RE: Testing of product per en60825-1

[Dave Wilson]

You don't say where you are located, but I believe Cetecom have a facility
in Mountain View, CA. Contact Fernando Hardasmal on (408) 586 6203.

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks Inc.

 -Original Message-
From:   bharat_s...@logitech.com [mailto:bharat_s...@logitech.com] 
Sent:   Monday, September 25, 2000 11:36 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:Testing of product per en60825-1



Hello,
Is there any independent laboratory who can conduct the test per EN60825-1
?
Thank you,
Regards,
Bharat Shah


---
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: Testing of product per en60825-1

[JMurphy]

I've used UL-RTP in North Carolina.  The contact was Ken Puckett at 919
549-1521.

Jack

-Original Message-
From: bharat_s...@logitech.com [mailto:bharat_s...@logitech.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 2:36 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Testing of product per en60825-1




Hello,
Is there any independent laboratory who can conduct the test per EN60825-1
?
Thank you,
Regards,
Bharat Shah


---
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:Battery Safety

[Jim Bacher]

Chris, my guess is the resistor is to help discharge the capacitors in the unit.
 It is probably there so the unit will reset faster when you pull the batteries.
 It is usually good to have capacitors across batteries, you just want to make
sure they are low leakage. If they are not low leakage, they will drain the
batteries fairly fast. 

Jim

Jim Bacher,  Senior Engineer
Paxar - Monarch
email:jim_bac...@monarch.com
voice:1-937-865-2020
fax:1-937-865-2048


Reply Separator
Subject:Battery Safety
Author: "Maxwell; Chris" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   9/25/00 11:30 AM


All,

We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased.  The product
is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries.  Inside
the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the
batteries.  Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some
of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety  feature.

I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the
instrument.  I did read through the safety test report; and I found no
reference to this resistor being required.   All it does is provide a
constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life).  It has been
suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce
the electrical noise in a product.  To me a capacitor would be better for
this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering.  Even so,
isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor?  I'm just drawing a blank why anyone
would do this.  I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because
it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life.  However, I don't want to
sacrifice the safety of the product.

Anybody want to take a guess at this one?

Thanks.

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

Re: Verifying functionality of the equipment for Production Safety Testing

[Rich Nute]

Hi Paul:


>   My manufacturing  contacts have asked for a lead on a supplier of test
>   equipment that I can use to be able to test the Hi pot lead for it not to
>   be open. If you run the Hi Pot test holding the lead in the air it will
>   pass . We need a way to test that the lead is not open .

Connect the lead to ground and initiate the hi-pot 
test.

...
...
...

A long time ago, I was embarrased by this situation.
A UL or CSA inspector asked to verify that the hi-
pot tester was indeed applying voltage to the EUT.

I was about to go get a high-voltage voltmeter when
the inspector simply connected the HV lead to ground
and punched the start button.  

To my dismay, the hi-pot tester indicated pass!!!
The lead was open!

Well... we pulled our warehouse stock and re-tested
all units.


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

NEBS web site

[Guy Story]

Does anyone have a url for a web site that lists the NEBS Standards,
specifically level 3?

Thank you in advance.

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


---
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: Battery Safety

[Ralph Cameron]

Chris:

Is the battery a rechargeable?   Have you tried disconnecting the 91K
reisstor and measuring the resulting voltage increase?  Doesn't make sense
to me.

Ralph Cameron
EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronics
(After sale)

- Original Message -
From: "Maxwell, Chris" 
To: "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" 
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:30 AM
Subject: Battery Safety


>
> All,
>
> We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased.  The product
> is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries.
Inside
> the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the
> batteries.  Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone,
some
> of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety  feature.
>
> I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the
> instrument.  I did read through the safety test report; and I found no
> reference to this resistor being required.   All it does is provide a
> constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life).  It has been
> suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to
reduce
> the electrical noise in a product.  To me a capacitor would be better for
> this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering.  Even
so,
> isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor?  I'm just drawing a blank why
anyone
> would do this.  I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out
because
> it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life.  However, I don't want
to
> sacrifice the safety of the product.
>
> Anybody want to take a guess at this one?
>
> Thanks.
>
> 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
>
>
>


---
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: Verifying functionality of the equipment for Production Safety Testing

[paul_j_smith]

Folks,

My manufacturing  contacts have asked for a lead on a supplier of test
equipment that I can use to be able to test the Hi pot lead for it not to
be open. If you run the Hi Pot test holding the lead in the air it will
pass . We need a way to test that the lead is not open .

The Test requirement (as far as I know) is to verify functionality of the
equipment before testing.

Best Regards,

Paul J. Smith,  Teradyne








Kevin Harris  on 09/25/2000 01:39:29 PM

Please respond to Kevin Harris 





  
  
  
 To:  "'Maxwell, Chris'" 
  
 cc:  "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" (bcc: Paul J 
  Smith/Bos/Teradyne) 
  
  
  
 Subject: RE: Battery Safety  
  








Hi,

I've seen this done before on low current designs. Sometimes when you
replace the batteries in this type of design the circuit voltage does not
have time to drop completely away due to the charge saved on bulk
capacitors. When the new batteries are added the circuit comes up in a
peculiar state. This is particularly true of uP power on reset circuits.
There are more elegant ways to take care of this problem but I suppose a
single resistor would be the cheapest (if one ignored battery life).

Regards,

Kevin Harris
Manager, Approval Services
Digital Security Controls



-Original Message-
From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:31 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
Subject: Battery Safety



All,

We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased.  The product
is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries.
Inside
the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the
batteries.  Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone,
some
of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety  feature.

I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the
instrument.  I did read through the safety test report; and I found no
reference to this resistor being required.   All it does is provide a
constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life).  It has been
suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to
reduce
the electrical noise in a product.  To me a capacitor would be better for
this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering.  Even
so,
isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor?  I'm just drawing a blank why
anyone
would do this.  I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out
because
it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life.  However, I don't want
to
sacrifice the safety of the product.

Anybody want to take a guess at this one?

Thanks.

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


---
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
 Micha

Re: Testing of product per en60825-1

[Kevin Newland]

Bharat,

Nemko do this type of test. They have offices
worldwide. 

Thanks
Kevin
--- bharat_s...@logitech.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello,
> Is there any independent laboratory who can conduct
> the test per EN60825-1
> ?
> Thank you,
> Regards,
> Bharat Shah
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts 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 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

UL1697 ???

[Robert Legg]

Forumites,

UL1697.

Anyone ever heard of it? It has shown up in a recent design spec for
quotation and I suspect a typo.

Rob Legg
rl...@tectrol.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: Application of agency safety markings

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

I want to thank all those who responded to my query.   This question was
posed to me from a non-member and, since I have no experience with other
NRTL's except UL, I had no definite answer to give.  
 
Also, since some members responded only the "sender" (myself) and not "to
all", I am summarizing all the responses received:
 
The following NRTL's require that their safety mark be affixed at the
specified factory locations:

*   CSA.   So specified in the Product Service Agreement, Section
1.2(b).
*   Intertek Testing Service (ETL).   Specified in the Listing
Agreement.
*   Factory Mutual.   Where specified was not provided. 

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

 
-Original Message-
From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal [mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 7:53 AM
To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal; 'Lyons, Jim'; 'Grant, Tania (Tania)';
'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings



Sorry folks...need more coffee today as the info I added wasn't an answer
Tania's question. 

I've found the same requirement in the CSA Product Service agreement,
section 1.2 (b). 

Again, my opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC. 

Regards, 
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer 
-- 
Sanmina Canada ULC 
Wireless Development Centre 
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758) 
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758) 
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com 


> 


-Original Message- 
From: Gawrzyjal, Kazimier [WDC:C149:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:47 AM 
To: 'Lyons, Jim'; 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' 
Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings 


Tania, 

With UL, I've found the requirement to apply the listing mark at the
approved factory location gets invoked in the FUS Procedure, very first page
identifying the Listee, applicant and possibly the manufacturing location
and the CCN (a one page document at the start of the FUS proceduresorry
to the UL folks but I'm not sure what the page is called). Section General
of the FUS also reflects the requirement.  Finally, this requirement is
further indicated in the original Follow Up Service Agreement, signed by UL
and the "Subscriber" sections 1 and 2.  I assume a similar process
requirement is held by other NRTL's.

Was the option of field investigations or the like explored at all?  It's
often more expensive and good for a one-shot type of application or quickie
field deployment but it can get the job done.

My 2 cents and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC. 

Regards, 
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer 
-- 
Sanmina Canada ULC 
Wireless Development Centre 
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758) 
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758) 
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com 




-Original Message- 
From: Lyons, Jim [ mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com  ]

Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 6:44 AM 
To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' 
Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings 



I recently had a situation where we had transferred some completed product 
to a warehouse to free up floor production space while an ETL investigation 
was still underway, but before we had obtained the ETL approval. ETL would 
not allow us to simply go to the warehouse and affix the markings even 
though the units were identical to the ones still on the production line, 
and 100% had undergone the required hipot and ground testing. 

We were required to transport the units back to the factory for the sole 
purpose of marking them. 

So, add ETL to the list with UL. 

James W. Lyons 
Manager - Product Compliance 
GTECH Corp. 
55 Technology Way 
West Greenwich, RI  02817 
Tel (401) 392-7723 
Fax (401) 392-4955 
Email jim.ly...@gtech.com 

> -Original Message- 
> From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [ mailto:tgr...@lucent.com
 ] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:52 PM 
> To:   'emc-p...@ieee.org' 
> Subject:  Application of agency safety markings 
> Importance:   High 
> 
> Does anyone know whether NRTLs, other than UL, have the requirement that 
> their labels must only be applied at the factory location?   And if so, is

> this an urban legend, or is this actually specified somewhere in writing? 
> 
> I know and respect UL's position but I was wondering whether other NRTLs 
> in this country have the same requirement.   Any replies or experience you

> might have had are welcome! 
> 
> Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com 
> Lucent Technologies, Switchi

RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile

[Marko Radojicic]

Jeffrey,

I agree with David's view. The Altitude and Temp/Humidity requirements
should be "AND-ed" requirements not "OR-ed" to reflect realistic deployment
scenarios. 

In reality, thermal analysis experts tell me that altitude does not really
affect the thermal performance significantly so you should be able to pass
at sea level or at 4000m equally easily (or not so easily!). The loss of
heat carrying capability due to the decreased air density is off-set, at
least somewhat, by the loss of pressure needed to move the air (recall the
fan speed curve).

Marko Radojicic
email: ma...@caspiannetworks.com
phone: 408/382-5206
fax: 408/382-5593



-Original Message-
From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:42 AM
To: 'Collins, Jeffrey'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org '
Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile



Hi Jeffrey,
Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we
would least expect them.  GR63 is no exception.  For altitude, the limits
called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general
temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure.  The
application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour
profile.

It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5,
unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground
over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of
change, and duration.  If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature
rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet
R4-8.  The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier
who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he
purchases you equipment.  I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if
you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m.

Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective.  The tests must be
performed and the results documented.  It is by this means that decisions
are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road.

Good Luck!
Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer
Oresis Communications, Inc.
14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR  97006
* dspen...@oresis.com  * http://www.oresis.com
* (503) 466-6289  * (503) 533-8233  



-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org '
Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile



Group,

GR-63 sections 4.1.3  &  5.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for
Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use?
Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be
definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have
to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude
environment.  Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for
this test?

Points to be considered are:

*  Max Altitude
4000m

*  Temperature at max Altitude
Profile in Table 4-5

*  Relative Humidity
Profile in Table 4-5

*  Length of time at Max Altitude
182 hrs


Thanks in advance,


Jeffrey Collins 
MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
Ciena Core Switching Division
jcoll...@ciena.com
www.ciena.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


---
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: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile

[Joe Finlayson]

David,

This particular test profile is one which I have recently tried to
shed some light on as well.  I am curious where you come to the conclusion
that the application of the criteria for altitude references Table 4.5.  The
requirement (R4-8 anyway) states, "All equipment shall be functional within
the limits specified in Table 4-4 when installed at elevations between 60 m
(197 ft) below sea level and
1800 m (5905 ft) above sea level."  I would think this would be overkill as
you seem to imply that this would encompass another 8-day test profile.
Referencing Table 4.5 would also imply that the temperature limit at 4000M
would be 55 degC where the limits of Table 4.4 clearly state a temperature
limit of 50 degC.

It would be greatly appreciated if anyone else could share their
experiences on this requirement.  What do the RBOC's expect to see for test
results?  I figured I'd post this on the NEBS Forum as well to reach a wider
audience.

Thx,


Joe

-Original Message-
From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:42 PM
To: 'Collins, Jeffrey'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org '
Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile



Hi Jeffrey,
Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we
would least expect them.  GR63 is no exception.  For altitude, the limits
called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general
temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure.  The
application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour
profile.

It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5,
unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground
over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of
change, and duration.  If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature
rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet
R4-8.  The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier
who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he
purchases you equipment.  I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if
you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m.

Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective.  The tests must be
performed and the results documented.  It is by this means that decisions
are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road.

Good Luck!
Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer
Oresis Communications, Inc.
14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR  97006
* dspen...@oresis.com  * http://www.oresis.com
* (503) 466-6289  * (503) 533-8233  



-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org '
Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile



Group,

GR-63 sections 4.1.3  &  5.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for
Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use?
Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be
definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have
to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude
environment.  Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for
this test?

Points to be considered are:

*  Max Altitude
4000m

*  Temperature at max Altitude
Profile in Table 4-5

*  Relative Humidity
Profile in Table 4-5

*  Length of time at Max Altitude
182 hrs


Thanks in advance,


Jeffrey Collins 
MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
Ciena Core Switching Division
jcoll...@ciena.com
www.ciena.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


---
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:   

RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile

[JIM WIESE]

Hello Jeffrey,

Basically, to demonstrate compliance with "GR-63-CORE", no altitude testing
is required assuming you have passed the standard temperature and humidity
profile.  The rationale is that, at that altitude, heating the facility will
be the primary concern, not cooling it.  According to the national weather
service, the expected ambient high temperature at that altitude is less than
20C.  If a facility at that altitude lost HVAC, it probably would start
cooling off rather than heating up.  Thus the reason there is no test
method.  It was simply intended as a design criteria that should be
considered.

However you can demonstrate compliance above and beyond the current
GR-63-CORE for altitude by raising the temperature limits during the
operational temperature and humidity testing by 1 degree C per 1000 foot of
altitude that you want to simulate.  This assumes you do not have components
that may be altitude sensitive.  It also assumes worst case conditions for
the amount of heat that your product may be generating.

However, some ILEC's may want to see an actual altitude test depending upon
the equipment type and application.  In this case Richard Kluge at Telcordia
has developed a "proposed" altitude exposure test and he has a paper that
was written in December of 1999 covering the rationale etc.  Telcordia now
has an altitude chamber and is conducting a study to determine if altitude
is a potential concern based on the design of modern telecommunications
equipment for the next revision of GR-63-CORE.

Attached is the Telcordia document from Richard Kluge, note that the
temperatures recommended for testing at altitude are much lower than 50C,
and thus are looking more at determining component altitude sensitivity
rather than reduced air density and temperature.

 <> 

These are solely my opinions, and not necessarily those of my employer

Jim

Jim Wiese
NEBS Project Manager/Compliance Engineer
ADTRAN, INC.
901 Explorer Blvd.
P.O. Box 14
Huntsville, AL 35814-4000
256-963-8431
256-963-8250 fax
jim.wi...@adtran.com 

> --
> From: Collins, Jeffrey[SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com]
> Reply To: Collins, Jeffrey
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 8:36 AM
> To:   'emc-p...@ieee.org '
> Subject:  NEBS: GR-63  Altitude Test Profile
> 
> 
> Group,
> 
> GR-63 sections 4.1.3  &  5.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for
> Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you
> use?
> Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to
> be
> definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could
> have
> to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude
> environment.  Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications
> for
> this test?
> 
> Points to be considered are:
> 
> *  Max Altitude
> 
> *  Temperature at max Altitude
> 
> *  Relative Humidity
> 
> *  Length of time at Max Altitude
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Collins 
> MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
> Ciena Core Switching Division
> jcoll...@ciena.com
> www.ciena.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
> 
> 


alt-12-31-99.pdf
Description: Adobe Portable Document

Re: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile

[Jon D. Curtis]

Hi,

At the last two NEBS conferences Mike Bentley of USWest stated that all he was
concerned about was the EUT performance at high temperature.  What changes at
altitude is the heat capacity of air.  Thus it becomes more difficult to cool
equipment because the air is "thin".  USWest is the RBOC which is most concerned
with this test as they are the only one to my knowledge with COs above 12,000
feet.

We run the altitude test at 50C for frames and 55C for shelves.  We allow the
EUT to stabilize within the chamber and we also determine the temperature at
which equipment starts to fail in the event that the EUT has a problem at the
extreme temperature.

AT&T NEDS does have a non-operational test at 40,000 feet which we run at
ambient temperature and humidity as an unpressurized airplane bay is unlikely to
be very hot..

BTW, the next NEBS conference is in Baltimore next week.  See www.800teachme.com
for details.

-Jon Curtis

David Spencer wrote:

> Hi Jeffrey,
> Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we
> would least expect them.  GR63 is no exception.  For altitude, the limits
> called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general
> temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure.  The
> application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour
> profile.
>
> It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5,
> unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground
> over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of
> change, and duration.  If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature
> rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet
> R4-8.  The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier
> who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he
> purchases you equipment.  I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if
> you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m.
>
> Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective.  The tests must be
> performed and the results documented.  It is by this means that decisions
> are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road.
>
> Good Luck!
> Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer
> Oresis Communications, Inc.
> 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR  97006
> * dspen...@oresis.com  * http://www.oresis.com
> * (503) 466-6289  * (503) 533-8233
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM
> To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org '
> Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
>
> Group,
>
> GR-63 sections 4.1.3  &  5.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for
> Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use?
> Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be
> definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have
> to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude
> environment.  Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for
> this test?
>
> Points to be considered are:
>
> *  Max Altitude
> 4000m
>
> *  Temperature at max Altitude
> Profile in Table 4-5
>
> *  Relative Humidity
> Profile in Table 4-5
>
> *  Length of time at Max Altitude
> 182 hrs
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jeffrey Collins
> MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
> Ciena Core Switching Division
> jcoll...@ciena.com
> www.ciena.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

--
Jon D. Curtis, P.E.

Director of Engineering
Curtis-Straus LLC

One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC,
Product Safety, and Telecom Testing.
527 Great Road
Littleton, MA 01460 USA
Voice 978-486-8880  Fax 978-486-8828
email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com
WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc dis

Testing of product per en60825-1

[Bharat_Shah]

Hello,
Is there any independent laboratory who can conduct the test per EN60825-1
?
Thank you,
Regards,
Bharat Shah


---
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: Battery Safety

[ed . rauch]

I've seen this resistor used for the low battery alarm circuit. It keeps the
battery voltage from rising as load is shed and confusing the low battery alarm
circuit. There is no safety reason that I know of. 91K ohm is an odd value
though, left overs from another product? I'm assuming that the normal current
drain of this product is small, in the 10  to 100 microamp regions.



---
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: Battery Safety

[Kevin Harris]

Hi,

I've seen this done before on low current designs. Sometimes when you
replace the batteries in this type of design the circuit voltage does not
have time to drop completely away due to the charge saved on bulk
capacitors. When the new batteries are added the circuit comes up in a
peculiar state. This is particularly true of uP power on reset circuits.
There are more elegant ways to take care of this problem but I suppose a
single resistor would be the cheapest (if one ignored battery life).

Regards,

Kevin Harris
Manager, Approval Services
Digital Security Controls



-Original Message-
From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:31 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
Subject: Battery Safety



All,

We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased.  The product
is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries.  Inside
the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the
batteries.  Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some
of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety  feature.

I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the
instrument.  I did read through the safety test report; and I found no
reference to this resistor being required.   All it does is provide a
constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life).  It has been
suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce
the electrical noise in a product.  To me a capacitor would be better for
this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering.  Even so,
isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor?  I'm just drawing a blank why anyone
would do this.  I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because
it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life.  However, I don't want to
sacrifice the safety of the product.

Anybody want to take a guess at this one?

Thanks.

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


---
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: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile

[David Spencer]

Hi Jeffrey,
Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we
would least expect them.  GR63 is no exception.  For altitude, the limits
called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general
temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure.  The
application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour
profile.

It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5,
unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground
over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of
change, and duration.  If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature
rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet
R4-8.  The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier
who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he
purchases you equipment.  I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if
you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m.

Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective.  The tests must be
performed and the results documented.  It is by this means that decisions
are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road.

Good Luck!
Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer
Oresis Communications, Inc.
14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR  97006
* dspen...@oresis.com  * http://www.oresis.com
* (503) 466-6289  * (503) 533-8233  



-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org '
Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile



Group,

GR-63 sections 4.1.3  &  5.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for
Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use?
Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be
definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have
to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude
environment.  Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for
this test?

Points to be considered are:

*  Max Altitude
4000m

*  Temperature at max Altitude
Profile in Table 4-5

*  Relative Humidity
Profile in Table 4-5

*  Length of time at Max Altitude
182 hrs


Thanks in advance,


Jeffrey Collins 
MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
Ciena Core Switching Division
jcoll...@ciena.com
www.ciena.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: Bulgarian requirements

[Ron Pickard]

Hi Niels,

As a suggestion, if you are new to the Bulgarian regulatory scene or have had 
little experience in
that area, try asking the customer these questions. He may even have a copy of 
the spec(s) that he
may be willing to give to you. And he might even appreciate you going to him 
for assistance.
However, as I do not know the situation between your company and this customer, 
please determine
your own path.

Anyway, I am not aware of any national deviations imposed into any of the 
Bulgarian versions of
these standards, but here's what I have regarding the following standards:
- BSS 12.2.006.0-80, Professional Radioelectronic Equipment. Safety 
requirements and methods of
testing.
- BSS 14525,Not familiar with this standard.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com







"Hougaard,  

Niels"  To: emc-p...@ieee.org   

   
barco.com>  Subject: Bulgarian requirements 

Sent by:

owner-emc-pstc@i

eee.org 





09/25/00 07:08  

AM  

Please respond  

to "Hougaard,   

Niels"  









To the group,

a Bulgarian customer has asked if we comply with the following standards:
   Safety: BSS 12.2.006.0-80, prBSS EN60950 and BSS 14525
   EMC: BSS EN 55022 and BSS EN 50082-1.

prBSS EN60950, BSS EN 55022 and BSS EN 50082-1 seem wellknown but does
anybody know if there are national deviations in these Bulgarian versions?

Does anybody know BSS 12.2.006.0-80 and/or BSS 14525, or where to find more
about these standards?

Thanks in advance

> Venlig hilsen/Kind regards
>
> Niels Hougaard
> EMC Engineer, B.Sc.E.E
> BARCO AS/Communication Systems
> Phone direct: +45 39170815
> Fax: +45 39170010
> Mailto:niels.houga...@barco.com
> www.barco.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: Red LED's

[Allen, John]

Hi folks

A comment - I would urge a little caution if IT products are being used in
the industrial or medical environments since it is these where the "traffic
light" approach is mandated in the appropriate sector standards  (e.g.
EN60204 & EN/IEC 601 respectively).

Also, "correctly" coloured LED's are now available for many purposes, so
there is not too much justification for claiming that you cannot get the
correct coloured devices!

John Allen
Thomson-Racal Defence Electronics Ltd.

PS: The comment is based on bitter past experience - albeit many years ago -
when working on CT Scanners for EMI Medical (now long defunct) and when
LED's were almost exclusively Red with no options!

-Original Message-
From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com]
Sent: 25 September 2000 14:04
To: Mark Schmidt; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Red LED's



Mark,

Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN 60950 (for ITE Equipment) states: "Where safety is
involved, colors of controls and indicators shall comply with IEC 73. Where
colors are used for functional controls or indicators, any color, including
red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety is not involved."

We have used red LEDs in ITE equipment that is approved for use in the EU
for items such as fan faults, overtemperature faults, etc. These products
have been approved for use in the EU by both TÜV and Intertek with red LEDs.

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer

Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
voice:  614.846.6175
toll free:  800.848.4525
fax: 614.846.7791

http://www.tracewellsystems.com/  


-Original Message-
From:   Mark Schmidt [SMTP:mschm...@xrite.com]
Sent:   Friday, September 22, 2000 9:59 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:Red LED's


Is the use of Red LED's acceptable for I.T.E. equipment in the EU in
accordance with LVD and EMCD? All comments welcome.
Thank you.

Mark Schmidt
X-Rite Incorporated 
U.S.A.
mschm...@xrite.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


---
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

EN 54 Pat 7

[Kevin Harris]

Hello Group,

For some time now  there has been a pr version of EN54 Part 7 going through
the approval process. I've been hearing that the new version will become
official " any day now" for at least a year. Is anyone out there have more
informed knowledge of the progress of this revision


Best Regards,


Kevin Harris
Manager, Approval Services
Digital Security Controls
3301 Langstaff Road
Concord, Ontario
CANADA
L4K 4L2

Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378
Fax +1 905 760 3020

Email: harr...@dscltd.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

Correction of error

[georgea]

In my prior note, "RG" should have been "RF".
So much for engineers as typists.



---
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

Battery Safety

[Maxwell, Chris]

All,

We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased.  The product
is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries.  Inside
the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the
batteries.  Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some
of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety  feature.

I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the
instrument.  I did read through the safety test report; and I found no
reference to this resistor being required.   All it does is provide a
constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life).  It has been
suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce
the electrical noise in a product.  To me a capacitor would be better for
this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering.  Even so,
isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor?  I'm just drawing a blank why anyone
would do this.  I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because
it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life.  However, I don't want to
sacrifice the safety of the product.

Anybody want to take a guess at this one?

Thanks.

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

RE: Cell phones and humans

[georgea]

Paolo,

In my opinion, I agree with the "null" theory.  I did some work in the
'70's with a digital RG system operating at an assigned experimental
frequency of 939+mHz.  At this frequency, "line of sight" is extremely
important, unlike lower frequency AM/FM radio signals, which often "bend"
over the earth's curvature.  We also experienced problems with isolated
nulls.

One of two things could have happened.  She could have stepped into a
null due to a blocked line of sight (and no strong refleced signal), or
a null caused by an out-of-phase reflected signal.


George



---
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

Harmonics and the 600W limit

[Gunter_J_Maass]

A question about the famous 61000-3-2.

  What should I consider if my equipment works with an input power less
  than, and sometimes above 600W in normal conditions ? Will my equipment
  need to mute to comply with class A and D !?  :-)

  Thanks.

  Günter J. Maass
  Eletronic Researcher
  EMBRACO S.A.


---
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

Bulgarian requirements

[Hougaard, Niels]

To the group,

a Bulgarian customer has asked if we comply with the following standards: 
Safety: BSS 12.2.006.0-80, prBSS EN60950 and BSS 14525
EMC: BSS EN 55022 and BSS EN 50082-1.

prBSS EN60950, BSS EN 55022 and BSS EN 50082-1 seem wellknown but does
anybody know if there are national deviations in these Bulgarian versions?

Does anybody know BSS 12.2.006.0-80 and/or BSS 14525, or where to find more
about these standards?

Thanks in advance

> Venlig hilsen/Kind regards
> 
> Niels Hougaard
> EMC Engineer, B.Sc.E.E
> BARCO AS/Communication Systems
> Phone direct: +45 39170815
> Fax: +45 39170010
> Mailto:niels.houga...@barco.com
> www.barco.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: Cell phones and humans

[Price, Ed]

Paolo:

Assuming that she was not wearing shoes at the time, then as she stepped
back, with her feet already wet, she was likely still reasonably well
grounded to the conductive concrete pool edge. I'll bet the explanation is
more likely to be multipath cancellation; the RF null created by the
addition of multiple signal reflections. Proving this might be difficult,
since the null would be the product of ever reflection present in the pool
vicinity that day. The position of every conductive object would need to be
recreated.

Regards,

Ed


:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
Ed  Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (Fax)
Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)



> -Original Message-
> From: Roncone Paolo [mailto:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it]
> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 3:19 PM
> To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org '
> Subject: Cell phones and humans
> 
> 
> 
> Group,
> the subject of possible biological effects of cell phones is 
> having a lot of
> attention these days and it was already touched in this 
> forum. I'd like to
> get opinions about  what my wife just told me. I don't know 
> if this should
> be classified as "influence of cell phones on humans" or "influence of
> humans on cell phones". The story is as follows:
> my wife was talking on her cell phone while walking by a 
> swimming pool. As
> she steppen right on the wet border of the pool (she was bare 
> foot) the line
> went down. But just after stepping back on dry ground (just a 
> step or two
> back, so the signal level shouldn't have changed so much) the 
> line got back
> and she was able to resume her conversation. She told me she 
> didn't step
> back again on the water,  just to check if the phenomenon was 
> repeatable. I
> honestly don't know if this is even worth of attention 
> because of course
> it's not a "laboratory" or just even a "controlled" experiment. But if
> anyone out there has any guess or thinks there is an 
> explanation... that
> would be welcome !! 
> 
> Paolo
> 
> ---
> 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

NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile

[Collins, Jeffrey]

Group,

GR-63 sections 4.1.3  &  5.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for
Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use?
Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be
definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have
to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude
environment.  Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for
this test?

Points to be considered are:

*  Max Altitude

*  Temperature at max Altitude

*  Relative Humidity

*  Length of time at Max Altitude



Thanks in advance,


Jeffrey Collins 
MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
Ciena Core Switching Division
jcoll...@ciena.com
www.ciena.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: Red LED's

[Andrews, Kurt]

Mark,

Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN 60950 (for ITE Equipment) states: "Where safety is
involved, colors of controls and indicators shall comply with IEC 73. Where
colors are used for functional controls or indicators, any color, including
red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety is not involved."

We have used red LEDs in ITE equipment that is approved for use in the EU
for items such as fan faults, overtemperature faults, etc. These products
have been approved for use in the EU by both TÜV and Intertek with red LEDs.

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer

Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
voice:  614.846.6175
toll free:  800.848.4525
fax: 614.846.7791

http://www.tracewellsystems.com/  


-Original Message-
From:   Mark Schmidt [SMTP:mschm...@xrite.com]
Sent:   Friday, September 22, 2000 9:59 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:Red LED's


Is the use of Red LED's acceptable for I.T.E. equipment in the EU in
accordance with LVD and EMCD? All comments welcome.
Thank you.

Mark Schmidt
X-Rite Incorporated 
U.S.A.
mschm...@xrite.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