  If it passes the EMC and Product Safety
> requirements, can I call
> > the job complete?
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > ===
> > Douglas E. Powell
> > Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> > Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> > 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> > Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> > m/s: 2018
> > ---
> > 970-407-6410 (phone)
> > 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
> > 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
> > mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com 
> > http://www.advanced-energy.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: "unsub

Re: EN 60950 Checklist

[teckert]

The Regulatory Compliance Information Center web site has ECMA TR-39,
Compliance Verification Report, available on-line.

http://www.rcic.com/reg/tr39page.cfm?p=1&d=content

The information is not in a form that can be downloaded, but it does give
you a general idea of what is available from ECMA.

Ted Eckert
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
American Power Conversion

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader.  The writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC’s
official position on any matter.



Please respond to rbus...@es.com

To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: rbus...@es.com on 12/08/99 04:47 PM
Subject:  EN 60950 Checklist




I have been asked by my engineering department to create or locate a
checklist for EN 60950 (or IEC 950) to be used as a guideline. In the past,
I remember an ECMA document like this but that was years ago. Does anyone
have any recommendations or suggestions?

-
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: Open Frame EMI Filters

[Ralph Cameron]

Doug:

It would seem logical that the shield will guarantee a high degree of
immunity to local radiated fields.  If the filter is a commerical one its
specs are probably dependent on the shield being in situ.  Even though it
may meet the EMC  test requirement, there is an added degree of safety
 i.e. equipment malfunction) with the filter in place. If there is line
voltage appearing on any of the components and they are in areas used by
service people then the question of electrical safety is addressed by having
a shield.   This is only my opinion.

Ralph Cameron
EMC Consultant and Suppression of Consumer Electronics
(After Sale)

- Original Message -
From: POWELL, DOUG 
To: ; Treg Listserv (E-mail)

Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: Open Frame EMI Filters


>
> Hello once again,
>
> I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating that
the
> metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the
components
> or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product.  This is not
my
> question.
>
> Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open
frame
> is the passing all applicable EMC tests.  This means that the open-frame
> design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions levels,
> without the metallic box.  My questions deals more with why is the
enclosure
> required if product passes the tests without it.  In the past I have
> designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control.  I
> compensated for the internal re-radiation problem.
>
> Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the
enclosure
> is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement.  I disagree.
>
> -doug
>
> ===
> Douglas E. Powell
> Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> m/s: 2018
> ---
> 970-407-6410 (phone)
> 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
> 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
> mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
> http://www.advanced-energy.com
> ===
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Hello group,
> > >
> > > For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters
> > with a fully
> > > enclosed metal canister.  Why is this enclosure required?  Are there
> > > specific provisions in the standards?  My idea is to build
> > up the filter
> > > circuit on a printed circuit board and  make it an integral
> > part of the
> > > power supply.
> > >
> > > I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal
> > tests but after
> > > reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or
> > environmental
> > > conditions.  If the product passes these tests without the
> > enclosure it
> > > would seem that the product has passed, period.
> > >
> > > Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature
> > "EMI filter" and
> > > simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part
> > of the overall
> > > system.  If it passes the EMC and Product Safety
> > requirements, can I call
> > > the job complete?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > ===
> > > Douglas E. Powell
> > > Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> > > Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> > > 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> > > Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> > > m/s: 2018
> > > ---
> > > 970-407-6410 (phone)
> > > 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
> > > 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
> > > mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com 
> > > http://www.advanced-energy.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 

RE: Open Frame EMI Filters

[Scott Douglas]

Doug,

There is no "requirement" for a case. The filter guy wants you to believe
there is because that is how they make them. If, the filter can meet all of
the safety and EMC requirements, it matters not how it is made. It could be
just a bunch of components with their leads soldered together with no PCB,
no encapsulant, no case. If it meets the necessary creepage, clearance,
flammability, emissions, etc., requirements, then who cares how it is
packaged?

If anyone can find such a requirement, please let me know. It would be a
really good example unnecessary regulations.

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


-Original Message-
From: doug.pow...@aei.com [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 5:20 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
Subject: RE: Open Frame EMI Filters
Importance: Low



Hello once again,

I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating that the
metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the
components
or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product.  This is not
my
question.

Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open
frame
is the passing all applicable EMC tests.  This means that the open-frame
design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions levels,
without the metallic box.  My questions deals more with why is the
enclosure
required if product passes the tests without it.  In the past I have
designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control.  I
compensated for the internal re-radiation problem.

Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the enclosure
is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement.  I disagree.

-doug

===
Douglas E. Powell
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
1625 Sharp Point Dr.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
m/s: 2018
---
970-407-6410 (phone)
970-407-5410 (e-fax)
800-446-9167 (toll-free)
mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
http://www.advanced-energy.com
===



>> >
>> > Hello group,
>> >
>> > For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters
>> with a fully
>> > enclosed metal canister.  Why is this enclosure required?  Are there
>> > specific provisions in the standards?  My idea is to build
>> up the filter
>> > circuit on a printed circuit board and  make it an integral
>> part of the
>> > power supply.
>> >
>> > I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal
>> tests but after
>> > reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or
>> environmental
>> > conditions.  If the product passes these tests without the
>> enclosure it
>> > would seem that the product has passed, period.
>> >
>> > Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature
>> "EMI filter" and
>> > simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part
>> of the overall
>> > system.  If it passes the EMC and Product Safety
>> requirements, can I call
>> > the job complete?
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> > ===
>> > Douglas E. Powell
>> > Regulatory Compliance Engineer
>> > Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
>> > 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
>> > Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
>> > m/s: 2018
>> > ---
>> > 970-407-6410 (phone)
>> > 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
>> > 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
>> > mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com 
>> > http://www.advanced-energy.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 e

RE: Products with high power LEDs

[John Juhasz]

Richard,

Be careful . . . UL 1950 3rd Ed, Section 4.3.12, "Equipment that can
generate ionizing radiation or ultraviolet light, or that uses a laser . .
." does make a reference to IEC 825-1 BUT it is
has a line through it. It is a D1 deviation. You are then refered to Annex
NAE where 4.3.12 now references for the US (NEC) 21 CFR 1040 (which is
eseentially the same as ANSI Z136.1) where
LEDs are not required to be evaluated.
21 CFR 1040 is undergoing a revision which harmonizes it with EN 60825.
However, the CDRH will not be including LEDs. THere has been no evidence
that LEDs have caused  injuries.

-John Juhasz-
Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY


-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 1:43 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Products with high power LEDs



Actually, the concern is worldwide. It starts with IEC 60825-1 which covers
emissions from lasers and LEDs. IEC 950 has a normative reference to IEC 825
(an earlier revision of IEC 60825-1). IEC950 says that the national members
are encouraged to apply the latest revisions of the normative references. UL
1950 references IEC 825-1:1993 which has the same LED requirements as IEC
60825-1.

Richard Woods

--
From:  Gary McInturff [SMTP:gmcintu...@telect.com]
Sent:  Wednesday, December 08, 1999 12:08 PM
To:  'geor...@lexmark.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:  RE: Products with high power LEDs


Can somebody tell me what Europe's concern is with the LED's. I
understand
the hazards of laser's, wavelength, power, durations et al but I
don't know
what Europe is trying to protect. 
If this was just recently discussed please forgive the
transgression. I have
been sitting in those flying horizontal aluminum tubes for the last
week and
have been unable to actually read any of these e-mails. Certainly,
you can
respond to me directly rather than the list.
Thanks
Gary

-Original Message-
From:   geor...@lexmark.com
[mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, December 08, 1999 5:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:RE: Products with high power LEDs


> Assume a business product with a high power LED
for use in
the EU and that
> it operates at 230V. It will be subject to the Low
Voltage
Directive, so
> EN60950 and EN60825-1 would apply. Now assume a
similar
product but it
> operates at 24V. The LVD would not apply in this
case.
What are the legal
> compliance requirements for the LED output?
>

The Low Voltage Directive is definitely applicable
for the
230V configuration.
A 24V device is SELV, and has no potential for
electric
shock.  If its input
power is limited to under 100VA, it does not require
a fire
enclosure per
EN 60950.  So, the only major safety issue remaining
is
possible exposure to
the laser under fault conditions.

EN 60825-1 (as I recall) has nothing to do with the
voltage
required to power
the host equipment.  So it applies in either case.

George Alspaugh
Lexmark International



-
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: EN 60950 Checklist

[Raymond . Li]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your useful information.  I have visited the website as
suggested but cannot find how to display the form and where to download the
desired form.  In addition, there is no mention about charges as well.
Could you please provide more detail to me.

Thanks and regards,

Raymond

=





Art Michael  on 09/12/99 11:53:06 a

Please respond to Art Michael 

To:   rbus...@es.com
cc:   emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Raymond Li/DixonsNotes)

Subject:  Re: EN 60950 Checklist





Hello Rick,

If you visit the CB Scheme website you can find a section that offers Test
Report Forms (TRFs) for a number of IEC and EN Standards.  After paying
the associated fee with your credit card, the TRFs can immediately be
downloaded from the site.

Easily accessed from the Safety Link , just click on
the CB Scheme link.

Regards, Art Michael

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*   International Product Safety Bookshop   *
  *  *
*   *
* Now offering BSI's Books & Reports*
*  including, "World Electricity Supplies"  *
*   *
* Another service of the Safety Link*
*   *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
---

On Wed, 8 Dec 1999 rbus...@es.com wrote:

>
> I have been asked by my engineering department to create or locate a
> checklist for EN 60950 (or IEC 950) to be used as a guideline. In the
past,
> I remember an ECMA document like this but that was years ago. Does anyone
> have any recommendations or suggestions?
>
> -
> 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: EN 60950 Checklist

[Art Michael]

Hello Rick,

If you visit the CB Scheme website you can find a section that offers Test
Report Forms (TRFs) for a number of IEC and EN Standards.  After paying
the associated fee with your credit card, the TRFs can immediately be
downloaded from the site.

Easily accessed from the Safety Link , just click on 
the CB Scheme link.

Regards, Art Michael

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
*   International Product Safety Bookshop   *
*  *   
*   *
* Now offering BSI's Books & Reports*
*  including, "World Electricity Supplies"  * 
*   *
* Another service of the Safety Link*
*   *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
---

On Wed, 8 Dec 1999 rbus...@es.com wrote:

> 
> I have been asked by my engineering department to create or locate a
> checklist for EN 60950 (or IEC 950) to be used as a guideline. In the past,
> I remember an ECMA document like this but that was years ago. Does anyone
> have any recommendations or suggestions?
> 
> -
> 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: Open Frame EMI Filters

[Jim Eichner]

A couple of other thoughts:  

- Used to be that everyone thought X and Y cap's were hideously
fire-hazardous.  Perhaps the UL and CSA standards for line filters
require a can (ie fire enclosure) around them, even if they are approved
and even if the filter goes inside the outer (equipment) enclosure.

- Potting will allow you to meet reduced creepage and clearance that may
be crucial in obtaining decent high frequency attenuation from the
filter.

Regards,

Jim Eichner
> Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Statpower Technologies Corporation
jeich...@statpower.com
http://www.statpower.com
Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really
exists.  Honest.


> -Original Message-
> From: POWELL, DOUG [SMTP:doug.pow...@aei.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 2:20 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Treg Listserv (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: Open Frame EMI Filters
> 
> 
> Hello once again,
> 
> I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating
> that the
> metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the
> components
> or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product.  This is
> not my
> question.
> 
> Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open
> frame
> is the passing all applicable EMC tests.  This means that the
> open-frame
> design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions
> levels,
> without the metallic box.  My questions deals more with why is the
> enclosure
> required if product passes the tests without it.  In the past I have
> designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control.  I
> compensated for the internal re-radiation problem.  
> 
> Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the
> enclosure
> is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement.  I disagree.
> 
> -doug
> 
> ===
> Douglas E. Powell
> Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> m/s: 2018
> ---
> 970-407-6410 (phone)
> 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
> 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
> mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
> http://www.advanced-energy.com
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Hello group,
> > >
> > > For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters 
> > with a fully
> > > enclosed metal canister.  Why is this enclosure required?  Are
> there
> > > specific provisions in the standards?  My idea is to build 
> > up the filter
> > > circuit on a printed circuit board and  make it an integral 
> > part of the
> > > power supply.
> > >
> > > I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal 
> > tests but after
> > > reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or
> > environmental
> > > conditions.  If the product passes these tests without the 
> > enclosure it
> > > would seem that the product has passed, period.
> > >
> > > Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature 
> > "EMI filter" and
> > > simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part 
> > of the overall
> > > system.  If it passes the EMC and Product Safety 
> > requirements, can I call
> > > the job complete?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > ===
> > > Douglas E. Powell
> > > Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> > > Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> > > 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> > > Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> > > m/s: 2018
> > > ---
> > > 970-407-6410 (phone)
> > > 970-407-5410 (e-fax)
> > > 800-446-9167 (toll-free)
> > > mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com 
> > > http://www.advanced-energy.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 administrato

Re: Products with high power LEDs

[bogdanmm]

Greetings:
May I suggest that you look first on the LED output and what restrictions
apply to a laser of that power, considering accessibility etc. This will give
you an indications of the major problems. Apply EN60950 and EN60825 and do not
use the supply with 24 V as an excuse - sorry, I should say legal leeway - to
go for the cheapest approach.
Bogdan.




wo...@sensormatic.com wrote:

> Assume a business product with a high power LED for use in the EU and that
> it operates at 230V. It will be subject to the Low Voltage Directive, so
> EN60950 and EN60825-1 would apply. Now assume a similar product but it
> operates at 24V. The LVD would not apply in this case. What are the legal
> compliance requirements for the LED output?
>
> -
> 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).