RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[Pettit, Ghery]

You've got it just about 100% correct.  The DoW for EN 55022:1998 is 1
August 2001.  It is effective right now if you want to use it.  It is the
only game in town as of the DoW.

Ghery Pettit

-Original Message-
From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:37 AM
To: Gary McInturff; Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com;
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports


Reference CISPR 22:1997, Clause 3.5

"telecommunication ports
Ports which are intended to be connected to telecommunication networks (e.g.
public switched telecommunication networks, integrated services digital
networks), local area networks (e.g. Ethernet, Token Ring) and similar
networks."

This definition indicates that LAN boards such as Ethernet & Token Ring will
be treated as telecommunication ports and will require conducted emissions
to be performed as part of the emission testing.

This definition is carried over to EN 55022 and is effective next year.

Am I misinterpreting something here?

Thanks
Pryor

- Original Message -
From: Gary McInturff 
To: 'Pryor McGinnis' ; Pettit, Ghery
; ; 
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:54 AM
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports


> Define telecom port.
> A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not
> connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition
> before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the
> time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally,
> Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer
> distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some
sort
> of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet
> Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual
> metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication ports on
> it.
> Gary
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM
> To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>
>
>
> Confusing isn't?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Pettit, Ghery 
> To: ; ; 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM
> Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>
>
> > Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of
this
> > year.  You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard.
> >
> > Ghery Pettit
> > Intel
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM
> > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net
> > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> >
> >
> >
> >  The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001.  Look
> at
> >  the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance
> to
> >  conducted emissions yet.
> >
> >
> > __ Reply Separator
> > _
> > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> > Author:  "Pryor McGinnis"  at ADEMCONET
> > Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to
end
> > users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end
> products.
> >
> > I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be
> > required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold
to
> > end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards
should
> > test the ports for conducted emission in their end product.  The LAN
board
> > manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards.  His concern
is
> > that boards that pass CE  in a typical host may not pass in another
> > manufacturer's end product  (rub of the green).  The LAN Board
> manufacturer
> > ask for second opinions.
> >
> > Many thanks for your answers.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Pryor
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM
> > > To: emc-pstc
> > > Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> > >
> > > Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member.
> > >
> > > If a manufacturer purchases LAN boards which have been tested for
> > > conducted emissions in a host, is the manufacturer required to retest
> the
> > > LAN Ports for conducted emissions if the manufacturer sells his
product
> > with
> > > the LAN board installed?
> > >
> > > I am very interested in your comments.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Pryor McGinnis
> > > c...@prodigy.net 
> > > www.ctl-lab.com 
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> > > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion lis

RE: HALT/HASS Testing

[Barry Ma]

Hi Darrell,

By coincidence, I'm reading the book you recommended. I found your descriptions 
consistent with the book. Please allow me to insert some supplements below.

Barry Ma
Anritsu Company


On Fri, 08 September 2000, Darrell Locke wrote: 
> 
> HALT.  Highly Accelerated Stress Testing.  This can go by other names.  This
> is where you stress the product (prototype stage typically) using a number
> of criteria, the most common being temperature extremes and vibration.  

... many HALT results have shown that all-axis vibration far surpass the 
effectiveness of thermal cycling for the broad spectrum of faults found in many 
types of equipment ...
  -(quoted from p. 13 of the book)

> You test first to determine the operational limits of the EUT (fails to 
> operate
> but recovers when the stresses are removed), then continue until you reach
> the destruct limits (unit is damaged).  The test is of short duration
> (couple days) and is intended to simulate life expectancy.  This can be
> shown using mathematical analysis with the Arrhenius equation among others.

In the process of finding upper and lower operational and destruct limits and 
pushing them to ... ... a very robust product ... will be generated. ... The 
product is made better, but how much better is not known, at least not by the 
MALT methods. However, when results of the MTBF based on field failure rates 
(the only meaningful MTBF) become known, it will probably be far higher than 
ever...
  - (quoted from p. 72 of the book)


> There has also been a high degree of correlation experimentally.  The
> failures seen in HALT are usually what you see in the field.  The idea is to
> find the weak points in your product, remedy them, such as using a higher
> rated part, then re-test to find the new limits.  The goal is to add lots of
> margin concerning the reliability of your product.  These tests must be done
> in specially designed chambers (called HALT chambers by most).  They start
> around $130K.  If you don't have the money to buy one there several labs
> that will gladly do the tests.  One such lab is Qualmark.  Others are
> popping up all the time.
> 
> HASS.  Highly accelerated Stress Screening.  This is a production test
> designed to find manufacturing defects, engineering changes, etc., that may
> affect the reliability of the product.  You need some kind of environmental
> or HALT chamber, or you can send all your units to a lab, but that gets
> expensive real fast.  The test is similar to HALT but you don't go to the
> destruct limits, just high enough to stress the unit and find defects.  The
> limits are usually established during HALT testing
> 
> Many books are available on the above subject, most notably Accelerated
> Reliability Engineering.  HALT & Hass by Greg K. Hobbs distributed by Wiley.
> 
> Good Luck
> Darrell Locke
> Advanced Input Devices

> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Wilson [mailto:dwil...@alidian.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:34 AM
> To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'; 'n...@world.std.com'
> Subject: HALT/HASS Testing
> 
> We make a Metro DWDM product (all fiber) and one of our potential customers
> mentioned HALT/HASS environmental testing. Has anyone else had to go through
> this for similar products?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave Wilson
> Alidian Networks Inc.
> 


Thanks.
Best Regards,
Barry Ma
ANRITSUwww.anritsu.com
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Tel. 408-778-2000 x 4465
___

Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! 
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html

___


---
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: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

Paolo,

Physics does work the same on both side of the Atlantic, but human rationale
does not necessarily!

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions


> --
> From: Paolo Roncone[SMTP:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it]
> Reply To: Paolo Roncone
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 3:51 AM
> To:   'Ken Javor'; 'Cortland Richmond'
> Cc:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> 
> 
> Ken and Cortland and many others that entered this subject : 
> 
> First, radiated emissions are best measured with radiated (not conducted)
> measurements. There is a correlation between CM currents and RE but that's
> not all (resonances, cable layout  etc. count a lot). 
> Second, you say that CE are easier to measure than RE ? Agree if you talk
> about emissions on AC power cords (as per CISPR22 and FCC part 15). But
> for the new requirements on telecom ports, I suggest you to take a look at
> the new (3.ed.) CISPR22 or EN55022 (sec. 9.5 + annex C.1) and may be you
> change your opinion !
> Radiated emissions above 30 MHz are already covered.
> If you wanna take care of lower frequencies (< 30 MHz) take a loop antenna
> (remember  the old VDE rules ?) and measure radiated H-fields with your
> system in the same (typical) layout used for the higher frequencies (with
> whatever cables you specify, UTS, STP etc.). I am sure that is much
> quicker, easier and repeatable than all the nonsense (ISNs, CDNs, clamps,
> current probes, capacitive probes, ferrites, 150 ohm resistors, signal
> generators, impedance measurements, voltage measurements, current
> measurements and more) in the new CISPR22. 
> As for the question of "outside world", I think in this ever more
> connected world the border line between INSIDE and OUTSIDE is getting more
> and more blurred, BUT I also think that a line must be drawn by the
> standard bodies, otherwise it's gonna really get too much confusing  (hope
> some CISPR/CENELEC member gets it). 
> If we spill over the line (office, floor, building... whatever), emissions
> requirements  are triggered. But within that line it's to be considered an
> "intra-system" (what's the system ? that's another good question to be
> settled) interference potential and the manufacturer should take care of
> it without need of enforcement because he has all the interest in making a
> product (system) that works properly and reliably.
>  
> One last point: based on David Sterner's note, looks to me that North
> America has a pretty extensive Ethernet and-the-like network. I honestly
> don't know if the FCC has already enforced emission limits on LAN ports.
> Anyway, based on David's note looks like there are no complaits of
> interference with TV and telephones. And please note, this is the very
> bottom line of it. Emission limits should be intended to protect public
> services ... and physics works the same on both sides of the Atlantic...
> or not 
> 
> My personal opinion ...
> 
> Paolo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da:   Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Inviato:  giovedì 7 settembre 2000 18.43
> A:Paolo Roncone; 'eric.lif...@ni.com'
> Cc:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Oggetto:  Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> 
> Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know 
> over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume
> here
> 150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in
> the comments to which I am responding.  The purpose of controlling common
> mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the
> cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions
> in
> a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE.  In turn, the
> purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception.
> --
> >From: Paolo Roncone 
> >To: "'eric.lif...@ni.com'" 
> >Cc: "'emc-p...@ieee.org'" 
> >Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> >Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 9:45 AM
> >
> 
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be to
> protect
> > the "outside" (i.e. public) environment from interference. So only ports
> > that connect to public telecom networks should be covered by the
> standard.
> > The problem is (as pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the
> new
> > CISPR22 / EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition
> of
> > telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter if they connect to the
> > "outside world" or not.
> >
> > Regards,
> >  
> > Paolo Roncone
> > Compuprint s.p.a.
> > Italy
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> 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

Re: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[Ken Javor]

The point is that RE/CE protect broadcast bands.  Making an RE measurement
(E or H field, regardless) from a LAN line a couple meters long is not
representative of what you would measure if the LAN line were significantly
longer, as it might be in situ.  Therefore a CE measurement can be better
correlated to predicted RE from a much longer line (at frequencies where the
tested LAN line is electrically short.

--
>From: Paolo Roncone 
>To: "'Ken Javor'" , "'Cortland Richmond'"
<72146@compuserve.com>
>Cc: "'emc-p...@ieee.org'" 
>Subject: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>Date: Fri, Sep 8, 2000, 3:51 AM
>

> Ken and Cortland and many others that entered this subject :
>
> First, radiated emissions are best measured with radiated (not conducted)
> measurements. There is a correlation between CM currents and RE but that's
> not all (resonances, cable layout  etc. count a lot).
> Second, you say that CE are easier to measure than RE ? Agree if you talk
> about emissions on AC power cords (as per CISPR22 and FCC part 15). But for
> the new requirements on telecom ports, I suggest you to take a look at the
> new (3.ed.) CISPR22 or EN55022 (sec. 9.5 + annex C.1) and may be you change
> your opinion !
> Radiated emissions above 30 MHz are already covered.
> If you wanna take care of lower frequencies (< 30 MHz) take a loop antenna
> (remember  the old VDE rules ?) and measure radiated H-fields with your
> system in the same (typical) layout used for the higher frequencies (with
> whatever cables you specify, UTS, STP etc.). I am sure that is much
> quicker, easier and repeatable than all the nonsense (ISNs, CDNs, clamps,
> current probes, capacitive probes, ferrites, 150 ohm resistors, signal
> generators, impedance measurements, voltage measurements, current
> measurements and more) in the new CISPR22.
> As for the question of "outside world", I think in this ever more connected
> world the border line between INSIDE and OUTSIDE is getting more and more
> blurred, BUT I also think that a line must be drawn by the standard bodies,
> otherwise it's gonna really get too much confusing  (hope some
> CISPR/CENELEC member gets it).
> If we spill over the line (office, floor, building... whatever), emissions
> requirements  are triggered. But within that line it's to be considered an
> "intra-system" (what's the system ? that's another good question to be
> settled) interference potential and the manufacturer should take care of it
> without need of enforcement because he has all the interest in making a
> product (system) that works properly and reliably.
>
> One last point: based on David Sterner's note, looks to me that North
> America has a pretty extensive Ethernet and-the-like network. I honestly
> don't know if the FCC has already enforced emission limits on LAN ports.
> Anyway, based on David's note looks like there are no complaits of
> interference with TV and telephones. And please note, this is the very
> bottom line of it. Emission limits should be intended to protect public
> services ... and physics works the same on both sides of the Atlantic... or
> not 
>
> My personal opinion ...
>
> Paolo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Inviato: giovedì 7 settembre 2000 18.43
> A: Paolo Roncone; 'eric.lif...@ni.com'
> Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Oggetto: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>
> Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know
> over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume here
> 150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in
> the comments to which I am responding.  The purpose of controlling common
> mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the
> cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions in
> a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE.  In turn, the
> purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception.
> --
>>From: Paolo Roncone 
>>To: "'eric.lif...@ni.com'" 
>>Cc: "'emc-p...@ieee.org'" 
>>Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>>Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 9:45 AM
>>
>
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be to protect
>> the "outside" (i.e. public) environment from interference. So only ports
>> that connect to public telecom networks should be covered by the standard.
>> The problem is (as pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the new
>> CISPR22 / EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition of
>> telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter if they connect to the
>> "outside world" or not.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Paolo Roncone
>> Compuprint s.p.a.
>> Italy
>>
> 

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

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:

RE: HALT/HASS Testing

[Darrell Locke]

HALT.  Highly Accelerated Stress Testing.  This can go by other names.  This
is where you stress the product (prototype stage typically) using a number
of criteria, the most common being temperature extremes and vibration.  You
test first to determine the operational limits of the EUT (fails to operate
but recovers when the stresses are removed), then continue until you reach
the destruct limits (unit is damaged).  The test is of short duration
(couple days) and is intended to simulate life expectancy.  This can be
shown using mathematical analysis with the Arrhenius equation among others.
There has also been a high degree of correlation experimentally.  The
failures seen in HALT are usually what you see in the field.  The idea is to
find the weak points in your product, remedy them, such as using a higher
rated part, then re-test to find the new limits.  The goal is to add lots of
margin concerning the reliability of your product.  These tests must be done
in specially designed chambers (called HALT chambers by most).  They start
around $130K.  If you don't have the money to buy one there several labs
that will gladly do the tests.  One such lab is Qualmark.  Others are
popping up all the time.

HASS.  Highly accelerated Stress Screening.  This is a production test
designed to find manufacturing defects, engineering changes, etc., that may
affect the reliability of the product.  You need some kind of environmental
or HALT chamber, or you can send all your units to a lab, but that gets
expensive real fast.  The test is similar to HALT but you don't go to the
destruct limits, just high enough to stress the unit and find defects.  The
limits are usually established during HALT testing

Many books are available on the above subject, most notably Accelerated
Reliability Engineering.  HALT & Hass by Greg K. Hobbs distributed by Wiley.

Good Luck
Darrell Locke
Advanced Input Devices
-Original Message-
From: Dave Wilson [mailto:dwil...@alidian.com]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:34 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'; 'n...@world.std.com'
Subject: HALT/HASS Testing



We make a Metro DWDM product (all fiber) and one of our potential customers
mentioned HALT/HASS environmental testing. Has anyone else had to go through
this for similar products?

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks 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

HALT/HASS Testing

[Dave Wilson]

We make a Metro DWDM product (all fiber) and one of our potential customers
mentioned HALT/HASS environmental testing. Has anyone else had to go through
this for similar products?

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks Inc.

RE: 90 V gas-filled arrestors source?

[Dan Kinney (A)]

Schaffner does.  They can be reached at 800-367-5566 or 732-225-9533.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: David Gelfand [SMTP:gelf...@memotec.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:07 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  90 V gas-filled arrestors source?
> 
> Hello group,
>  
> Does anyone know who makes gas-filled arrestors called for in IEC 1000-4-5
> coupling networks?  Would a MOV be ok?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> David.
>  
> David Gelfand 
> Regulatory Approvals 
> Memotec Communications Inc.
> Montreal Canada

---
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

T1E1.418-2000

[Dwight Hunnicutt]

Anyone know where to obtain a draft copy of the new HDSL2
Interoperability standard T1E1.418-2000?  I believe the document is
still undergoing final revisions, but a recent draft copy would be a big
help. Thanks...

D
-- 
  _

  DWIGHT HUNNICUTT   Sr.Compliance Engineer
 
 _/_/   _/ _/_/  _/ 
_/_/   _/ _/_/  _/ _/ _/  
   _/_/   _/ _/  _/_/_/_/ 
   _/  _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
_/  _/ _/_/_/_/   

 T  E  C  H  N  O  L  O  G  I  E  S
 510-771-3349  520-244-2721 fax
 www.vina-tech.com
  _

RE: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[eric . lifsey]

All,

As Ghery reported before (lost in the recent threads, but copied below), the
closely related issue cf definition creepage is being addressed by CISPR SC G
and is already is CDV stage but not yet FDIS.  If it isn't already too late,
this might be the best or only opportunity we'll get for bring the issue up for
discussion in a CISPR committee within the next couple of years.

This would be the opportunity to bring together in some way (?) the designers of
Ethernet and the CISPR committee, so whatever the outcome we can agree the issue
was examined with due engineering dilligence.

Regards,
Eric Lifsey



Please respond to "Pettit, Ghery" 

To:   Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC@NIC, emc-p...@ieee.org
cc:

Subject:  RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports



This sort of question has already come up in CISPR SC G (the owner of CISPR
22).  There is a CDV (Committee Draft for Vote) being prepared that, if
adopted as a Final Draft International Standard (FDIS), will put a halt to
the definition creep that has been happening with this issue.  The text
doesn't get rid of LANs as a telecom port, but it does prevent
administrations from calling things like RS-232 (yes, Australia has tried to
justify this as a telecom port), USB, 1393, etc telecom ports.  Nothing
happens fast in the IEC, so don't hold your breath waiting for this change
to happen, but we are working on it.  When the CDV comes out there will be a
voting period on it and if it passes, it will then be re-issued as an FDIS
for final vote.  I wouldn't expect any final action for at least a year or
more.

Ghery Pettit
Intel
Member, US CISPR G TAG



---
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

90 V gas-filled arrestors source?

[David Gelfand]

Hello group,

Does anyone know who makes gas-filled arrestors called for in IEC 1000-4-5 
coupling networks?  Would a MOV be ok?

Thanks,

David.

David Gelfand 
Regulatory Approvals 
Memotec Communications Inc.
Montreal Canada

RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test

[Colgan, Chris]

I hope you don't live in the UK, the cost of the fuel would make the test
far too expensive to perform$1.22 for a litre of diesel!

Regards

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

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


> -Original Message-
> From: Kenneth McCormick [SMTP:kmccormick...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: 08 September 2000 15:06
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test
> 
> 
> I am glad that I was able to assist in allowing Rich to "earn his keep".
> I 
> received several responses both public and privately...most said the same 
> thing, it is a difficult test to conduct and comply with.  Many thanks to 
> those that responded, your advice and expertise have given me several good
> 
> ideas on how to conduct the test and addressed several of the concerns 
> (safety and repeatibility) that I had about the test.
> 
> Now I'm off to purchase some Diesel...
> 
> Regards,
> Ken
> 
> 
> >From: "Grant, Tania (Tania)" 
> >Reply-To: "Grant, Tania (Tania)" 
> >To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, "'John Juhasz'"
> 
> >Subject: RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test
> >Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:43:05 -0700
> >
> >So it took hot flaming oil to assess Rich's worth!
> >
> 
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
> 
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
> http://profiles.msn.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
> 
=
Authorised on 09/08/00 at 15:50:16; code 37f48bf3F846D393.


**  
   Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com
**

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, PE29 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)

**  
   Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.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

RE: UL 723

[Peter Tarver]

Richard is absolutely correct.  It's like trying to compare a match stick to
a bon fire.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
ptar...@nortelnetworks.com


-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com

I just went through this myself. There is no real correlation between UL94
flame ratings and flame spread ratings. The test methods are completely
different and one cannot predict the flame spread rating from the flame
rating.

Richard Woods

--
From:  james Yoo

Dear every one

I have question about UL 723 Tests for surface burning
characteristics of 
building material.
What is the satisfaction flammable grade according to UL94 or UL746
If the 
FSI(flame spread index) is below 200.
If anyone knows about that please let me know.

Best regards,


james Yoo
jwon...@hotmail.com

RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test

[Kenneth McCormick]

I am glad that I was able to assist in allowing Rich to "earn his keep".  I 
received several responses both public and privately...most said the same 
thing, it is a difficult test to conduct and comply with.  Many thanks to 
those that responded, your advice and expertise have given me several good 
ideas on how to conduct the test and addressed several of the concerns 
(safety and repeatibility) that I had about the test.


Now I'm off to purchase some Diesel...

Regards,
Ken



From: "Grant, Tania (Tania)" 
Reply-To: "Grant, Tania (Tania)" 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, "'John Juhasz'" 
Subject: RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:43:05 -0700

So it took hot flaming oil to assess Rich's worth!



_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.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

RE: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[David_Sterner]

 Paolo,
 
 You bring up an interesting point about FCC.  FCC recognizes CISPR 
 22:1985 is as an alternative test method.  The 1985 version does not 
 specify emissions on LAN or telco.
 
 FCC Part 68 specifies conducted emissions only on mains cables over 
 450kHz to 30MHz with slightly different limits.
 
 There seems to be considerable interest in requesting a review of the 
 need for conducted emissions requirements for LANS, not to mention 
 installation cost (STP cost differential, clumsy routing, earthing 
 considerations).  What is our next step to get a formal review?
 
 David


__ Reply Separator
_
Subject: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Author:  "Paolo Roncone"  at ADEMCONET
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:9/8/2000 6:51 AM


Ken and Cortland and many others that entered this subject :
 
First, radiated emissions are best measured with radiated (not conducted) 
measurements. There is a correlation between CM currents and RE but that's
not 
all (resonances, cable layout  etc. count a lot).
Second, you say that CE are easier to measure than RE ? Agree if you talk
about 
emissions on AC power cords (as per CISPR22 and FCC part 15). But for the
new 
requirements on telecom ports, I suggest you to take a look at the new
(3.ed.) 
CISPR22 or EN55022 (sec. 9.5 + annex C.1) and may be you change your opinion
! 
Radiated emissions above 30 MHz are already covered.
If you wanna take care of lower frequencies (< 30 MHz) take a loop antenna 
(remember  the old VDE rules ?) and measure radiated H-fields with your
system 
in the same (typical) layout used for the higher frequencies (with whatever 
cables you specify, UTS, STP etc.). I am sure that is much quicker, easier
and 
repeatable than all the nonsense (ISNs, CDNs, clamps, current probes,
capacitive
probes, ferrites, 150 ohm resistors, signal generators, impedance
measurements, 
voltage measurements, current measurements and more) in the new CISPR22.
As for the question of "outside world", I think in this ever more connected 
world the border line between INSIDE and OUTSIDE is getting more and more 
blurred, BUT I also think that a line must be drawn by the standard bodies, 
otherwise it's gonna really get too much confusing  (hope some CISPR/CENELEC

member gets it).
If we spill over the line (office, floor, building... whatever), emissions 
requirements  are triggered. But within that line it's to be considered an 
"intra-system" (what's the system ? that's another good question to be
settled) 
interference potential and the manufacturer should take care of it without
need 
of enforcement because he has all the interest in making a product (system)
that
works properly and reliably.
 
One last point: based on David Sterner's note, looks to me that North
America 
has a pretty extensive Ethernet and-the-like network. I honestly don't know
if 
the FCC has already enforced emission limits on LAN ports. Anyway, based on 
David's note looks like there are no complaits of interference with TV and 
telephones. And please note, this is the very bottom line of it. Emission
limits
should be intended to protect public services ... and physics works the same
on 
both sides of the Atlantic... or not 
 
My personal opinion ...
 
Paolo
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Messaggio originale-
Da: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Inviato: giovedì 7 settembre 2000 18.43
A: Paolo Roncone; 'eric.lif...@ni.com' 
Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Oggetto: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
 
Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know 
over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume here 
150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in 
the comments to which I am responding.  The purpose of controlling common 
mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the 
cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions in

a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE.  In turn, the 
purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception. 
--
>From: Paolo Roncone  
>To: "'eric.lif...@ni.com'"  
>Cc: "'emc-p...@ieee.org'"  
>Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports 
>Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 9:45 AM
>
 
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be to
protect 
> the "outside" (i.e. public) environment from interference. So only ports
> that connect to public telecom networks should be covered by the standard.

> The problem is (as pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the new 
> CISPR22 / EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition of

> telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter if they connect to the
> "outside world" or not.
>
> Regards,
>
> 

Hacking of RCIC

[ed . rauch]

Article in Tech News about the hacker.
http://technews.netscape.com/news/0-1005-200-2722466.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.ni
Apparently he hacked many sites to spread his message.



---
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: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[Guy Story]

Ken, that is not what Mike is saying.  Mike's statment was to the effect
that if the noise can get out of the EUT then noise from another source can
get in.  A point of exit can also be a point of entry for EMI.  This applies
to all types of launching mechanisms, not just cables.  Also, just because a
piece of equipemnt is passing CE or any emissions does not guarrenty that it
will not cause a problem with other equipment.  Coupling between adjacent
cabling can cause EMC issues even if both unit pass CE.  Primarily, all
emissions limits, CE and RE, exist to provide a level of protection for
communitcations over the air.  Equipment protection is secondary.  Keeping
equipment clean at the source goes a long way to protect it from outside
influences.

Guy Story, KC5GOI
Compliance Technician
Interphase Corporation
Dallas Texas
phone: 214.654.5161
fax: 214.654.5406


- Original Message -
From: "Ken Javor" 
To: ; ;

Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports



So you are saying that an emission limit was imposed to improve immunity of
the self-same equipment?  I have to go on record disagreeing with that
interpretation.  As for protection of nearby circuits, my guess is that if
you calculate coupling from a cable just meeting your telecom port CE limit
to an adjacent cable, you will find that even common mode coupling is orders
of magnitude below the intentional signal carried in the adjacent victim
cable.  I say this in full ignorance of just what that CE limit is, since I
know that a CE limit designed to protect against rfi will more than protect
against cable-to-cable coupling.

--
>From: michael.sundst...@nokia.com
>To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it,
eric.lif...@ni.com
>Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 5:01 PM
>

> Actually it's to reduce interference to one's own equipment, (if it emits
it
> - it's also susceptible to it). It also has the effect of reducing
> interference to other near by equipment.
>
>
> Michael Sundstrom
> Nokia Mobile Phones, PCC
> EMC Technician
> cube  4E : 390B
> phone: 972-374-1462
> mobile: 817-917-5021
> michael.sundst...@nokia.com
> amateur call:  KB5UKT
>
>



---
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: Safety of mobile phones.

[WOODS]

It can be found at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/lv/rec519.pdf
 


Richard Woods

--
From:  Allan G. Carr [SMTP:e...@agctel.co.uk]
Sent:  Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:47 PM
To:  emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:  Safety of mobile phones.



Can anyone please point me towards a copy of the Official Journal of
the
European Communities "Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC dated 12
July
1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)."

I have checked the EC OJ site but it is no longer available.


Thanks in anticipation

Allan
-- 
 Allan G.Carr B.Sc.(Elec.Eng) AMIEE  |  AGC-Tel Consultants Ltd
 Telecommunications Consultant   |  Tel: +44(0)141-956-2506 
 European Approvals Specialist   |  Fax: +44(0)141-956-5347
 62 Crawford Road,   Milngavie   |  Voice Mail:
+44(0)1252-30-3062
 Glasgow,  G62 7LF,   Scotland   |  http://www.agctel.co.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


---
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: SAR

[rfm]

Intertek Testing Services in Menlo Park, CA. can do the SAR tests. They can
be reached at

ph 650-463-2900
fax 650-463-2910

or find them through the web site www.etlsemko.com.

Bob Martin, PE, NCE

Sr. Technical Manager
Intertek Testing Services
http://www.etlsemko.com
(978)263-2662
fax(978)263-7086
r...@itsqs.com


-Original Message-
From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com [mailto:ron_cher...@densolabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 6:05 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: SAR



I am trying to get a list of labs that can perform SAR testing on the West
Coast, (CA).
Thanks, Ron DENSO



---
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: Near field measurements

[WmFlan]

Mr Woods

1) I've never used a lab for these tests so I can't help there.

2) Several outfits make/sell these probes - all isotropic: Narda Microwave East 
(Mr. Johnson), Holaday Indutries (Ms. Turja), and Wandel-Golterman, (absorbed 
by Chase, absorbed by Schaffner absorbed by Narda???), Mr. Berezny (@Chase 
Systems). For 2.45GHz, 12cm lambda, near-field is closer to 2cm, and these 
probes all seem to have a balloon of ~5cm radius at the end, so they won't 
help. But if you just mean measuring the field 'near' the source then, sure, 
they're OK. Prices from $8k to $10k for a full E and H kit.

3) I've leased directly from Holaday, but I would also suggest shopping around; 
maybe Rentelco, or ITERents?



---
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

R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[Paolo Roncone]

Ken and Cortland and many others that entered this subject : 

First, radiated emissions are best measured with radiated (not conducted) 
measurements. There is a correlation between CM currents and RE but that's not 
all (resonances, cable layout  etc. count a lot). 
Second, you say that CE are easier to measure than RE ? Agree if you talk about 
emissions on AC power cords (as per CISPR22 and FCC part 15). But for the new 
requirements on telecom ports, I suggest you to take a look at the new (3.ed.) 
CISPR22 or EN55022 (sec. 9.5 + annex C.1) and may be you change your opinion !
Radiated emissions above 30 MHz are already covered.
If you wanna take care of lower frequencies (< 30 MHz) take a loop antenna 
(remember  the old VDE rules ?) and measure radiated H-fields with your system 
in the same (typical) layout used for the higher frequencies (with whatever 
cables you specify, UTS, STP etc.). I am sure that is much quicker, easier and 
repeatable than all the nonsense (ISNs, CDNs, clamps, current probes, 
capacitive probes, ferrites, 150 ohm resistors, signal generators, impedance 
measurements, voltage measurements, current measurements and more) in the new 
CISPR22. 
As for the question of "outside world", I think in this ever more connected 
world the border line between INSIDE and OUTSIDE is getting more and more 
blurred, BUT I also think that a line must be drawn by the standard bodies, 
otherwise it's gonna really get too much confusing  (hope some CISPR/CENELEC 
member gets it). 
If we spill over the line (office, floor, building... whatever), emissions 
requirements  are triggered. But within that line it's to be considered an 
"intra-system" (what's the system ? that's another good question to be settled) 
interference potential and the manufacturer should take care of it without need 
of enforcement because he has all the interest in making a product (system) 
that works properly and reliably.
 
One last point: based on David Sterner's note, looks to me that North America 
has a pretty extensive Ethernet and-the-like network. I honestly don't know if 
the FCC has already enforced emission limits on LAN ports. Anyway, based on 
David's note looks like there are no complaits of interference with TV and 
telephones. And please note, this is the very bottom line of it. Emission 
limits should be intended to protect public services ... and physics works the 
same on both sides of the Atlantic... or not 

My personal opinion ...

Paolo






-Messaggio originale-
Da: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Inviato:giovedì 7 settembre 2000 18.43
A:  Paolo Roncone; 'eric.lif...@ni.com'
Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Oggetto:Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know 
over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume here
150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in
the comments to which I am responding.  The purpose of controlling common
mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the
cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions in
a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE.  In turn, the
purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception.
--
>From: Paolo Roncone 
>To: "'eric.lif...@ni.com'" 
>Cc: "'emc-p...@ieee.org'" 
>Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 9:45 AM
>

>
> Hi Eric,
>
> I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be to protect
> the "outside" (i.e. public) environment from interference. So only ports
> that connect to public telecom networks should be covered by the standard.
> The problem is (as pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the new
> CISPR22 / EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition of
> telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter if they connect to the
> "outside world" or not.
>
> Regards,
>  
> Paolo Roncone
> Compuprint s.p.a.
> Italy
>


---
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

Farewell.

[David Monreal]

Dear all,

for two years I've been focusing all my efforts and neuronal juice to
Advanced Shielding Technologies.

Though I'm not an engineer, I studied three years Electronics Engineering
but left it. I used to fail on Physics... and used to hate it too. Anyway,
I've learnt mucho more physic laws, strange effects working on EMC than when
I studied. And I really like this all right now.

Advanced Shielding Technologies and you all have taught me some very
interesting things which I have enjoyed a lot (though some times my inbox
spilled over the brim).

I just want to inform you all I'm leaving this engineering/sorcerer world,
where sometimes equations are not useful and experience and common sense is
what works.

Thank you very much.

May the (magnetic) force be with you ;-)



David Monreal
Product Manager
www.itbunker.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

Re: SAR

[Douglas C. Smith]

Hi Ron,

I believe Elliott Labs in Sunnyvale, CA does such testing
and have a very good customer focus.

Doug

ron_cher...@densolabs.com wrote:
> 
> I am trying to get a list of labs that can perform SAR testing on the West
> Coast, (CA).
> Thanks, Ron DENSO
> 
> ---
> 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

-- 
---
___  _   Doug Smith
 \  / )  P.O. Box 1457
  =  Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457
   _ / \ / \ _   TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799
 /  /\  \ ] /  /\  \ Mobile:  408-858-4528
|  q-( )  |  o  |Email:   d...@dsmith.org
 \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.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: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[Ken Javor]

So you are saying that an emission limit was imposed to improve immunity of
the self-same equipment?  I have to go on record disagreeing with that
interpretation.  As for protection of nearby circuits, my guess is that if
you calculate coupling from a cable just meeting your telecom port CE limit
to an adjacent cable, you will find that even common mode coupling is orders
of magnitude below the intentional signal carried in the adjacent victim
cable.  I say this in full ignorance of just what that CE limit is, since I
know that a CE limit designed to protect against rfi will more than protect
against cable-to-cable coupling.

--
>From: michael.sundst...@nokia.com
>To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it,
eric.lif...@ni.com
>Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 5:01 PM
>

> Actually it's to reduce interference to one's own equipment, (if it emits it
> - it's also susceptible to it). It also has the effect of reducing
> interference to other near by equipment.
>
>
> Michael Sundstrom
> Nokia Mobile Phones, PCC
> EMC Technician
> cube  4E : 390B
> phone: 972-374-1462
> mobile: 817-917-5021
> michael.sundst...@nokia.com
> amateur call:  KB5UKT
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: EXT Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:43 AM
> To: Paolo Roncone; 'eric.lif...@ni.com'
> Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>
>
>
> Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know
> over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume here
> 150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in
> the comments to which I am responding.  The purpose of controlling common
> mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the
> cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions in
> a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE.  In turn, the
> purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception.
> --
>>From: Paolo Roncone 
>>To: "'eric.lif...@ni.com'" 
>>Cc: "'emc-p...@ieee.org'" 
>>Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>>Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 9:45 AM
>>
>
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be to
> protect
>> the "outside" (i.e. public) environment from interference. So only ports
>> that connect to public telecom networks should be covered by the standard.
>> The problem is (as pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the new
>> CISPR22 / EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition of
>> telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter if they connect to the
>> "outside world" or not.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Paolo Roncone
>> Compuprint s.p.a.
>> Italy
>>
>> -Messaggio originale-
>> Da: eric.lif...@ni.com [SMTP:eric.lif...@ni.com]
>> Inviato: mercoledì 6 settembre 2000 17.55
>> A: emc-p...@ieee.org
>> Oggetto: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> As a not-quite-outside-observer (strictly EN 55011 here) of this thread,
> it's
>> not fun seeing LAN ports classified as telecom; IMO that's overkill for
> the
>> folks using EN 55022.
>>
>> Up till now, I considered a port to be telecom only if it connects a
> client
>> facility to a carrier's network (DSL, ISDN, T1 and so on).
>>
>> With repeaters every 5 meters, USB and 1394 can support a bus long enough
> to
>> connect between adjacent buildings.  So, I wonder if some fanatic will
> soon be
>> promoting USB/1394 ports as telecom?
>>
>> If Chris is right, and the EN 55022 version of the old telecom port
> conducted
>> emission standard was intended to protect other telecom signals in a
> bundle,
>> then I would think that this test is clearly redundant to the immunity
> tests
>> (61000-4-6 and -4-3) that offer the needed protection from the other end.
>>
>> Does this emission requirement appear to be a waste of time and money to
> anyone
>> else?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Eric Lifsey
>> Compliance Manager
>> National Instruments
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please respond to "Chris Allen" 
>>
>> To:   "Pryor McGinnis" 
>> cc:   david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org,
>>   gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com, "John Moore"
>>(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC)
>>
>> Subject:  Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>>
>>
>> Pryor,
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't think the definition is in question. It
> specifically
>> states, that for the purposes of the standard, LANs are to be considered
> as
>> telecomms ports as per section 3.6. It probably would have been less
> ambiguous
>> if the standard defined Telecomms ports as "Ports which are intended to be
>> connected to the telecomms network OR LANs OR similar networks.
>>
>> As far as enforcement goes this will not change from the current method of
>> enforcing compliance, primarily via the end user requesting

Safety of mobile phones.

[Allan G. Carr]

Can anyone please point me towards a copy of the Official Journal of the
European Communities "Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC dated 12 July
1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)."

I have checked the EC OJ site but it is no longer available.


Thanks in anticipation

Allan
-- 
 Allan G.Carr B.Sc.(Elec.Eng) AMIEE  |  AGC-Tel Consultants Ltd
 Telecommunications Consultant   |  Tel: +44(0)141-956-2506 
 European Approvals Specialist   |  Fax: +44(0)141-956-5347
 62 Crawford Road,   Milngavie   |  Voice Mail: +44(0)1252-30-3062
 Glasgow,  G62 7LF,   Scotland   |  http://www.agctel.co.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

Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports

[Douglas C. Smith]

Hi All,

I could not resist adding my two cents worth. In the last
several years I spent at Bell Labs in NJ (moved to CA 4 1/2
years ago), part of my funding came from a group that was
responsible for UTP (Cat 5) and associated hardware. On
immunity performance, we were not able to find a shielded
system that would outperform UTP using the interface
circuits I had design input on. (When I first proposed the
circuitry, the group had an internal Bell Labs "balun"
expert review it. He did not understand how it worked.)

Emissions were lower compared to several shielded systems we
measured. The data was published at EMC Roma about 1995. If
I can dig it up, I will try to post it to my site later this
month. 

Several formats of data were used including 100 Mb speeds.
We even did a demonstration of a 600 Mb over UTP cable
(section of the cable is within sight at this moment).

The conducted emissions on telecom leads spec was just being
written at that time. As I recall, we were pretty close to
meeting it except the method in the proposed standard was
not workable, so we used current probes and moving the
cables to maximize current (just like RE testing).

The net result is that UTP with the appropriate interface
circuits (not expensive, either) performs quite well
compared to STP systems. If anyone wants more into, email
directly to me and I will try and hook them up with someone
at Bell Labs in NJ who is currently on the project. It's
been a while and I am not sure what the present status of
that work is.

BTW, I recall that starting with a VERY well balanced
source/load, Cat5 cable inherently had about 12 dB better
balance, and therefore performance, than Cat3 for the high
frequency immunity/radiated measurements that I made. I did
not get much into the signal transmission differences
between Cat3 and Cat5 though.

Doug

Gary McInturff wrote:
> 
> 
> Another little nagging problem exists. Without going into the whole
> historically precedence UTP was a pretty important reason why ethernet was
> adopted so widely. The wiring was pretty much in place because of the cables
> that had been run for connecting office telephones etc. People don't want to
> drag in new cables (STP) because of the cost. I happen to agree with you
> assements below and wouldn't even consider UTP if it weren't for the
> existing installs and the 805 standard that (prefers?) it.
> Thanks
> Gary
> 
> -Original Message-

-- 
---
___  _   Doug Smith
 \  / )  P.O. Box 1457
  =  Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457
   _ / \ / \ _   TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799
 /  /\  \ ] /  /\  \ Mobile:  408-858-4528
|  q-( )  |  o  |Email:   d...@dsmith.org
 \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.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