Outlook Users / Security
This is not on topic, but as the list has been affected by this, I wanted to let people know about the fix. Below is Hot off the presses from Microsoft (note this is just the key part of an e-mail I just received today from Microsoft). -- Top Insider Stories: OUTLOOK EMAIL SECURITY UPDATE Microsoft(r) Insider resources: ~~ WHAT'S NEW ~~ _ WIPE OUT EMAIL VIRUSES WITH NEW SECURITY UPDATE FOR OUTLOOK Download the Outlook(r) 98/2000 SR-1 Email Security Update today. This free* update provides protection from most viruses, such as the recent ILOVEYOU and Melissa viruses, as well as other viruses that spread themselves through email, or worm viruses that can replicate through Outlook. http://www.microsoft.com/insider/mi/pfoutsec.htm _ Jim Jim Bacher, Senior Engineer Paxar - Monarch email:jim_bac...@monarch.com voice:1-937-865-2020 fax:1-937-865-2048 --- 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: Fuses and isolators for TNV circuits
forwarding for jay_johansme...@3com.com Reply Separator Subject:Re: Fuses and isolators for TNV circuits Author: jay_johansme...@3com.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 6/29/00 8:18 AM Hi Chris, Why not use a re-settable fuse instead of having one that trips an LED? Do you need the full 5kV isolation? No. The test is a non-functional, so you only need to be concerned with damaging the cheesecloth via flame and/or expulsion. Lastly, all your protection circuitry will remain in-place for testing. Regards, Jay Johansmeier Regulatory Engineer 3Com Corporation Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com on 06/28/2000 12:40:22 PM Please respond to Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com Sent by: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(Jay Johansmeier/MW/US/3Com) Subject: Fuses and isolators for TNV circuits Hi all, I'm designing a new telephone reset circuit for one of our products. This time around, I'm trying to meet the telcom requirements of UL 1459, UL 1950, GR1089-CORE and FCC Part 68 as well as the EMC requirements of EN 61326-1. I have gone through a document provided by Teccor which provides a summary of the telecom requirements. (by the way, this is an excellent reference available from the site: searchpdf.adobe.com/proxies/1/68/46/48.html. ) Long and short of it is:My basic circuit consists of a phone jack with tip and ring routed to an optoisolator which fires a reset circuit after a certain number of rings. Fuses help to meet some of the power cross and max current draw requirements. However, if fuses are used, there should be some means for a customer to know that the fuse has blown. This is easy for a phone or a modem; because, if the fuse is blown, the phone or modem won't work. For my product, it will keep on running just fine after blowing a tip or ring fuse in its reset circuit. The customer may not know until months later when they call the unit to remotely reset it only to find that it won't reset. Somehow this doesn't seem acceptable. I know of certain types of fuses that I call GMT or grasshopper fuses that can trip an alarm when they blow. In this case, the fuse holds a relay contact bent into an open position. When the fuse burns, the contact springs over to its closed position setting off an alarm circuit. Does anyone know of a particular brand or style of GMT or grasshopper fuses approved for TNV circuits? With regard to isolators: According to GR-1089, my circuit will be required to pass a 5KV surge non-operationally. I'm worried about the optoisolator that I'm looking at. They specify 8mm spacing, but only specify 4500V dielectric strength. Do I need a full 5KV dielectric strength? If I use sidactors to protect these devices, will they be removed or cut during the GR-1089 surge test? Any words of wisdom? Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.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
Fwd: RCD's for european use
forwarded for phsmith_new...@excite.co.uk Reply Separator Subject:RCD's for european use Author: phsmith_new...@excite.co.uk List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 6/29/00 8:23 AM Does anybody know offhand what the relevent specfications are for approving an RCD, (domestic and 'industrial') Thanks Paul --- 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
FW: South Africa accept CB.. ?
Greetings to all, Here's a copy of Lizette's email response to me regarding SABS compliance. I found it to be very helpful. It might help others as well. Enjoy, George -Original Message- From: Lizette de Vries-Venter [mailto:dvve...@sabs.co.za] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 2:15 AM To: george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Subject: RE: South Africa accept CB.. ? Dear George SABS certificatation is not mandatory, BUT our legislation requires that you must be able to produce a test report to proof compliance with the safety requirements. You also need a letter from the SABS stating that the test report is acceptable as proof of compliance. The SABS is part of CB, and a company from the USA will need to submit the CB certificate with the report to the SABS to obtain this letter. The letter is obtained from our Regulatory Department Contact Mr Wimpie Lyons (Manager) at Tel: +27 12 428 6480 or Fax: +27 12 344 1568 or e-mail: lyon...@sabs.co.za mailto:lyon...@sabs.co.za . The EMI reports and certificates are also evaluated by the SABS and then we issue a SA certificate on behalf of the regultory authority SATRA. Contact Mr Ben Kruger at tel: +27 12 428 6677 or +27 12 428 6523 (fax) or e-mail krug...@sabs.co.za mailto:krug...@sabs.co.za for further information and cost details. The certitfication can be done from your own country, it is sometimes just easier to have a local contact person, but it is not required. Regards, Lizette de Vries-Venter EXPLOSION PREVENTION TECHNOLOGY SABS Tel: +27 12 428 6990 Fax: +27 12 428 6854 E-mail: dvve...@sabs.co mailto:dvve...@sabs.co .za
Re: Adjacent Channel Power Measuring Equipment
Paul: Tektronix has a good application note covering measurement of adjacent channel power. I am not sure but I don't think the 8566B can be triggered to perform such measurements, I've been away from the field a little too long . Tek markets the Rhode and Schwartz products and most modern spectrum analyzers have that capability. A call to the local office should get you some help. Ralph Cameron EMC Consultant forSuppression of Consumer Electronics (After sale) - Original Message - From: Paul Slavens paul_slav...@hotmail.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:28 PM Subject: Adjacent Channel Power Measuring Equipment Hello Group, I am having a little trouble with section 8.5 (adjacent channel power) of ETSI EN 300 220-1. Specifically, I am having difficulty understanding the requirements for the power-measuring receiver defined in Annex B. My questions are: 1. Is the HP EMI rack, consisting of an 8566B spectrum analyzer, an 85685A RF pre-selector, and an 85650A quasi-peak adapter a suitable instrument for making adjacent channel power measurements? 2. If the HP EMI rack will not properly measure adjacent channel power per ETSI EN 300 220-1, what instrument or instruments will? If anyone could help shed a little light on the above question, I would be most thankful. Regards, Paul Slavens Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals
If I follow you here I guess I would make the measurements just before the product bursts into flame, unless of course it actually does stabilize because of thermal mass constraints. In following my own experience and what I have read on this discussion 1 degree rise in 15 minutes seems to satisfy the needs for temperature stability, particularly when you eliminate any perturbation from a change in ambient over that period. In practice with ITE equipment I don't think I have every seen anything longer than 4 hours, and the norm is probably more like 1 to 2 hours max. If you think its going to take a grunch of time start the test before you go home for the evening and check in the temp a couple of times in the morning. Your point that the standards should draw the line and identify end conditions is well taken but they are not. I would rely on your own engineering judgement and relized that if the agencies haven't defined something they don't have any firm ground to stand on to tell you no, so you can usually reach a logical consensus. If the first guy doesn't agree get to his reviewer. Gary -Original Message- From: Dan Mitchell [mailto:dan_mitch...@condordc.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:52 PM To: Peter Tarver Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals Fine and dandy, but when do you draw the line. If you have a product that slowly increases at less than the 1 deg C in 15 minutes after say 2 1/2 hours, do you keep on testing it say 5 hrs, or 10 hrs, 15 hrs? This could cause excessively long test times if you are a very zealous person who follows the letter of the standard (because there is no time limit, or temp vs. time limit). Daniel Mitchell Product Safety Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc. snip --- 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
software
Dear all, I'm looking for a software which can read and manipulate data from my Anritsu MS2601A spectrum analyzer. The only software I know is EMIscan which cost more than a HAMAG spacrtum analyzer including a very good software, so it must be cheaper than $3.000 Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen --- 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: 61010 and 60950 applicable?
Are you going to supply the PC or just provide an interface (presumably serial RS232)? -- From: m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk[SMTP:m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk] Reply To: m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk Sent: 29 June 2000 12:22 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: 61010 and 60950 applicable? May I ask for your esteemed opinions, please? (There's nothing like a bit of buttering-up when you want help, is there?) For our equipment, we work to BSEN61010 as it's a simple electronics/relays control system for a principally electrical bit of equipment. But on the next job, there's an expectation of using a PLC inside, interfacing to an external PC for the man/machine interface. Would the recommendation be that we work to the most stringent requirements of both standards, or just plump for 60950? (I've not yet got a copy of 60950, so can't read its scope.) What if the equipment were to be deemed principally mechanical, would the recommendation be that we work to the most critical parts of BSEN60204 and BSEN60950? And finally what would we put on the D of C - all the standards we meet? All thoughts on the matter most gratefully received! Regards, Mark -- Mark Hone Wellman CJB Limited Email: m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk Airport Service Road Tel: +44 (0)2392 629239 (Direct) Portsmouth, HampshireTel: +44 (0)2392 664911 PO3 5PG, ENGLAND Fax: +44 (0)2392 697864 --- 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: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals
Dan - The requirement is to avoid exceeding the approved temperature ratings of the various insulation systems within the product. The necessary test time is what it is in order to determine that the limits have not been exceeded. It may be 15 hours - I've certainly evaluated some systems that required nearly a day to stabilize. Some systems have significant thermal impedances between various sub-modules, and these require time to stabilize. Small systems (e.g., modems) tend to stabilize quickly, whereas large cabinetized products, with subcompartments and significant thermal impedances, require longer. If your product line is similar to the latter, then longer thermal tests are just a normal part of the business. Regards, Mark Gill, P.E. EMC/Safety/NEBS Design Nortel Networks - RTP, NC, USA -Original Message- From: Dan Mitchell [SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 6:52 PM To: Tarver, Peter [SC1:4N02:EXCH] Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals Fine and dandy, but when do you draw the line. If you have a product that slowly increases at less than the 1 deg C in 15 minutes after say 2 1/2 hours, do you keep on testing it say 5 hrs, or 10 hrs, 15 hrs? This could cause excessively long test times if you are a very zealous person who follows the letter of the standard (because there is no time limit, or temp vs. time limit). Daniel Mitchell Product Safety Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc. Peter Tarver ptar...@nortelnetworks.com on 06/28/2000 01:15:16 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Dan Mitchell/CondorDC) Subject: RE: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals That's really just a rule of thumb. A working premise that provides reasonable results in a relatively short time. As Kaz mentioned, it's not uncommon for some circuits/parts to exhibit a cycling of temperature, either by cyclical loads presented to them or some form of (generic) limiting circuitry. Even using that rule of thumb, it doesn't account for minor increases in ambient temperature over the relevant time frame. One might find that some circuits/parts continue to increase in temperature, while others in the same product have reached thermal equilibrium (within the somewhat loose definition that applies here). Best answer: use engineering judgment. If you clearly have increasing temperatures that aren't resulting from unintentional outside influences, the test is not completed. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Homologation Engineering Nortel Networks ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Dan Mitchell [mailto:dan_mitch...@condordc.com] In UL2601 Clause 42.3.3) Duty Cycle - for Equipment for Continuous operation it lists 2 ways to conclude the test a) temperature of the windings stabilize and do not increase by more than 2 deg. C in 1 hr, or b) 2.5 hr, which ever is shorter. UL1950 only states that; for continuous operation, until steady conditions are established. I haven't been able to establish what is meant by Steady Conditions. I was told once by a rep. of a large safety company that it meant no more than a 1 deg. C rise in 15 minute period. However, since I can't find this written in the standard, I am a bit skeptical. If anybody has a good definition of Steady Conditions and can point it out to me in UL1950 or in the PAGs, I would appreciate it. Daniel W. Mitchell Product Safety Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc. P: (805) 486-4565 x323 F: (805) 483-4307 --- 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 File: Internet HTML
61010 and 60950 applicable?
May I ask for your esteemed opinions, please? (There's nothing like a bit of buttering-up when you want help, is there?) For our equipment, we work to BSEN61010 as it's a simple electronics/relays control system for a principally electrical bit of equipment. But on the next job, there's an expectation of using a PLC inside, interfacing to an external PC for the man/machine interface. Would the recommendation be that we work to the most stringent requirements of both standards, or just plump for 60950? (I've not yet got a copy of 60950, so can't read its scope.) What if the equipment were to be deemed principally mechanical, would the recommendation be that we work to the most critical parts of BSEN60204 and BSEN60950? And finally what would we put on the D of C - all the standards we meet? All thoughts on the matter most gratefully received! Regards, Mark -- Mark Hone Wellman CJB Limited Email: m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk Airport Service Road Tel: +44 (0)2392 629239 (Direct) Portsmouth, HampshireTel: +44 (0)2392 664911 PO3 5PG, ENGLAND Fax: +44 (0)2392 697864 --- 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: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals
Fine and dandy, but when do you draw the line. If you have a product that slowly increases at less than the 1 deg C in 15 minutes after say 2 1/2 hours, do you keep on testing it say 5 hrs, or 10 hrs, 15 hrs? This could cause excessively long test times if you are a very zealous person who follows the letter of the standard (because there is no time limit, or temp vs. time limit). Daniel Mitchell Product Safety Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc. Peter Tarver ptar...@nortelnetworks.com on 06/28/2000 01:15:16 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Dan Mitchell/CondorDC) Subject: RE: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals That's really just a rule of thumb. A working premise that provides reasonable results in a relatively short time. As Kaz mentioned, it's not uncommon for some circuits/parts to exhibit a cycling of temperature, either by cyclical loads presented to them or some form of (generic) limiting circuitry. Even using that rule of thumb, it doesn't account for minor increases in ambient temperature over the relevant time frame. One might find that some circuits/parts continue to increase in temperature, while others in the same product have reached thermal equilibrium (within the somewhat loose definition that applies here). Best answer: use engineering judgment. If you clearly have increasing temperatures that aren't resulting from unintentional outside influences, the test is not completed. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Homologation Engineering Nortel Networks ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Dan Mitchell [mailto:dan_mitch...@condordc.com] In UL2601 Clause 42.3.3) Duty Cycle - for Equipment for Continuous operation it lists 2 ways to conclude the test a) temperature of the windings stabilize and do not increase by more than 2 deg. C in 1 hr, or b) 2.5 hr, which ever is shorter. UL1950 only states that; for continuous operation, until steady conditions are established. I haven't been able to establish what is meant by Steady Conditions. I was told once by a rep. of a large safety company that it meant no more than a 1 deg. C rise in 15 minute period. However, since I can't find this written in the standard, I am a bit skeptical. If anybody has a good definition of Steady Conditions and can point it out to me in UL1950 or in the PAGs, I would appreciate it. Daniel W. Mitchell Product Safety Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc. P: (805) 486-4565 x323 F: (805) 483-4307 --- 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 Title: RE: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals That's really just a rule of thumb. A working premise that provides reasonable results in a relatively short time. As Kaz mentioned, it's not uncommon for some circuits/parts to exhibit a cycling of temperature, either by cyclical loads presented to them or some form of (generic) limiting circuitry. Even using that rule of thumb, it doesn't account for minor increases in ambient temperature over the relevant time frame. One might find that some circuits/parts continue to increase in temperature, while others in the same product have reached thermal equilibrium (within the somewhat loose definition that applies here). Best answer: use engineering judgment. If you clearly have increasing temperatures that aren't resulting from unintentional outside influences, the test is not completed. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Homologation Engineering Nortel Networks ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Dan Mitchell [mailto:dan_mitch...@condordc.com] In UL2601 Clause 42.3.3) Duty Cycle - for Equipment for Continuous operation it lists 2 ways to conclude the test a) temperature of the windings stabilize and do not increase by more than 2 deg. C in 1 hr, or b) 2.5 hr, which ever is shorter. UL1950 only states that; for continuous operation, until steady conditions are established. I haven't been able to establish what is meant by Steady Conditions. I was told once by a rep. of a large safety company that it meant no more than a 1 deg. C rise in 15 minute period. However, since I can't find this written in the standard, I am a bit skeptical. If anybody has a good definition of Steady Conditions and can point it out to me in UL1950 or in the PAGs, I would appreciate it. Daniel W. Mitchell Product Safety Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc. P: (805) 486-4565 x323 F: (805) 483-4307 --- This message is from the
