Fwd:Re: TCF for EMC Directive

[Jim Bacher]

forwarded for Chris Dupres.Jim


Forward Header_
Subject:Re: TCF for EMC Directive
Author: cdup...@cs.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   3/1/00 2:51 PM

In a message dated 01/03/00 09:52:07 GMT Standard Time, 
jerry_rober...@net.com writes:

<< 
 You  have a choice of 3 basic routes to satisfy the  EMC Directive.
 
 1.  The standards  route.   You had the product tested  to  the appropriate
 harmonised  Standards.   So you have  evidence you pass.  You can self 
declare.
 
 2.  You use the Technical Construction File Route.  This mandates  production
 and retention of the TCF  document.  Then you self declare.
 
 3.  The EC Type examination route.  Getting a  Notified Body involved.
  They will get all the documents out of you, their checks  reduce your 
risk
 considerably.  You get a certificate  instead of a self declaration.  This 
route
 is a bit old. >>

Hi Jerry.

My understanding of the EMC Regs, at least in the UK, is that :

a)  the Standards Route means that you build to existing relevant standards, 
and self declare compliance.
b)  the TCF route requires a Competent Body to produce, or vet your own, 
technical file and sign it off.  This is primarily of use when there is no 
existing standard which adequately covers your equipment, otherwise you would 
use a).
c)  the Type Examination route is only for use with radio comms or 
entertainment equipment.

Just a tuppence worth.

Chris Dupres
Surrey, UK.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Fwd:Re: UL 891

[Jim Bacher]

forwarded for Chris Dupres.. Jim


Forward Header_
Subject:Re: UL 891
Author: cdup...@cs.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   3/1/00 2:51 PM

In a message dated 01/03/00 08:40:29 GMT Standard Time, phsm...@excite.co.uk 
writes:

<< 
 UL891 requires a 100 KA short circuit test. I know of facilities in the US 
that can cope with this test. Does anybody know of a facility in the UK that 
could do it also? >>

Hi Paul.

Speak to ASTA.  (Association of Short circuit Testing Agencies?)They 
should be in the book.  They have very high current testing facilities and 
are the people who rate distribution centres etc., for fault current 
protection and so on.

Chris Dupres
Surrey, UK.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Demo Units Sent to EU w/o CE ?

[Lyons, Jim]

Can anyone tell me if there are provisions for sending prototype electrical
equipment to Europe before it has been CE approved? This equipment would
normally be subject to the LVD and EMC directive, and would be used at shows
to demonstrate the equipment. It is possible that attendies at the show
would touch or operate the equipment.

Thanks for any comments or insight.

Jim Lyons
Mgr - Product Compliance
GTECH Corp.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: CB

[Compliance]

All,

We have used the CB Scheme very successfully to obtain numerous agency
approvals.  The scheme works very well from the product safety side.  Due to
the introduction of new EMC requirements throughout the world, we are paying
for multiple EMI/EMC tests as part of our approval process.

1.  Are there any plans to develop a CB Scheme type approval for EMC 
Testing?
2.  If not, which laboratories have the most MRAs in place for EMC Testing?
I suspect Nemko, followed closely by some private EMI test sites (IBM,
Compaq, Dell, etc.).
3.  Are there any laboratories which have MRAs in place for the following
countries (approval bodies within the country):
a.  Poland
b.  Czechoslovakia
c.  Brazil (when safety and EMC become manadatory)
d.  Norway
e.  Russia
f.  Slovenia
g.  China
h.  Japan
i.  Korea
j.  Taiwan

I currently believe that these countries "require" EMC Certification by an
agency which is either located within their country or accredited by their
approval body.  If I have left out any other countries, please do not
hesitate to correct my list.

Thank you very much for your time,
Brent Taira
Eos Corporation


> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
> Of geor...@lexmark.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 9:01 AM
> To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
> Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: CB
>
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Go to www.cbscheme.org .  This is as good a site as any.
> Basically this is
> a global reciprocity scheme.  Any authorized Certification Body (CB) for a
> country agress to accept the CB test Report issued by another CB, unless
> of course they believe it contains an error.
>
> The many countries (30+) and CBs are listed at this site.  SII is
> the CB for
> Israel.   The CB Report is not an automatic license for any
> country, but will
> normally result in a country license without further testing.
> The trick is to
> make
> sure the issuing body tests to IEC 60950 plus all listed country
> differences.
> This avoids additional testing for things like the Australia dc
> ground current
> limitation.
>
> George Alspaugh
>
>
>
>
> pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/02/2000 11:34:28 AM
>
> Please respond to pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com
>
> To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  CB
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Does anyone know a good sight where I can have a good explanation
> of the CB
> Scheme? I checked the "CB" in safetylink and it does not give a good
> explanation (advantages, etc.). Anyone knows of any other site on the
> internet?
> Peter Merguerian
> Managing Director
> Product Testing Division
> I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
> Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
> Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
>
> Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
> e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
> website: http://www.itl.co.il
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>
>


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Technical Construction File

[Gert Gremmen]

Good explanation Nick

But the following I have to add.

point 4. The EMC directive only uses the Standards and the TCF route. The
type approval route for mainly transmitters will very soon (April 8th) be
withdrawn in favor of the TTE-directive that comes into force and that
allows the standards "plus" method to be used for transmitters. The plus
stands here for the notified body that needs to comply with your frequency
scheme for the miscellaneous countries. If not compliant with all countries
then a special symbol has to be added to the ce sign stating that it is not
compatible with some countries and the manual should be read.
Equipment using such a symbol may not be used in all EC member states but
may be freely sold and im/exported.
Waiting for the European frequency scheme to be harmonized. We are working
on that too

You already pointed us in this direction under point 6 but I felt some extra
information was required.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

===
Web presence  http://www.cetest.nl
CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm
/-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/
===


>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of Nick Williams
>>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 12:58 PM
>>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: Technical Construction File
>>
>>
>>
>>There seems to be come confusion on the matter of technical files and
>>technical construction files, and referring to the text of the CE
>>mark directives, it's not difficult to see why since there is no
>>consistency in the way in which the terms are used. My understanding
>>is as follows.
>>
>>1.With the exception of the EMC Directive, all CE mark directives
>>require the Responsible Person to compile a file of documentation
>>which demonstrates how the manufacturer justifies their claim of
>>compliance with the requirements of the relevant directive.
>>
>>2. This collection of documentation is known variously as a Technical
>>File or a Technical Construction File. Except in the EMC Directive,
>>these terms seem to be used interchangeably to mean the same thing.
>>
>>3. There is no provision in any directive to require that the
>>information relevant to compliance with one directive need be kept
>>separate from that for any other and therefore in most cases a
>>combined technical file which covers compliance with all directives
>>(and lots of other information) makes sense from an organisational
>>point of view.
>>
>>4. Under the EMC Directive, a manufacturer has three options for
>>compliance. These are the Standards route, the Technical Construction
>>File route and the Type Approval route.
>>
>>5. Under the Standards route, the manufacturer simply claims
>>compliance with the requirements of the relevant harmonised
>>standards, and thus with the requirements of the directives. While he
>>would, in most cases, be foolish to do this without having some
>>documentary evidence that tests have been completed and passed, this
>>is not mandated under the Directive.
>>
>>6. Under the Type Approval route, the manufacturer gives the product
>>to a suitably qualified test house who test it and issue a
>>certificate of compliance. This method of complying with the
>>directive is primarily intended for communications (transmitting)
>>apparatus and therefore the new R&TTE Directive will have a major
>>bearing on much equipment which has formerly followed this route.
>>
>>7. The Technical Construction File (TCF) route to compliance with the
>>EMC Directive is intended for use in those situations where the other
>>two routes do not apply. This will be either because the apparatus is
>>not transmitting apparatus, or because there are no appropriate
>>harmonised standards.
>>
>>8. Under the TCF route, the manufacturer creates a justification for
>>a claim of compliance with the requirements of the EMC Directive
>>based on such factors as the location and use of the equipment, the
>>results of any tests which have been done and the requirements of any
>>standards which are relevant, if only in part.
>>
>>9. The key point about the EMC directive's TCF is that for it to be
>>used as the basis of CE marking a product, the file must be submitted
>>to a Competent Body (a term defined in the directive and distinct
>>from a Notified Body) who must examine it and agree to the logic used
>>to justify the claim of compliance. Thus, the TCF route to complying
>>with the EMC directive is NOT a self-certification process.
>>
>>10. To cloud the matter even further, there is a (complicated)
>>provision within the Machinery Directive which allows for a
>>manufacturer to involve a notified body in the creation and storage
>>of the Technical File for certain machinery. This really only has
>>relevance in the context of annex IV machines which require type
>>approval (etc.). I don't kn

RE: Question on EN55024 & legacy products

[Gert Gremmen]

Sorry Charles,

Existing products need to comply also, as long as they are
being sold. The period in which EN 55024 becomes mandatory was 2 years, and
you still have 16 months to re-design them. But what the heck, any product
in ITE being
sold today MUST be obsolete before 1-7-2001 !!! ;<

Test data that is one year old, is not obsolete (but the product must be ;<)
!!!), as long as you can prove that the test data goes with the exact
product you sell today.
Any revisions since must be documented and evaluated for their EMC impact,
and that might possibly require new testing. Even unsold product in stock,
that has not yet entered the customer supply chain, must be modified. Here
you might do something with your rep !!



Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

===
Web presence  http://www.cetest.nl
CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm
/-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/
===


>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of Grasso, Charles (Chaz)
>>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:58 PM
>>To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
>>Subject: Question on EN55024 & legacy products
>>
>>
>>
>>Hello _ I was wondering if this esteemed group could help me here:
>>
>>As everyone in the ITE business knows EN55024 is soon upon us. The
>>questions I have are:
>>
>>1) Legacy products.
>>  I assume that - as long as no changes are made - then EXISTING
>>products
>>  do not require changes to incorporate the new standards.
>>
>>  Question: Does it follow then if upgrades/enhancements are made
>>after 7/1/2001 that
>>  modifications in the field may need to be incorporated on legacy
>>machines to bring
>>  them up to spec?
>>
>>2) Test Reports
>>  Is there a "time limit" on the quality of test data? For example can
>>I take
>>  test data from say 1 year ago (Radiated Immunity) and use that for a
>>  brand new DoC with 024 listed?
>>
>>---
>>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> majord...@ieee.org
>>with the single line:
>> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>
>>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>>
>>For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>>
>>
<>

RE: Web Sites

[Gert Gremmen]

I want to agree very very much with this...

Companies are too reluctant in issuing safety certificates, and
this is not always because they don't understand, but because they actually
DO.

Many many times components are not really tested, just one in a list of
related types. A switch using snap-on contacts may be approved , the one
with solder joints is not. The approval mark above the table may mislead
you.
Possibly both switches are safe, but only one was submitted for testing.
Of course the manufacturer will not send you a approval certificate
if there is none !!

Those who are doing electrical safety tests and electrical components must
all
be familiar with this selective unawareness !

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

===
Web presence  http://www.cetest.nl
CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm
/-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/
===


>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com
>>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 10:57 AM
>>To: s_doug...@ecrm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re:Web Sites
>>
>>
>>
>>Scott and group,
>>I agree this is a well thought out site. I'm doing a similar
>>exercise at the
>>moment and trying to get hold of all of the approval certificates
>>for components
>>within one of our products. This can be hard work owing to the
>>variation in the
>>quality and quantity of information available.
>>
>>One site that I believe stands out above all others is
>>www.wickmannusa.com.
>>Again this is not an advert for the company but for the common
>>sense layout of
>>the site, and... get this
>>ON LINE APPROVAL CERTIFICATES! (downloadable in PDF form)
>>
>>Its interesting how the ease of obtaining these certificates varies. Some
>>companies you call know exactly what you mean and send the
>>details stright away,
>>whereas others are clueless or send you copies of their ISO9000
>>certificate of
>>approval or technical specs. One manufacturer of removable
>>storage devices I
>>recently contatcted has even refered my request to its head
>>office as the lady I
>>spoke to didn't know what I was asking for and believed that
>>safety related
>>documentation was 'company confidential'
>>Another one of my annoyances is manufacturers who quote 'flame retarded to
>>UL94-V0' Is it listed? sometimes it is sometimes it is not so why
>>dont they say
>>either 'UL listed Exx or 'manufactured from UL94-V0 material
>>Exx' or
>>manufactured from non UL listed material that has passed a UL94-V0 test'
>>
>>The point I am trying to make is that I wish that all
>>suppliers/manufacturers
>>were as good as the best ones and have an organised system for
>>retaining and
>>issuing these certificates and give clear and concise information
>>on approvals
>>and listings. Some companies you call, you would think that you
>>are the first
>>and only person who has ever asked for the certificates. Surely
>>others must ask
>>for these on a regular basis? A stark contrast from the best ones
>>where they
>>know what you require and have it ready to hand.
>>Regards,
>>Duncan
>>
>>
>>Reply Separator
>>Subject:Web Sites
>>Author: "Scott Douglas" 
>>Date:   3/1/00 9:22 AM
>>
>>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>I have been traveling the internet for the past several weeks
>>tracking down
>>agency approval information for the various components we use in our
>>products. Of the more than 30 sites I have visited, one stands out
>>particularly well. It is a good example of how a well designed web site
>>could function, navigation was always clear, the information
>>complete. Well
>>almost anyway. The only thing lacking from this site is a copy of
>>the agency
>>approval certifications for the components in question. This is not an
>>advertisement for the company, but for the logic of a well done
>>site. Would
>>that many more were this well done.
>>
>>http://www.volex.com
>>
>>
>>Scott
>>s_doug...@ecrm.com
>>ECRM Incorporated
>>Tewksbury, MA  USA
>>
>>
>>
>>-
>>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> majord...@ieee.org
>>with the single line:
>> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>
>>For help, send mail to the list adminstrators:
>> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or
>> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>>For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> majord...@ieee.org
>>with the single line:
>> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>
>>For help, send mail to t

CDNs

[WOODS]

Please recommend some sources for CDNs (mains type) for use with EN
61000-4-6. We are aware of Fischer Communications. Note that cost is an
issue. Thanks.

Richard Woods

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: CB

[Dan Mitchell]

The best one I have found is at www.cbscheme.org


Daniel Mitchell
Product Safety Engineer
Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc.






pmerguer...@itl.co.il (Peter Merguerian) on 03/02/2000 08:34:28 AM

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Dan Mitchell/CondorDC)

Subject:  CB





Dear All,

Does anyone know a good sight where I can have a good explanation of the CB
Scheme? I checked the "CB" in safetylink and it does not give a good
explanation (advantages, etc.). Anyone knows of any other site on the
internet?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org







---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Technical Construction File

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

I'll  second.

I would only add that it is the Article 10.2 of the EMC Directive which
outlines the applicability of the TCF route.  Also, item 7 of Nicks
otherwise the best clarification so far should include broader scope of
applicability.  For example, if equipment integrates numerous options, TCF
streamlines testing by suggesting reduced number of selected configurations
of EUT.  How about a case when relevant standard exists but it is not useful
due to a) excessive dimensions of a EUT (consider some machinery) or b)
equipment operating conditions cannot be recreated in an EMC test lab, etc.
This dictates testing at a customer site with inevitable deviations from
required setups.

> -Original Message-
> From: John Juhasz [SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 8:46 AM
> To:   'Nick Williams'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Technical Construction File
> 
> Bravo to Nick for a clear & concise clarification . . . 
> 
> John Juhasz 
> Fiber Options 
> Bohemia, NY 
> 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Nick Williams [ ] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 6:58 AM 
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
> Subject: Re: Technical Construction File 
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be come confusion on the matter of technical files and 
> technical construction files, and referring to the text of the CE 
> mark directives, it's not difficult to see why since there is no 
> consistency in the way in which the terms are used. My understanding 
> is as follows. 
> 
> 1.With the exception of the EMC Directive, all CE mark directives 
> require the Responsible Person to compile a file of documentation 
> which demonstrates how the manufacturer justifies their claim of 
> compliance with the requirements of the relevant directive. 
> 
> 2. This collection of documentation is known variously as a Technical 
> File or a Technical Construction File. Except in the EMC Directive, 
> these terms seem to be used interchangeably to mean the same thing. 
> 
> 3. There is no provision in any directive to require that the 
> information relevant to compliance with one directive need be kept 
> separate from that for any other and therefore in most cases a 
> combined technical file which covers compliance with all directives 
> (and lots of other information) makes sense from an organisational 
> point of view. 
> 
> 4. Under the EMC Directive, a manufacturer has three options for 
> compliance. These are the Standards route, the Technical Construction 
> File route and the Type Approval route. 
> 
> 5. Under the Standards route, the manufacturer simply claims 
> compliance with the requirements of the relevant harmonised 
> standards, and thus with the requirements of the directives. While he 
> would, in most cases, be foolish to do this without having some 
> documentary evidence that tests have been completed and passed, this 
> is not mandated under the Directive. 
> 
> 6. Under the Type Approval route, the manufacturer gives the product 
> to a suitably qualified test house who test it and issue a 
> certificate of compliance. This method of complying with the 
> directive is primarily intended for communications (transmitting) 
> apparatus and therefore the new R&TTE Directive will have a major 
> bearing on much equipment which has formerly followed this route. 
> 
> 7. The Technical Construction File (TCF) route to compliance with the 
> EMC Directive is intended for use in those situations where the other 
> two routes do not apply. This will be either because the apparatus is 
> not transmitting apparatus, or because there are no appropriate 
> harmonised standards. 
> 
> 8. Under the TCF route, the manufacturer creates a justification for 
> a claim of compliance with the requirements of the EMC Directive 
> based on such factors as the location and use of the equipment, the 
> results of any tests which have been done and the requirements of any 
> standards which are relevant, if only in part. 
> 
> 9. The key point about the EMC directive's TCF is that for it to be 
> used as the basis of CE marking a product, the file must be submitted 
> to a Competent Body (a term defined in the directive and distinct 
> from a Notified Body) who must examine it and agree to the logic used 
> to justify the claim of compliance. Thus, the TCF route to complying 
> with the EMC directive is NOT a self-certification process. 
> 
> 10. To cloud the matter even further, there is a (complicated) 
> provision within the Machinery Directive which allows for a 
> manufacturer to involve a notified body in the creation and storage 
> of the Technical File for certain machinery. This really only has 
> relevance in the context of annex IV machines which require type 
> approval (etc.). I don't know of any situation where such a provision 
> has been applied, and it's a mystery to me and to several other 
> people I have spoken to about this subject as to quite wha

RE: Technical Documentation

[Stafford, Jim]

In the R&TTE, under the conformity assessment procedure for internal
production control (which is for the self declaration route)  states

"3. Where neither the manufacturer nor his authorised representative is
established within the Community, the obligation to keep the technical
documentation available is the responsibility  of the person who places the
product on the Community market" 

I interpreted this to be that the techinical documenation (not the "TCF")
needs to be in the Community.

However, conformity assessement for the "TCF" route with a notified body
states
"The manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the
Community or the person responsible for placing the apparatus on the market
must keep the file for a period ending at least 10 years after the last
apparatus has been manufactured at the dsposal of the relevant national
authorities of any Member States for inspection"

There is no condition as whether the manufacturer must reside within the
Community. I assume because the notified body is essentially maintaining it.

It appears (of course I will have to read it several more times) that  the
location of the technical documentation(whether in the form of a "formal"
tcf or a praf (courtesy of John Allen)) depends upon the confomity
assessment procedure used.

I have not gone back to the EMC or LVD directive to check this. 
I would be nice if all the directives where consistent in terminology as
well as the documentation process.

jim stafford
carrier access corp.


-Original Message-
From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 8:58 AM
To: 'Stafford, Jim'
Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Technical Documentation


Within the Medical Device Directive, 93/42/EEC,  Annex VII it states as:

"The manufacturer must prepare the technical documentation described in
Section 3 (TDF). The manufacturer or his authorized representative
established within the community must make this documentation, including the
declaration of conformity, available to the national authorities for
inspection purposes for a period ending at least five years after the last
product has been manufactured." 

It seems it can be either one. However - our Authorized Representative has
requested a copy of our technical documentation file and we obliged. 
There is also a similar requirement in Article 10 of the EMC Directive
89/336/EEC. 
Hope this helps.

-Original Message-
From: Stafford, Jim [mailto:jstaff...@carrieraccess.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 1:50 PM
To: IEEE EMC BB
Subject: RE: Techinical Documentation



a couple of questions to round out this thread.

Let me start off with definitions
TCF : document for "type" approval by competent body
Technical documentation file (TDF): manufacturer's documentation
that show conformity with essential requirements.


1) Can either of the these files mentioned above (which depends upon the
certification route) be held by a foreign manufacturer (non-EC member) or do
they need to be held
within the community by authorized representative?

2) Does this vary depending upon the directive(s) to which conformity is
being shown?


jim stafford 
carrier access corporation
jstaff...@carrieraccess.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Technical Files

[Corinne SALINGRE]

I have choosen to use the word "compliance folder" (CF) for the file where we
are keeping this kind of data. 2 reasons :
- the word is used in some laws (Australia)
- I include results from tests that are not regulatory. Examples :
  * climatic tests : not regulatory at all but part of the product
compliance
  * tests against harmonized standards when the DOW is not reached :
strictly speaking it is not regulatory testing. It will become regulatory
testing after DOW only.

Our CF are organized in 10 parts :
1) Contents ... lists the reference of all the documents included in the CF
2) EC declaration of conformity
3) Product safety features : including description of the product, safety
components, certificates,...
4) Safety declaration of conformity plus tests reports (against international
standards not only EU)
5) EMC product features
6) EMC declaration
7) Environmental tests reports
8) Follow up of product modifications
9) Telecom interfaces features
10) EC certificate (when TTE-SES applicable). Will be replaced by EC
declaration of conformity against R&TTE if applicable.

The safety and EMC declarations contains all compliances achieved by the
product. These declarations are not written for the CE marking scheme but for
commercial purposes. A restricted declaration is written according to LVD and
EMC directives (or soon R&TTE).
And of course, even if we are based in France, our CFs are all written in ...
English !

Hope that helps.

Corinne SALINGRE
CS TELECOM Approvals Manager


John Allen wrote:

> A comment to Ron in particular:
>
> I think the answer to your question is "reality" and "practicality".
>
> I came to more or less the same conclusion at least 5 years ago as we have
> so much legislation to deal with nowadays, and many of the problems and
> solutions are common.
>
> That means we need to identify, solve and record much of the same (or
> virtually the same) information for a variety of purposes - therefore why
> not use a single document structure to list and store it all.
>
> Therefore, in conjunction with Engineers here, I created a thing we call
> the "Product Regulatory Archive File"  ("PRAF") - the name of which is
> quite deliberately different from TCF, TF etc.
>
> Sounds odd, but each word has a fairly obvious meaning:
> - Product   = For a specific Product or system
> - Regulatory= Holds Regulatory information
> - Archive   = Long term storage and updating
> - File  = File (or file structure in reality).
>
> It encompasses all the requirements for all the regulations and each
> section has a very common structure.
>
> The attached document gives the structure of Sections 1 to  3 of our PRAF -
> and the remaining sections are generally clones of the LVD section but with
> somewhat different requirements and routes to compliance:
>
> This WORD 97 file is only 32kB  and is intended to be printed on A4
> Landscape paper - but the full one for the PRAF structure is much bigger
> and is in Tabular form!
>
> Nevertheless have fun and I would appreciate comments from anyone.
>
> Other versions of a similar concept would be appreciated by me (and
> probably a few other people!).
>
> John Allen
> Product & System Safety Manager
> Communications Division
> Racal Defence Electronics Ltd
> Bracknell
> UK
>
> --
> From:   WELLMAN,RON (A-PaloAlto,ex1)[SMTP:ron_well...@agilent.com]
> Sent:   01 March 2000 18:12
> To: 'bharl...@vgscientific.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:RE: Technical Files
>
> Hello Brian,
>
> Could  you please provide more information as to who is driving this?
>
> Regards,
> +=+
> |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229   |
> |Agilent Technologies |FAX   : 408-345-8630   |
> |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com|
> |Mailstop 51L-SQ  |WWW   : http://www.agilent.com |
> |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA|   |
> +=+
> | "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age   |
> |  eighteen." - Albert Einstein   |
> +=+
>
> -Original Message-
> From: bharl...@vgscientific.com [mailto:bharl...@vgscientific.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 4:07 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Technical Files
>
> Just to throw an English two pennorth into this discussion
>
> There appears to be a move in the UK towards creating a single
> technical file in which you keep the records , test results drawings
> calculations etc for every directive that your product has to comply
> with. i.e Low voltage, emc, pressure equipment etc.
>
> The object being that should the worst happen you have a nice tidy
> document to show that you have shown "due diligence" which seems
> to be what the court

RE: CB

[PGodfrey]

You may want to try www.cbscheme.org.uk

> -Original Message-
> From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [SMTP:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 11:34 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  CB
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Does anyone know a good sight where I can have a good explanation of the
> CB
> Scheme? I checked the "CB" in safetylink and it does not give a good
> explanation (advantages, etc.). Anyone knows of any other site on the
> internet?
> Peter Merguerian
> Managing Director
> Product Testing Division
> I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
> Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
> Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
> 
> Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
> e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
> website: http://www.itl.co.il 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: CB

[pahlbf]

Peter,

Try this one:

http://www.cbscheme.org/cbscom/default.htm

Cheers,
Brent





pmerguer...@itl.co.il (Peter Merguerian) on 03/02/2000 08:34:28 AM

Please respond to pmerguer...@itl.co.il (Peter Merguerian)

To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Brent F Pahl/FOS/PEC)

Subject:  CB




Dear All,

Does anyone know a good sight where I can have a good explanation of the CB
Scheme? I checked the "CB" in safetylink and it does not give a good
explanation (advantages, etc.). Anyone knows of any other site on the
internet?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org









---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

X10 (power line carrier) Questions

[Mike Campi]

Does anyone have any experience with X10 (power line carrier)?  Are there
any special considerations when performing EMC testing? In your experience,
is X10 likely to pose any special EMC problems?

Thanks,

Mike Campi
EMI Engineer
Set Engineering, Inc.
V(408) 778-6238, F(408) 778-6288
mike.ca...@setengineering.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Question on EN55024 & legacy products

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello _ I was wondering if this esteemed group could help me here:

As everyone in the ITE business knows EN55024 is soon upon us. The
questions I have are:

1) Legacy products.
I assume that - as long as no changes are made - then EXISTING
products
do not require changes to incorporate the new standards.

Question: Does it follow then if upgrades/enhancements are made
after 7/1/2001 that
modifications in the field may need to be incorporated on legacy
machines to bring
them up to spec?

2) Test Reports
Is there a "time limit" on the quality of test data? For example can
I take
test data from say 1 year ago (Radiated Immunity) and use that for a
brand new DoC with 024 listed?

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: CB

[Friedemann Adt]

See if this helps:

http://www.cbscheme.org/ 

Fred Adt
ViewSonic Corp

a...@viewsonic.com
phone (909) 444-8958

>>> Peter Merguerian  03/02/00 08:34AM >>>

Dear All,

Does anyone know a good sight where I can have a good explanation of the CB
Scheme? I checked the "CB" in safetylink and it does not give a good
explanation (advantages, etc.). Anyone knows of any other site on the
internet?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il 
website: http://www.itl.co.il 






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org 
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com 
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org 




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Schaffner 2050 system

[Bob Crofford]

I do not know about the Schaffner system but in response to your last
question, the 10/1000 Bellcore pulse is a good indication for world wide
compliance but the common mode 2/10 1000 amp pulse is also a tricky pulse to
deal with.
This basically tests your system grounding strategy and tip and ring
spacings.
I would also order this pulse module to avoid any surprises.
Regards,
Bob

-Original Message-
From: Dirk Atama [mailto:dirk_at...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 11:57 AM
To: EMC PSTC
Subject: Schaffner 2050 system



Anyone have experience with the Schaffner system 2050
(w/ PNW2054 plug-in) for use as a pre-compliance
tester for the GR-1089 10/1000uS surge?  

Schaffner promotes their system as a building block
approach to EMC compliance; I'm wondering if the
performance/price equates to a good value for a
entry-level system, ultimately growing to a full-blown
compliance system?  Or is this Rolls-Royce quality for
companies with champagne budgets?

Any other suggestions for a pre-compliance system?
We're told that passing the 10/1000uS surge is a good
indicator of success with the full NEBS GR-1089 test
program. Comments on that one, mates?

Dirk 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

-
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list adminstrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: CB

[Rich Nute]

Hi Peter:


I concur with George:  Check the CB Scheme
website:

http://www.cbscheme.org/

In particular, download the "white paper."
This paper provides a reasonable description
of the CB Scheme and its advantages.  

If this doesn't meet your needs, then I 
suggest you buy the IECEE documents mentioned
in the white paper.

You should also check the "CTL Decisions" as
this takes you to the IMQ web site which has
the CTL decisions plus other data produced by
the CTL.


Best regards,
Rich





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: EN292 - manufacturer's address

[Peter Merguerian]

Moshe,

The "manufacturer" in the sense of the Directive is not the place of
manufacture (where product is actually manufactured) but rather the company
declaring compliance with the Directive (same name and address as in the
Declaration). Therefore, one address please.



At 10:48 02/03/2000 +0200, |Moshe Valdman wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>the 292 requires the manufacturer's address (or maybe the location of
>manufacture?) to be on the product's label. My client makes his products in
>two different locations (countries), and would rather not disclose this on
>the label.
>
>Would it be OK to have just one kind of label, and not indicate the country
>of manufacture, but only the manufacturer's main address (headquarters)
>
>thanks in advance,
>Moshe
>
>
>---
>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line:
> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
>For policy questions, send mail to:
> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>
>
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: CB

[georgea]

Peter,

Go to www.cbscheme.org .  This is as good a site as any.  Basically this is
a global reciprocity scheme.  Any authorized Certification Body (CB) for a
country agress to accept the CB test Report issued by another CB, unless
of course they believe it contains an error.

The many countries (30+) and CBs are listed at this site.  SII is the CB for
Israel.   The CB Report is not an automatic license for any country, but will
normally result in a country license without further testing.  The trick is to
make
sure the issuing body tests to IEC 60950 plus all listed country differences.
This avoids additional testing for things like the Australia dc ground current
limitation.

George Alspaugh




pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/02/2000 11:34:28 AM

Please respond to pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com

To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  CB



Dear All,

Does anyone know a good sight where I can have a good explanation of the CB
Scheme? I checked the "CB" in safetylink and it does not give a good
explanation (advantages, etc.). Anyone knows of any other site on the
internet?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Technical Construction File

[John Juhasz]

Bravo to Nick for a clear & concise clarification . . . 

John Juhasz
Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY


-Original Message-
From: Nick Williams [mailto:n...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 6:58 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Technical Construction File



There seems to be come confusion on the matter of technical files and 
technical construction files, and referring to the text of the CE 
mark directives, it's not difficult to see why since there is no 
consistency in the way in which the terms are used. My understanding 
is as follows.

1.With the exception of the EMC Directive, all CE mark directives 
require the Responsible Person to compile a file of documentation 
which demonstrates how the manufacturer justifies their claim of 
compliance with the requirements of the relevant directive.

2. This collection of documentation is known variously as a Technical 
File or a Technical Construction File. Except in the EMC Directive, 
these terms seem to be used interchangeably to mean the same thing.

3. There is no provision in any directive to require that the 
information relevant to compliance with one directive need be kept 
separate from that for any other and therefore in most cases a 
combined technical file which covers compliance with all directives 
(and lots of other information) makes sense from an organisational 
point of view.

4. Under the EMC Directive, a manufacturer has three options for 
compliance. These are the Standards route, the Technical Construction 
File route and the Type Approval route.

5. Under the Standards route, the manufacturer simply claims 
compliance with the requirements of the relevant harmonised 
standards, and thus with the requirements of the directives. While he 
would, in most cases, be foolish to do this without having some 
documentary evidence that tests have been completed and passed, this 
is not mandated under the Directive.

6. Under the Type Approval route, the manufacturer gives the product 
to a suitably qualified test house who test it and issue a 
certificate of compliance. This method of complying with the 
directive is primarily intended for communications (transmitting) 
apparatus and therefore the new R&TTE Directive will have a major 
bearing on much equipment which has formerly followed this route.

7. The Technical Construction File (TCF) route to compliance with the 
EMC Directive is intended for use in those situations where the other 
two routes do not apply. This will be either because the apparatus is 
not transmitting apparatus, or because there are no appropriate 
harmonised standards.

8. Under the TCF route, the manufacturer creates a justification for 
a claim of compliance with the requirements of the EMC Directive 
based on such factors as the location and use of the equipment, the 
results of any tests which have been done and the requirements of any 
standards which are relevant, if only in part.

9. The key point about the EMC directive's TCF is that for it to be 
used as the basis of CE marking a product, the file must be submitted 
to a Competent Body (a term defined in the directive and distinct 
from a Notified Body) who must examine it and agree to the logic used 
to justify the claim of compliance. Thus, the TCF route to complying 
with the EMC directive is NOT a self-certification process.

10. To cloud the matter even further, there is a (complicated) 
provision within the Machinery Directive which allows for a 
manufacturer to involve a notified body in the creation and storage 
of the Technical File for certain machinery. This really only has 
relevance in the context of annex IV machines which require type 
approval (etc.). I don't know of any situation where such a provision 
has been applied, and it's a mystery to me and to several other 
people I have spoken to about this subject as to quite what the 
Commssion was thinking when it drafted this section of the directive.

As I mentioned at the beginning, the EC have done us no favours in 
being muddled about the terminology they apply in the different 
directives, but it is important to understand that the TCF specified 
under the EMC Directive has a quite distinct and different legal 
status to the technical documentation requirements of the other 
directives.

Hope that helps!

Nick.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

CB

[Peter Merguerian]

Dear All,

Does anyone know a good sight where I can have a good explanation of the CB
Scheme? I checked the "CB" in safetylink and it does not give a good
explanation (advantages, etc.). Anyone knows of any other site on the
internet?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Technical Documentation

[Dick Grobner]

Within the Medical Device Directive, 93/42/EEC,  Annex VII it states as:

"The manufacturer must prepare the technical documentation described in
Section 3 (TDF). The manufacturer or his authorized representative
established within the community must make this documentation, including the
declaration of conformity, available to the national authorities for
inspection purposes for a period ending at least five years after the last
product has been manufactured." 

It seems it can be either one. However - our Authorized Representative has
requested a copy of our technical documentation file and we obliged. 
There is also a similar requirement in Article 10 of the EMC Directive
89/336/EEC. 
Hope this helps.

-Original Message-
From: Stafford, Jim [mailto:jstaff...@carrieraccess.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 1:50 PM
To: IEEE EMC BB
Subject: RE: Techinical Documentation



a couple of questions to round out this thread.

Let me start off with definitions
TCF : document for "type" approval by competent body
Technical documentation file (TDF): manufacturer's documentation
that show conformity with essential requirements.


1) Can either of the these files mentioned above (which depends upon the
certification route) be held by a foreign manufacturer (non-EC member) or do
they need to be held
within the community by authorized representative?

2) Does this vary depending upon the directive(s) to which conformity is
being shown?


jim stafford 
carrier access corporation
jstaff...@carrieraccess.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Technical Construction File

[georgea]

There is an alternative to TCFs that can be far simpler for certain products
and manufacturers.  This is a self Declaration of Conformity to harmonized
standards.   It is a single page to be kept available within the European
Community if requested.

The "proof" of conformity, virtually never requested, can be:

1.  A CB Test Report declaring conformity to IEC 60950, which fulfills the LVD.
 Of course, EU country differences must be included.

2.  A complete set of EMC test data to the applicable EN standards to fulfill
 the EMC Directive.

We routinely obtain these work products for a number of reasons.  They are
adequate to make a self-declaration as allowed under the CE marking
Directive.  I cannot recall any country asking for copies of these, although
they
can be provided within a few days (air express) if necessary.

Regards,

George Alspaugh
Lexmark International Inc.



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5

[Lacey,Scott]

Jim,
You do in fact have a potential ground connection - at the phone line. In
the static (on-hook) state you will have -48 Vdc, referenced to earth. If
you look at your home phone service you will see a wire running to a cold
water pipe, with a tag that says something like "Telephone Company Ground -
Do Not Remove". PBX systems at work will be different. I have little
knowledge of whether they ground or not. I have learned the hard way to look
for these non-obvious ground connections.

Best wishes,

Scott Lacey

-Original Message-
From:   Jim Hulbert [SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com]
Sent:   Thursday, March 02, 2000 8:52 AM
To: Lacey,Scott; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5




Scott,

The product I'm currently looking at uses a 2 -prong AC mains plug.
Actually
the supply is small direct plug-in type with DC leads that connect
to the
product.  The product itself is encased in plastic and the only
other connection
is through an internal modem board to a standard analog telephone
line.  The
connection to the phone line is a simple 2-wire (tip and ring)
configuration.
As I see it, surge tests with reference to earth ground are
pointless.

Others have pointed out that an "ungrounded" product may in the real
world
actually have a reference to ground depending on how it is installed
or what
other equipment it is connected to.   That is a good point which I
hadn't
thought about.  However, I don't think that in my particular
situation that's
that case.

Thanks to all who responded with their opinions.

Jim





"Lacey,Scott"  on 03/01/2000 01:31:46 PM

Please respond to "Lacey,Scott" 

To:   "'Jim Hulbert'" 
cc:   "'emc-p...@ieee.org'"  (bcc: Jim
Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI)

Subject:  RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5





Jim,
I'm not quite sure from the description what your product looks
like, but,
here are a few things to keep in mind. If you use a 3-prong ac mains
plug
you absolutely should do the line-to-ground test. If you use a
2-prong ac
mains plug you still might want to perform the test anyway,
depending on how
your product is used. For example, if your plastic housing may be
DIN rail
mounted or screwed to a wall, you may have a leakage or arc path to
earth.
Your customer may have deliberately grounded the DIN rail to satisfy
the
requirements of other vendor's equipment already mounted. Even if it
only
gets screwed to a plasterboard wall, it still may get grounded by
accident.
I have seen two such scenarios over the years. In the first instance
one
mounting screw went through the wallboard and touched the grounded
sheath of
a BX cable in an older building. In the second instance a screw
penetrated a
metal stud used to frame the wall. An outlet box was attached to
another
stud. Bingo - instant ground.

I'm sure there are many who will disagree with me, but we test
products not
only to conform to a standard, but also to ensure a more robust
product. I
want to find any vulnerability first, before the product gets to a
customer.
Customers tend to get VERY angry when their new product "hiccups",
and the
nasty stuff tends to flow downhill real fast when their CEO calls
yours.

Scott Lacey

 -Original Message-
 From: Jim Hulbert [SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 10:32 AM
 To:  emc-p...@ieee.org
 Subject:  Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5




 Colleagues,

 EN 55024 calls for surge pulses to be applied line-to-line and
line-to-earth on
 the AC mains port and line-to-ground on signal and
telecommunications ports that
 connect directly to outdoor cables.   However, if my EUT is
encased
in plastic
 covers and has no direct earth ground connection (class 2 power
supply), is the
 line-to-line test on the AC mains the only surge test that I
need to
apply?   It
 seems to me that performing a line-to-earth test on either the
AC
mains port or
 on signal/telecommunications ports is not warranted since the
basic
standard EN
 61000-4-5 does not specify placing the EUT over a reference
ground
plane.   With
 no reference ground plane and no direct ground connection how
can a
test be
 applied with respect to ground?

 Jim Hulbert
 Pitney Bowes



 -
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Re: Technical Construction File

[Nick Williams]

There seems to be come confusion on the matter of technical files and 
technical construction files, and referring to the text of the CE 
mark directives, it's not difficult to see why since there is no 
consistency in the way in which the terms are used. My understanding 
is as follows.


1.With the exception of the EMC Directive, all CE mark directives 
require the Responsible Person to compile a file of documentation 
which demonstrates how the manufacturer justifies their claim of 
compliance with the requirements of the relevant directive.


2. This collection of documentation is known variously as a Technical 
File or a Technical Construction File. Except in the EMC Directive, 
these terms seem to be used interchangeably to mean the same thing.


3. There is no provision in any directive to require that the 
information relevant to compliance with one directive need be kept 
separate from that for any other and therefore in most cases a 
combined technical file which covers compliance with all directives 
(and lots of other information) makes sense from an organisational 
point of view.


4. Under the EMC Directive, a manufacturer has three options for 
compliance. These are the Standards route, the Technical Construction 
File route and the Type Approval route.


5. Under the Standards route, the manufacturer simply claims 
compliance with the requirements of the relevant harmonised 
standards, and thus with the requirements of the directives. While he 
would, in most cases, be foolish to do this without having some 
documentary evidence that tests have been completed and passed, this 
is not mandated under the Directive.


6. Under the Type Approval route, the manufacturer gives the product 
to a suitably qualified test house who test it and issue a 
certificate of compliance. This method of complying with the 
directive is primarily intended for communications (transmitting) 
apparatus and therefore the new R&TTE Directive will have a major 
bearing on much equipment which has formerly followed this route.


7. The Technical Construction File (TCF) route to compliance with the 
EMC Directive is intended for use in those situations where the other 
two routes do not apply. This will be either because the apparatus is 
not transmitting apparatus, or because there are no appropriate 
harmonised standards.


8. Under the TCF route, the manufacturer creates a justification for 
a claim of compliance with the requirements of the EMC Directive 
based on such factors as the location and use of the equipment, the 
results of any tests which have been done and the requirements of any 
standards which are relevant, if only in part.


9. The key point about the EMC directive's TCF is that for it to be 
used as the basis of CE marking a product, the file must be submitted 
to a Competent Body (a term defined in the directive and distinct 
from a Notified Body) who must examine it and agree to the logic used 
to justify the claim of compliance. Thus, the TCF route to complying 
with the EMC directive is NOT a self-certification process.


10. To cloud the matter even further, there is a (complicated) 
provision within the Machinery Directive which allows for a 
manufacturer to involve a notified body in the creation and storage 
of the Technical File for certain machinery. This really only has 
relevance in the context of annex IV machines which require type 
approval (etc.). I don't know of any situation where such a provision 
has been applied, and it's a mystery to me and to several other 
people I have spoken to about this subject as to quite what the 
Commssion was thinking when it drafted this section of the directive.


As I mentioned at the beginning, the EC have done us no favours in 
being muddled about the terminology they apply in the different 
directives, but it is important to understand that the TCF specified 
under the EMC Directive has a quite distinct and different legal 
status to the technical documentation requirements of the other 
directives.


Hope that helps!

Nick.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5

[Jim Hulbert]

Scott,

The product I'm currently looking at uses a 2 -prong AC mains plug.  Actually
the supply is small direct plug-in type with DC leads that connect to the
product.  The product itself is encased in plastic and the only other connection
is through an internal modem board to a standard analog telephone line.  The
connection to the phone line is a simple 2-wire (tip and ring) configuration.
As I see it, surge tests with reference to earth ground are pointless.

Others have pointed out that an "ungrounded" product may in the real world
actually have a reference to ground depending on how it is installed or what
other equipment it is connected to.   That is a good point which I hadn't
thought about.  However, I don't think that in my particular situation that's
that case.

Thanks to all who responded with their opinions.

Jim





"Lacey,Scott"  on 03/01/2000 01:31:46 PM

Please respond to "Lacey,Scott" 

To:   "'Jim Hulbert'" 
cc:   "'emc-p...@ieee.org'"  (bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI)

Subject:  RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5





Jim,
I'm not quite sure from the description what your product looks like, but,
here are a few things to keep in mind. If you use a 3-prong ac mains plug
you absolutely should do the line-to-ground test. If you use a 2-prong ac
mains plug you still might want to perform the test anyway, depending on how
your product is used. For example, if your plastic housing may be DIN rail
mounted or screwed to a wall, you may have a leakage or arc path to earth.
Your customer may have deliberately grounded the DIN rail to satisfy the
requirements of other vendor's equipment already mounted. Even if it only
gets screwed to a plasterboard wall, it still may get grounded by accident.
I have seen two such scenarios over the years. In the first instance one
mounting screw went through the wallboard and touched the grounded sheath of
a BX cable in an older building. In the second instance a screw penetrated a
metal stud used to frame the wall. An outlet box was attached to another
stud. Bingo - instant ground.

I'm sure there are many who will disagree with me, but we test products not
only to conform to a standard, but also to ensure a more robust product. I
want to find any vulnerability first, before the product gets to a customer.
Customers tend to get VERY angry when their new product "hiccups", and the
nasty stuff tends to flow downhill real fast when their CEO calls yours.

Scott Lacey

 -Original Message-
 From: Jim Hulbert [SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 10:32 AM
 To:  emc-p...@ieee.org
 Subject:  Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5




 Colleagues,

 EN 55024 calls for surge pulses to be applied line-to-line and
line-to-earth on
 the AC mains port and line-to-ground on signal and
telecommunications ports that
 connect directly to outdoor cables.   However, if my EUT is encased
in plastic
 covers and has no direct earth ground connection (class 2 power
supply), is the
 line-to-line test on the AC mains the only surge test that I need to
apply?   It
 seems to me that performing a line-to-earth test on either the AC
mains port or
 on signal/telecommunications ports is not warranted since the basic
standard EN
 61000-4-5 does not specify placing the EUT over a reference ground
plane.   With
 no reference ground plane and no direct ground connection how can a
test be
 applied with respect to ground?

 Jim Hulbert
 Pitney Bowes



 -
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list adminstrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org









---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@g

RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5

[Lacey,Scott]

Chris,
In the case you mention, setting the CD player in its normal position on a
grounded steel plate should do. The unit may end up sitting on a steel shelf
unit along with other equipment with grounded chassis. I used such a setup
at home for years.

Scott Lacey

-Original Message-
From:   Colgan, Chris [SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent:   Thursday, March 02, 2000 4:41 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5


Let's say I'm testing a Class II double insulated CD player - no
reference
to earth.  If the product were stand alone, line to earth testing
would be
pointless, at least as I see it.

It is conceivable that the CD player could be connected to a Class
I,
earthed amplifier.  Through the interconnects, the chassis of the CD
player
could become grounded (there would probably horrendous hum problems
but
that's another story).

Line to earth tests are now valid but how would I set this up in the
lab?  A
lead from the CD player chassis to the nearest socket outlet earth?
A lead
to the chassis of my Keytek surge tester?  A thin lead, a thick
lead?  I
guess the test should be representative of the real world and
repeatable.

Any suggestions?

Regards

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
 


> -Original Message-
> From: Mike  Hopkins [SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com]
> Sent: 01 March 2000 18:32
> To:   'Jim Hulbert'; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5
> 
> 
> As long as there is no other path to ground, a line to line test
would be
> all thats required, but keep in mind, if you have other I/O,
telecom,
> control lines, or anything else coming out of that plastic box,
you then
> have a potential path back to ground, and in fact, will likely
have REAL
> ground connections. For example, many television sets have two
wire power
> plugs, are in plastic cases, but if you have cable tv, the odds
are that
> coax cable is grounded.  Same thing applies if there is a telecom
line
> involved -- very likely one of the telecom lines is ground. ..

> 
>  Mike Hopkins
> mhopk...@keytek.com
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Jim Hulbert [SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, March 01, 2000 10:32 AM
> > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Colleagues,
> > 
> > EN 55024 calls for surge pulses to be applied line-to-line and
> > line-to-earth on
> > the AC mains port and line-to-ground on signal and
telecommunications
> > ports that
> > connect directly to outdoor cables.   However, if my EUT is
encased in
> > plastic
> > covers and has no direct earth ground connection (class 2 power
supply),
> > is the
> > line-to-line test on the AC mains the only surge test that I
need to
> > apply?   It
> > seems to me that performing a line-to-earth test on either the
AC mains
> > port or
> > on signal/telecommunications ports is not warranted since the
basic
> > standard EN
> > 61000-4-5 does not specify placing the EUT over a reference
ground
> plane.
> > With
> > no reference ground plane and no direct ground connection how
can a test
> > be
> > applied with respect to ground?
> > 
> > Jim Hulbert
> > Pitney Bowes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> > 
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> >  majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line:
> >  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> > 
> > For help, send mail to the list adminstrators:
> >  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or
> >  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> > For policy questions, send mail to:
> >  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> > 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the 

RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5

[John Allen]

Chris

A comment, which is probably representative of many audio systems (although 
I do appreciate that your company makes fairly "high end" equipment!).

My Yamaha AV tuner amp (RX-V592RDS) is Class II, as is most of the rest of 
the audio system, but the user manual states that it may be necessary to 
ground the chassis for noise reduction purposes and provides a terminal on 
the back for the purpose. I assume that this can be the star point for both 
the external and the internal earthing since it states nothing to the 
contrary.

There werer certainly noticeable successive reductions in hum/noise on the 
phono input when, very recently, I earthed first the metal chassis of the 
(very old!) turntable to the star point, and then connected the star point 
to a the earth of a spare socket in the mains distribution block.

Both of the above connections would be representative of what most people 
would do - I do'nt think many would star the earths at the 
mains-distribution block first as this could actually increase hum/noise 
problems due to increasing the size of the earth loops.

Both earths were small diameter (0.5/0.75 sq mm or 20/18 AWG) and I would 
not expect anyone to use anything much larger unless specified in the 
installation instructions.

The length of the turntable wire is about 2m and it is incorporated as a 
drain wire in the twin phono lead. The length of the wire from the star 
point is only some 0.5m as that is the actual distance required.

I think these numbers will vary according to the needs to the actual user - 
OR according to what you state in the installation instructions!

Maybe you need to consider real-life situations, make some tests and then 
specify the actual installation cabling requirements or options in the 
instructions. Then YOU will have more control of the situation and the 
pass/fail criteria.

Regards

John Allen
Racal
--
From:   Colgan, Chris[SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent:   02 March 2000 09:40
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5


Let's say I'm testing a Class II double insulated CD player - no reference
to earth.  If the product were stand alone, line to earth testing would be
pointless, at least as I see it.

It is conceivable that the CD player could be connected to a Class I,
earthed amplifier.  Through the interconnects, the chassis of the CD player
could become grounded (there would probably horrendous hum problems but
that's another story).

Line to earth tests are now valid but how would I set this up in the lab? 
 A
lead from the CD player chassis to the nearest socket outlet earth?  A lead
to the chassis of my Keytek surge tester?  A thin lead, a thick lead?  I
guess the test should be representative of the real world and repeatable.

Any suggestions?

Regards

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com



> -Original Message-
> From: Mike  Hopkins [SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com]
> Sent: 01 March 2000 18:32
> To:   'Jim Hulbert'; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5
>
>
> As long as there is no other path to ground, a line to line test would be
> all thats required, but keep in mind, if you have other I/O, telecom,
> control lines, or anything else coming out of that plastic box, you then
> have a potential path back to ground, and in fact, will likely have REAL
> ground connections. For example, many television sets have two wire power
> plugs, are in plastic cases, but if you have cable tv, the odds are that
> coax cable is grounded.  Same thing applies if there is a telecom line
> involved -- very likely one of the telecom lines is ground. ..
>
>  Mike Hopkins
> mhopk...@keytek.com
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Jim Hulbert [SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, March 01, 2000 10:32 AM
> > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > EN 55024 calls for surge pulses to be applied line-to-line and
> > line-to-earth on
> > the AC mains port and line-to-ground on signal and telecommunications
> > ports that
> > connect directly to outdoor cables.   However, if my EUT is encased in
> > plastic
> > covers and has no direct earth ground connection (class 2 power 
supply),
> > is the
> > line-to-line test on the AC mains the only surge test that I need to
> > apply?   It
> > seems to me that performing a line-to-earth test on either the AC mains
> > port or
> > on signal/telecommunications ports is not warranted since the basic
> > standard EN
> > 61000-4-5 does not specify placing the EUT over a reference ground
> plane.
> > With
> > no reference ground plane and no direct ground connection how can a 
test
> > be
> > applied with respect to ground?
> >
> > Jim Hulbert
> > Pitney Bowes
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> > Technical Committe

Re:Web Sites

[duncan . hobbs]

Scott and group,
I agree this is a well thought out site. I'm doing a similar exercise at the
moment and trying to get hold of all of the approval certificates for components
within one of our products. This can be hard work owing to the variation in the
quality and quantity of information available.

One site that I believe stands out above all others is www.wickmannusa.com.
Again this is not an advert for the company but for the common sense layout of
the site, and... get this
ON LINE APPROVAL CERTIFICATES! (downloadable in PDF form)

Its interesting how the ease of obtaining these certificates varies. Some
companies you call know exactly what you mean and send the details stright away,
whereas others are clueless or send you copies of their ISO9000 certificate of
approval or technical specs. One manufacturer of removable storage devices I
recently contatcted has even refered my request to its head office as the lady I
spoke to didn't know what I was asking for and believed that safety related
documentation was 'company confidential' 
Another one of my annoyances is manufacturers who quote 'flame retarded to
UL94-V0' Is it listed? sometimes it is sometimes it is not so why dont they say
either 'UL listed Exx or 'manufactured from UL94-V0 material Exx' or
manufactured from non UL listed material that has passed a UL94-V0 test'

The point I am trying to make is that I wish that all suppliers/manufacturers
were as good as the best ones and have an organised system for retaining and
issuing these certificates and give clear and concise information on approvals
and listings. Some companies you call, you would think that you are the first
and only person who has ever asked for the certificates. Surely others must ask
for these on a regular basis? A stark contrast from the best ones where they
know what you require and have it ready to hand.
Regards,
Duncan


Reply Separator
Subject:Web Sites 
Author: "Scott Douglas" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   3/1/00 9:22 AM


Hello All,

I have been traveling the internet for the past several weeks tracking down
agency approval information for the various components we use in our
products. Of the more than 30 sites I have visited, one stands out
particularly well. It is a good example of how a well designed web site
could function, navigation was always clear, the information complete. Well
almost anyway. The only thing lacking from this site is a copy of the agency
approval certifications for the components in question. This is not an
advertisement for the company, but for the logic of a well done site. Would
that many more were this well done.

http://www.volex.com


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



-
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list adminstrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Technical Files

[John Allen]

A comment to Ron in particular:

I think the answer to your question is "reality" and "practicality".

I came to more or less the same conclusion at least 5 years ago as we have 
so much legislation to deal with nowadays, and many of the problems and 
solutions are common.

That means we need to identify, solve and record much of the same (or 
virtually the same) information for a variety of purposes - therefore why 
not use a single document structure to list and store it all.

Therefore, in conjunction with Engineers here, I created a thing we call 
the "Product Regulatory Archive File"  ("PRAF") - the name of which is 
quite deliberately different from TCF, TF etc.

Sounds odd, but each word has a fairly obvious meaning:
- Product   = For a specific Product or system
- Regulatory= Holds Regulatory information
- Archive   = Long term storage and updating
- File  = File (or file structure in reality).

It encompasses all the requirements for all the regulations and each 
section has a very common structure.

The attached document gives the structure of Sections 1 to  3 of our PRAF - 
and the remaining sections are generally clones of the LVD section but with 
somewhat different requirements and routes to compliance:
 
This WORD 97 file is only 32kB  and is intended to be printed on A4 
Landscape paper - but the full one for the PRAF structure is much bigger 
and is in Tabular form!

Nevertheless have fun and I would appreciate comments from anyone.

Other versions of a similar concept would be appreciated by me (and 
probably a few other people!).

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





--
From:   WELLMAN,RON (A-PaloAlto,ex1)[SMTP:ron_well...@agilent.com]
Sent:   01 March 2000 18:12
To: 'bharl...@vgscientific.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Technical Files


Hello Brian,

Could  you please provide more information as to who is driving this?

Regards,
+=+
|Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229   |
|Agilent Technologies |FAX   : 408-345-8630   |
|5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com|
|Mailstop 51L-SQ  |WWW   : http://www.agilent.com |
|Santa Clara, California 95052 USA|   |
+=+
| "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age   |
|  eighteen." - Albert Einstein   |
+=+


-Original Message-
From: bharl...@vgscientific.com [mailto:bharl...@vgscientific.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 4:07 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Technical Files




Just to throw an English two pennorth into this discussion

There appears to be a move in the UK towards creating a single
technical file in which you keep the records , test results drawings
calculations etc for every directive that your product has to comply
with. i.e Low voltage, emc, pressure equipment etc.

The object being that should the worst happen you have a nice tidy
document to show that you have shown "due diligence" which seems
to be what the courts will be looking for.

As other correspondents have stated this does not apply if you have
chosen the TCF route for emc compliance

Regards

Brian Harlowe

-
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list adminstrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


RCIC email.doc
Description: MS-Word document

RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5

[Colgan, Chris]

Let's say I'm testing a Class II double insulated CD player - no reference
to earth.  If the product were stand alone, line to earth testing would be
pointless, at least as I see it.

It is conceivable that the CD player could be connected to a Class I,
earthed amplifier.  Through the interconnects, the chassis of the CD player
could become grounded (there would probably horrendous hum problems but
that's another story).

Line to earth tests are now valid but how would I set this up in the lab?  A
lead from the CD player chassis to the nearest socket outlet earth?  A lead
to the chassis of my Keytek surge tester?  A thin lead, a thick lead?  I
guess the test should be representative of the real world and repeatable.

Any suggestions?

Regards

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
 


> -Original Message-
> From: Mike  Hopkins [SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com]
> Sent: 01 March 2000 18:32
> To:   'Jim Hulbert'; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5
> 
> 
> As long as there is no other path to ground, a line to line test would be
> all thats required, but keep in mind, if you have other I/O, telecom,
> control lines, or anything else coming out of that plastic box, you then
> have a potential path back to ground, and in fact, will likely have REAL
> ground connections. For example, many television sets have two wire power
> plugs, are in plastic cases, but if you have cable tv, the odds are that
> coax cable is grounded.  Same thing applies if there is a telecom line
> involved -- very likely one of the telecom lines is ground. ..   
> 
>  Mike Hopkins
> mhopk...@keytek.com
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Jim Hulbert [SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, March 01, 2000 10:32 AM
> > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:Surge Testing per EN 55024/EN61000-4-5
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Colleagues,
> > 
> > EN 55024 calls for surge pulses to be applied line-to-line and
> > line-to-earth on
> > the AC mains port and line-to-ground on signal and telecommunications
> > ports that
> > connect directly to outdoor cables.   However, if my EUT is encased in
> > plastic
> > covers and has no direct earth ground connection (class 2 power supply),
> > is the
> > line-to-line test on the AC mains the only surge test that I need to
> > apply?   It
> > seems to me that performing a line-to-earth test on either the AC mains
> > port or
> > on signal/telecommunications ports is not warranted since the basic
> > standard EN
> > 61000-4-5 does not specify placing the EUT over a reference ground
> plane.
> > With
> > no reference ground plane and no direct ground connection how can a test
> > be
> > applied with respect to ground?
> > 
> > Jim Hulbert
> > Pitney Bowes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> > 
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> >  majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line:
> >  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> > 
> > For help, send mail to the list adminstrators:
> >  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or
> >  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> > For policy questions, send mail to:
> >  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> > 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 
=
Authorised on 03/02/00 at 09:41:53; code 37f48bf3735420B5.


**
The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the 
intended recipient.
If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system 
immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not 
copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.

TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)
**

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.m

EN292 - manufacturer's address

[|Moshe Valdman]

Hello,

the 292 requires the manufacturer's address (or maybe the location of
manufacture?) to be on the product's label. My client makes his products in
two different locations (countries), and would rather not disclose this on
the label.

Would it be OK to have just one kind of label, and not indicate the country
of manufacture, but only the manufacturer's main address (headquarters)

thanks in advance,
Moshe


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Searching for a Design for EMC email list

[Alan E Hutley]

Hello Jose
We are just about to publish a CD ROM which contains a series of
six articles by Keith Armstrong entitled Design Techniques for
EMC.  The CD is free.  Information on how to obtain will be
posted on our web site very shortly www.emc-journal.co.uk.

You will probably find it very useful.

Alan E Hutley
EMC+Compliance Journal

- Original Message -
From: "Jose Rodriguez" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 09:45
Subject: Searching for a Design for EMC email list


>
> Hi all,
>
>   I understand that this Forum was founded to discuss product
safety issues.  And also discussed are product EMC and other
product regulatory issues.
>
>   I am trying to find an email list forum that deals with
product design issues as related to EMC.
>
>   For example:
>   Discussions about available CAD software for EM radiation of
PCBs.
>   Comments on validity of "rules of thumb" and when they can be
applied to reduce EM radiation and susceptibility.
>   PCB design for EMC.
>  etc, etc etc
>
>   Could you direct me to such an email list? (the closest I
have found is the Signal Integrity at
"si-l...@silab.eng.sun.com", but it mainly deals with SI issues).
>
>   Best Regards,
>
> Jose
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Searching for a Design for EMC email list

[ChasGrasso]

Hello - As Robert Macy has already mentioned EMI design
articles are available on the RockyMountain Chapter Website.

Please click on archives and feel free to dig around for downloadable
files.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Conducted Emissions Testing for CNS13438 Class B

[Mike Kuo]

Hi Angus :

At the end of last year, BSMI has made the following decision :

For Class B device, if the power is rated between 100V- 250V, the test
voltage will be 110V/60Hz.  You do not need to test 220V/60Hz.

For Class A device, if the power is rated between 100V- 250V, the test
voltage will be 110V/60Hz AND 220V/60Hz.

=
Mike Kuo
Compliance Certification Services
1366 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale Ca 94089
Tel: (408)752-8166 x:105
Fax:(408)752-8168
mike...@ccsemc.com
http://www.ccsemc.com


-Original Message-
From: Angus McGill (Cascade Engineering Svcs, Inc.)
[mailto:v-ang...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 2:38 PM
To: EMC PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: Conducted Emissions Testing for CNS13438 Class B



Hi everyone:

Does Taiwan's CNS13438 Class B approval require both 115V and 235V
conducted
emissions tests?

Thanks,
Angus McGill
Regulatory Engineer
Cascade Engineering Services, Inc.



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org