Surge testing.
Hi all, I would like to know if anyone could point me to any articles or studies of real world mains born interference that substantiate the need to test equipment for immunity to these phenomena. I want to convince an engineer from another company that the standards my company has chosen to adopt are not excessive. Regards, Cameron O'Phee. EMC & Safety Precompliance. Aristocrat Technologies Australia. Telephone : +61 2 9697 4420 Facsimile : +61 2 9663 1412 Mobile : 0418 464 016 --- 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: Got a beef with an NRTL ...
I agree with Stephen, except that I would exert a great deal of my energy to have this corrected by the power supply manufacturer, -- and fast! The manufacturer is in danger of loosing your business unless this gets resolved. Try to resolve this in parallel, assuming it is the same NRTL: address this issue with your NRTL certifying engineer and at the same time have the manufacturer work the issue with their cert engineer. Request that both NRTL engineers talk to each other. When the issue is resolved, your cert engineer should be able to give you a completed report a day or so later after the manufacturer gets his report corrected. The assumption is that both NRTL engineers proceed with their work per the agreement, and the first formal approval immediately toggles your formal approval. This approach worked for me several times. If it is not the same NRTL, having both cert engineers talking to each other will not work. You are now working serially, and this will take time. However, I still think that this will be faster rather than going to another NRTL entirely and starting from scratch, or using another power supply in your product (probably will take even longer!). Another option,-- you might want to consider taking your product to the same NRTL as the power supply manufacturer and forcing them to correct this issue. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:07 AM To: Doug; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: Got a beef with an NRTL ... Doug, You don't say for certain, but can we assume that the fact that the NTRL even knew of the internal fuse's limitations - that you and the ps company used the very same NRTL, including the same office? Or is this a case of one NRTL not accepting the 'interpretation' of another? Also, are you sure there are no CofA's on this supply? I require a copy of the UL and CB reports for every power supply, in an effort to avoid issues approaching this. It sounds very scary. I'd be pretty darn mad too! I'd direct some of that energy at the ps manufacturer as well as the NRTL. Best regards, Stephen At 12:42 PM 10/19/00 Thursday , Doug wrote: > >I'm just about ready to escalate this issue. > >Issue: Major NRTL has recognized a DC-DC power supply. >Said ps is being used within the confines of >it's stated purpose, input power, output power, >temps, etc ... > >Said product is submitted to NRTL for what appeared >to be a walk through. Oh no, Mr. McKean. You can't >use THAT power supply as intended. Input fuse of >power supply (that is the fuse INSIDE the power that >is out of our hands) is an AC fuse. It should be a >DC fuse. (From the documentation from the ps mfr, >the approval was done with the aC rated fuse.) > >You have to either: > >1. have the ps mfr change the input fuse. > >or > >2. drop an in-line fuse between the power inlet > of the product and the input of the ps. > >EXCUSE ME!?! > >How the heck can a power supply mfr get NRTL approval on one >hand and, yet, when that power supply is used within it's >intended and stated purpose, get rejected? > >Even bringing this to the attention of the test engineer >(who has approx over 10 years experience as a test eng) >it defaults to - "well, that's just because the OTHER >test engineer interpreted it that way ... " > >I can understand and have been in those areas of >"interpretation" with NRTLs, but this one really ... >er ... surprises me. > >Yours truly and totally confused, Doug > >--- >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: Class D in EN61000-3-2
The answers are: 1) Yes, and 2) Yes. 1) The original Cenelec press release is available in PDF format from the CENELEC web site, at http://www.cenelec.org/ . (Go to Press Release, then click on the link <12102000.PDF> Changes to the EMC standards are ratified.) Many thanks are due to Paul O'Shaughnessy for this information, which he shared with emc-pstc recently. 2) Other equipment that does not fall into the special classes B, C, or D, has to meet Class A. That is, unless it is declared by its manufacturer to be 'professional equipment' that is not sold to ordinary consumers - and it consumes over 1kW - in which case it has no limits to meet (yet) under 61000-3-2. Hope this clarifies the position. Keith Armstrong Partner, Cherry Clough Consultants, www.cherryclough.com Cherry Clough House, Rochdale Road, Denshaw, OL3 5UE, Great Britain phone: +44 (0)1457 871 605, fax: +44 (0)1457 820 145 E-mail: keith.armstr...@cherryclough.com - Original Message - From: "Barry Ma" To: Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 5:31 PM Subject: Class D in EN61000-3-2 > > I read an article about EN61000-3-2 in p2 of > http://www.techintl.com/pdfs/newsletters/sd_news2000.pdf > titled "Deficiencies of EMC Harmonics Standards Are Addressed". > > It reads: "Several national standards organizations have asked the EC and CENELEC for an extension to the date of withdrawal of conflicting standards (1 January 2001). For this reason, Working Group 1 of IEC SC 77A prepared an interim draft to address some of the standard's deficiencies. The draft modification proposes to withdraw the special wave-shape test for Class D yet still retains the Class D category and test limits. Equipment will be specified in the standard as being in the Class D category, and therefore have to be tested for compliance. PCs, PC monitors and television receivers with a power consumption of between 75 W and 600 W fall into this category. The vote closing date is 15 September 2000. If adopted, the Common Modification could be ratified before 1 January 2001. Manufacturers would have the option of using only the standard or using the standard with the Common Modification. There is no proposal to delay the date of withdrawal of EN 61000-3-2." > > Please help me clarify the followings: > (1) What is the vote result of 9/15/00? Has the Common Modification been adopted? > (2) If adopted, does it mean Class D only pertain to PC, PC monitors and TV? Does it mean there is no Class D category for other equipment? > > 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 > > > --- 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: Class D in EN61000-3-2
Gert, Thanks for your clarification. Paul, I also include your nice explanation below. I speculate that the main point of A14 of EN61000-3-2 is to retain Class D requirement only for PC, PC monitor and TV, and replace Class D requirement with Class A for other equipment. Please verify my conjecture. Thanks. Barry Ma -- On Thu, 19 October 2000, "CE-test - Gert Gremmen Ing. - CE-mark & more ..." wrote: You are right Barry, The decision was in favor and there are no other equipment yet defined in Class D. I have sent the list a press release from cenelec a few days ago about this subject. However, this was a compromise between industry fighting against and power companies on the other side. It was said by people witnessing the disc(p)utes that it was the toughest discussion since standardization started. With the next revision this compromise will certainly extend into the direction of other equipment within the power limits fall in Class D as long as it meets the criteria formulated as: "having a substantial influence on the power system". Read : all capacitor loaded bridge rectifier applications. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presencehttp://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === > >>-Original Message- From: O'Shaughnessy, Paul [SMTP:paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 10:28 AM To: 'Nick Rouse'; Friedemann Adt Cc: EMC Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2/A14 Right - the dop is the first date upon which you MAY employ a new standard for compliance. The dow is the day by which any conflicting (ie the old standard) must be withdrawn and is therefore ineffective. This makes the period between dop and dow a transition period. Typically, the new standard is tougher than the original, so the transition period is used by everyone to ECO their products, retire the dinosaurs, etc. In this case (assuming all the dates are correct and it goes according to the plan), the situation is a bit upside down - A14 makes compliance to EN61000-3-2 easier. The dow for EN61000-3-2 will coincide with the dop of A14, which means on January 1st, you'll need to comply with EN61000-3-2, BUT you'll have the option to use A14 in doing so. For many manufacturers, A14 is the simpler and easier path, so I expect that many will take it once it is available. Paul O'Shaughnessy ___ 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: Got a beef with an NRTL ...
Not surprised Doug. That's happened to a colleague of mine from a MAJOR electronics company. I also, had a similar discrepancy' problem (but with different component) . . .also with a major NRTL. "Oh. The engineer that wrote THAT report must've misinterpreted the standard that applies to that component. Sorry. Call the manufacturer." Good luck . . . John Juhasz -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:43 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Got a beef with an NRTL ... I'm just about ready to escalate this issue. Issue: Major NRTL has recognized a DC-DC power supply. Said ps is being used within the confines of it's stated purpose, input power, output power, temps, etc ... Said product is submitted to NRTL for what appeared to be a walk through. Oh no, Mr. McKean. You can't use THAT power supply as intended. Input fuse of power supply (that is the fuse INSIDE the power that is out of our hands) is an AC fuse. It should be a DC fuse. (From the documentation from the ps mfr, the approval was done with the aC rated fuse.) You have to either: 1. have the ps mfr change the input fuse. or 2. drop an in-line fuse between the power inlet of the product and the input of the ps. EXCUSE ME!?! How the heck can a power supply mfr get NRTL approval on one hand and, yet, when that power supply is used within it's intended and stated purpose, get rejected? Even bringing this to the attention of the test engineer (who has approx over 10 years experience as a test eng) it defaults to - "well, that's just because the OTHER test engineer interpreted it that way ... " I can understand and have been in those areas of "interpretation" with NRTLs, but this one really ... er ... surprises me. Yours truly and totally confused, Doug --- 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: Got a beef with an NRTL ...
I've had this kind of thing pulled on me before, to. Start with their team leader, then group leader , then section head, then dept. manager, until you get satisfaction. Peter Tarver ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 5:43 PM I'm just about ready to escalate this issue. Issue: Major NRTL has recognized a DC-DC power supply. Said ps is being used within the confines of it's stated purpose, input power, output power, temps, etc ... Said product is submitted to NRTL for what appeared to be a walk through. Oh no, Mr. McKean. You can't use THAT power supply as intended. Input fuse of power supply (that is the fuse INSIDE the power that is out of our hands) is an AC fuse. It should be a DC fuse. (From the documentation from the ps mfr, the approval was done with the aC rated fuse.) You have to either: 1. have the ps mfr change the input fuse. or 2. drop an in-line fuse between the power inlet of the product and the input of the ps. EXCUSE ME!?! How the heck can a power supply mfr get NRTL approval on one hand and, yet, when that power supply is used within it's intended and stated purpose, get rejected? Even bringing this to the attention of the test engineer (who has approx over 10 years experience as a test eng) it defaults to - "well, that's just because the OTHER test engineer interpreted it that way ... " I can understand and have been in those areas of "interpretation" with NRTLs, but this one really ... er ... surprises me. Yours truly and totally confused, Doug --- 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: Automotive EMC Directive
The URL for the paper by RFI is either: http://www.rfi.co.uk/hp_sheets/vehicle.pdf or http://www.rfi.co.uk/hp_sheets/vehicle.htm depending on the form you prefer. The links at their web site did not work for me, but I was able to "piece together the evidence," and get working URLs. The 'troyan' site works as identified below. At 13:46 (-0400) on 00.10.19, Maxwell, Chris wrote: > A couple of years ago, we designed a cigarette lighter > adapter for one of our products. At the time, I looked into > the Automotive EMC Directive 95/54/EC. I found the following > references. Surf at your own risk, I'm not sure if these > websites and html's are still out there! > > www.rfi.co.uk/technical/TechPaper_AutoEMC.html was a > technical paper written by RFI labs in the UK which explains > some of the requirements. > > www.troyan.com/ce/emc11.html is another technical paper on the web. > > TUV Rhineland also put out an article regarding the Directive > and listed Serge Reding Ph: 734-261-8881 as a contact. > > If anyone is in really dire straights (not the band that > authored "Sultans of Swing") I have hardcopies that I could > fax, but I'd rather avoid getting dinged for overuse of the > company fax. > > Hope this helps. > Chris --- 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: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15
FCC Pt15 states that you can use their limits or, alternatively, the limits found in CISPR 22:1995. Your EN Class B data should be sufficient for having your lab generate an FCC B (or A) report. Jack -Original Message- From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:51 AM To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) Subject: RE: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15 No. The class B FCC limits for conducted disturbance at the mains ports are lower than EN55022 class B. QP limits: FCC - 0.45 to 30MHz = 48dBuV EN - 0.15 to 0.5MHz = 66 to 56dBuV (decreasing linearly with the log of frequency) 0.5 to 5MHz = 56dBuV 5 to 30MHz = 60dBuV Radiated disturbance is performed at 3m for FCC and 10m for EN55022. The limits and are different. QP limits: FCC @ 3m - 30 to 88MHz = 34dBuV/m 88 to 216MHz = 37.5dBuV/m 216 to 960MHz = 40dBuV/m 960 to 1000MHz = 48dBuV/m EN @ 10m - 30 to 230MHz = 30dBuV/m 230 to 1000MHz = 37dBuV/m I'm afraid the only way to compare the two standards is to buy copies of them. Chris Colgan EMC & Safety > TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU United Kingdom > * Phone: +44 (0)1480 415627 > * Fax: +44 (0)1480 415689 > * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com > * http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: Keith Zell [SMTP:zell...@pmifeg.com] > Sent: 18 October 2000 14:53 > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15 > > > Will a product certified to EN55022 class B necessarily comply to FCC Part > 15 Class A limits? Where might I find a valid comparison of these two EMC > standards. > > As always, thanks for your help. > > B. Keith Zell > Electrical Design Engineer > PMI Food Equipment Group > Troy, OH 45374 > (937) 332-3067 (ph) > (937) 332-3007 (fax) > zell...@pmifeg.com ** 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 --- 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: Got a beef with an NRTL ...
Hi Doug: Your message was not clear whether you submitted your product to the same NRTL that certified the power supply. Basically, your cert engineer has put YOU in the middle of a beef between cert engineers or between cert houses. Your cert engineer found a fault in the power supply cert. Rather than go to the power supply cert engineer or the other cert house, your cert engineer makes you be the bad guy once removed. You must go back to the power supply mfgr, who will then go back to the power supply cert engineer with the bad news: the power supply cert engineer messed up on the fuse. This is typical cert house engineer behavior. It establishes who is the better cert engineer, and belittles the other cert engineer. Its a power play by your cert engineer to put himself into a more advantageous position for future advancement or promotion. The same can be said of differences between two cert houses. If both engineers are in the same cert house, then you will need to go fairly high in the organization to resolve this. Both immediate managers will back their respective cert engineers. There is no way you can win this one. You are the messenger. Your product cert is being held hostage until you fix the problem with any of four options: 1) add the second fuse in your product (which your cert house engineer knows is ridiculuous and that you are not likely to do); 2) demand the PS manufacturer change the fuse and re-certify (which will embarrass the PS cert engineer -- which is the objective); 3) go to another cert house (which your cert engr doesn't believe you will do). 4) assuming the Conditions of Acceptability do not require a dc fuse, then climb the management chain to get the cert house to accept its own certification (but this is not a good choice because the fuse SHOULD be a dc-rated fuse). For me, the best option is to yank your product and go to another NRTL. And let your cert engineer's boss know why you are yanking the product. Money speaks. Best regards, Rich > From owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Thu Oct 19 09:55:16 PDT 2000 > Received: from hpsdlo.sdd.hp.com (hpsdlo-sw.sdd.hp.com [15.80.36.40]) > by hpsdlfsa.sdd.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18546)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02 sdd epg) > with ESMTP id JAA05426 > for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:55:16 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) > by hpsdlo.sdd.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.8.5btis+epg) with ESMTP id > JAA10083 > for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:55:14 -0700 (PDT) > Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id MAA03421; Thu, 19 > Oct 2000 12:44:26 -0400 (EDT) > Message-ID: <39ef247f.57771...@gte.net> > Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:42:39 -0700 > From: Doug > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group > Subject: Got a beef with an NRTL ... > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: Doug > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients > X-Listname: emc-pstc > X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org > X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org > > > I'm just about ready to escalate this issue. > > Issue: Major NRTL has recognized a DC-DC power supply. > Said ps is being used within the confines of > it's stated purpose, input power, output power, > temps, etc ... > > Said product is submitted to NRTL for what appeared > to be a walk through. Oh no, Mr. McKean. You can't > use THAT power supply as intended. Input fuse of > power supply (that is the fuse INSIDE the power that > is out of our hands) is an AC fuse. It should be a > DC fuse. (From the documentation from the ps mfr, > the approval was done with the aC rated fuse.) > > You have to either: > > 1. have the ps mfr change the input fuse. > > or > > 2. drop an in-line fuse between the power inlet > of the product and the input of the ps. > > EXCUSE ME!?! > > How the heck can a power supply mfr get NRTL approval on one > hand and, yet, when that power supply is used within it's > intended and stated purpose, get rejected? > > Even bringing this to the attention of the test engineer > (who has approx over 10 years experience as a test eng) > it defaults to - "well, that's just because the OTHER > test engineer interpreted it that way ... " > > I can understand and have been in those areas of > "interpretation" with NRTLs, but this one really ... > er ... surprises me. > > Yours truly and totally confused, Doug > >
RE: Class D in EN61000-3-2
You are right Barry, The decision was in favor and there are no other equipment yet defined in Class D. I have send the list a press release from cenelec a few days ago about this subject. However, this was a compromise between industry fighting against and power companies on the other side. It was said by people witnessing the disc(p)utes that it was the toughest discussion since standardization started. With the next revision this compromise will certainly extend into the direction of other equipment within the power limits fall in Class D as long as it meets the criteria formulated as: "having a substantial influence on the power system". Read : all capacitor loaded bridge rectifier applications. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === >>-Original Message- >>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf >>Of Barry Ma >>Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 6:31 PM >>To: emc-p...@ieee.org >>Subject: Class D in EN61000-3-2 >> >> >> >>I read an article about EN61000-3-2 in p2 of >>http://www.techintl.com/pdfs/newsletters/sd_news2000.pdf >>titled "Deficiencies of EMC Harmonics Standards Are Addressed". >> >>It reads: "Several national standards organizations have asked >>the EC and CENELEC for an extension to the date of withdrawal of >>conflicting standards (1 January 2001). For this reason, Working >>Group 1 of IEC SC 77A prepared an interim draft to address some >>of the standards deficiencies. The draft modification proposes >>to withdraw the special wave-shape test for Class D yet still >>retains the Class D category and test limits. Equipment will be >>specified in the standard as being in the Class D category, and >>therefore have to be tested for compliance. PCs, PC monitors and >>television receivers with a power consumption of between 75 W and >>600 W fall into this category. The vote closing date is 15 >>September 2000. If adopted, the Common Modification could be >>ratified before 1 January 2001. Manufacturers would have the >>option of using only the standard or using the standard with the >>Common Modification. There is no proposal to delay the date of >>withdrawal of EN 61000-3-2." >> >>Please help me clarify the followings: >>(1) What is the vote result of 9/15/00? Has the Common >>Modification been adopted? >>(2) If adopted, does it mean Class D only pertain to PC, PC >>monitors and TV? Does it mean there is no Class D category for >>other equipment? >> >>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 >> >> <>
Job Opening-Compliance Engineer
Advanced Input Devices, an Esterline Technologies company, located in beautiful Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, (30 miles east of Spokane, WA) is looking for a Compliance Engineer. A.I.D. is a world leader in the manufacturer of custom keyboards and control panels. We are a subsidiary of Esterline Technologies, a diversified, multi-market manufacturing company with operations located domestically and internationally. We offer excellent benefits and a competitive salary. We are currently recruiting for a COMPLIANCE ENGINEER. Qualified applicant should be familiar with FDA, TUV, EC, and FCC agency requirements. Applicant should have a BS in Engineering, Mathematics, or Physics with 3-10 years of relevant product experience. An Equal Opportunity Employer Please send resumes or inquiries to: Darrell Locke, dlo...@advanced-input.com Advanced Input Devices 600 W. Wilbur Ave Coeur d'Alene ID 83815 Ph. 208-765-8000 ext. 1270 Fax 208-772-9035 --- 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: Automotive EMC Directive
Guys, A couple of years ago, we designed a cigarette lighter adapter for one of our products. At the time, I looked into the Automotive EMC Directive 95/54/EC. I found the following references. Surf at your own risk, I'm not sure if these websites and html's are still out there! www.rfi.co.uk/technical/TechPaper_AutoEMC.html was a technical paper written by RFI labs in the UK which explains some of the requirements. www.troyan.com/ce/emc11.html is another technical paper on the web. TUV Rhineland also put out an article regarding the Directive and listed Serge Reding Ph: 734-261-8881 as a contact. If anyone is in really dire straights (not the band that authored "Sultans of Swing") I have hardcopies that I could fax, but I'd rather avoid getting dinged for overuse of the company fax. Hope this helps. Chris > -Original Message- > From: lfresea...@aol.com [SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:11 AM > To: ndev...@entela.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: Automotive EMC Directive > > > I know Elite in Chicago have been looking into Automotive testing, give > Ray > Klouda a call. > > Derek. > > --- > 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: Got a beef with an NRTL ...
Doug, You don't say for certain, but can we assume that the fact that the NTRL even knew of the internal fuse's limitations - that you and the ps company used the very same NRTL, including the same office? Or is this a case of one NRTL not accepting the 'interpretation' of another? Also, are you sure there are no CofA's on this supply? I require a copy of the UL and CB reports for every power supply, in an effort to avoid issues approaching this. It sounds very scary. I'd be pretty darn mad too! I'd direct some of that energy at the ps manufacturer as well as the NRTL. Best regards, Stephen At 12:42 PM 10/19/00 Thursday , Doug wrote: > >I'm just about ready to escalate this issue. > >Issue: Major NRTL has recognized a DC-DC power supply. >Said ps is being used within the confines of >it's stated purpose, input power, output power, >temps, etc ... > >Said product is submitted to NRTL for what appeared >to be a walk through. Oh no, Mr. McKean. You can't >use THAT power supply as intended. Input fuse of >power supply (that is the fuse INSIDE the power that >is out of our hands) is an AC fuse. It should be a >DC fuse. (From the documentation from the ps mfr, >the approval was done with the aC rated fuse.) > >You have to either: > >1. have the ps mfr change the input fuse. > >or > >2. drop an in-line fuse between the power inlet > of the product and the input of the ps. > >EXCUSE ME!?! > >How the heck can a power supply mfr get NRTL approval on one >hand and, yet, when that power supply is used within it's >intended and stated purpose, get rejected? > >Even bringing this to the attention of the test engineer >(who has approx over 10 years experience as a test eng) >it defaults to - "well, that's just because the OTHER >test engineer interpreted it that way ... " > >I can understand and have been in those areas of >"interpretation" with NRTLs, but this one really ... >er ... surprises me. > >Yours truly and totally confused, Doug > >--- >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: Got a beef with an NRTL ...
Doug, Well, as I remember a Recognized component is incomplete and has Conditions of Acceptability attached to it which subsequent users (including you, the using manufacturer) plus the NRTL engineers are supposed to consider in applying the component in your application. I do remember a Recognized power supply that was used in a product... when we began the product certification the NRTL engineer pointed out that we had to do all the power supply testing - including thermal and fault tests - as the power supply was Recognized without any testing being done... Guess it was mostly our fault, we leaned really hard o the supplier to provide the Recognized supply in a time frame that didn't allow them to completely finish the certification evaluation, but it does point out that the component evaluation is negotiable with the cert lab... As you can tell, I'm not too sympathetic... Harass your supplier to fix it, or provide the protection in your own product. br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@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: Automotive EMC Directive
Hi I think there is no lab in the US. You have to carefull which lab you choose. Reason: The labs are accredeted by the national authorities and at this time the national authorities only accept tests form lab they accredited. In practice if you use an accredeted Lab in Germany (e.g) CETECOM ICT Services in Saarbruecken http:www.cetecom.de) you have to use the Kraftfahrt Bundesamt (national authority) for the approval. However the the approval is then valid for Europe. Best Regards Lothar Schmidt Technical Manager EMC/Bluetooth, BQB, Competent Body Cetecom Inc. 411 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone: +1 (408) 586 6214 Fax: +1 (408) 586 6299 -Original Message- From: Ned Devine [mailto:ndev...@entela.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 5:55 AM To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject: Automotive EMC Directive Hi, I have been volunteered to research the Automotive EMC Directive. What I have found so far is, - The directive is 95/54/EC which is an amendment to 72/245/EEC. - The directive is an "old approach" and has all of the necessary test procedures and methods in the directive. - Self declaration is not allowed. You need a "technical service" to approve your unit. - The mark is the "e" mark and not the CE marking. - The effective date is 01 October 2002. - The tests listed in the directive are radiated broadband emissions, radiated narrowband emissions and radiated immunity. The questions I have are. - Is what I have above correct? - How do I get a copy of the directive(s)? - Does anyone have a list of the "technical services", or know where I can get one? - Does anyone have a sample of the "e" mark, or know where I can get one? - Are there any labs in the USA that do this type of testing? Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.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
Got a beef with an NRTL ...
I'm just about ready to escalate this issue. Issue: Major NRTL has recognized a DC-DC power supply. Said ps is being used within the confines of it's stated purpose, input power, output power, temps, etc ... Said product is submitted to NRTL for what appeared to be a walk through. Oh no, Mr. McKean. You can't use THAT power supply as intended. Input fuse of power supply (that is the fuse INSIDE the power that is out of our hands) is an AC fuse. It should be a DC fuse. (From the documentation from the ps mfr, the approval was done with the aC rated fuse.) You have to either: 1. have the ps mfr change the input fuse. or 2. drop an in-line fuse between the power inlet of the product and the input of the ps. EXCUSE ME!?! How the heck can a power supply mfr get NRTL approval on one hand and, yet, when that power supply is used within it's intended and stated purpose, get rejected? Even bringing this to the attention of the test engineer (who has approx over 10 years experience as a test eng) it defaults to - "well, that's just because the OTHER test engineer interpreted it that way ... " I can understand and have been in those areas of "interpretation" with NRTLs, but this one really ... er ... surprises me. Yours truly and totally confused, Doug --- 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
Class D in EN61000-3-2
I read an article about EN61000-3-2 in p2 of http://www.techintl.com/pdfs/newsletters/sd_news2000.pdf titled "Deficiencies of EMC Harmonics Standards Are Addressed". It reads: "Several national standards organizations have asked the EC and CENELEC for an extension to the date of withdrawal of conflicting standards (1 January 2001). For this reason, Working Group 1 of IEC SC 77A prepared an interim draft to address some of the standards deficiencies. The draft modification proposes to withdraw the special wave-shape test for Class D yet still retains the Class D category and test limits. Equipment will be specified in the standard as being in the Class D category, and therefore have to be tested for compliance. PCs, PC monitors and television receivers with a power consumption of between 75 W and 600 W fall into this category. The vote closing date is 15 September 2000. If adopted, the Common Modification could be ratified before 1 January 2001. Manufacturers would have the option of using only the standard or using the standard with the Common Modification. There is no proposal to delay the date of withdrawal of EN 61000-3-2." Please help me clarify the followings: (1) What is the vote result of 9/15/00? Has the Common Modification been adopted? (2) If adopted, does it mean Class D only pertain to PC, PC monitors and TV? Does it mean there is no Class D category for other equipment? 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: Automotive EMC Directive
Ned For more information see the Year 2000 Compliance Engineering Reference Guide - in the European edition (at least) there is a quite good and long article on this Directive. http://europa.eu.int/geninfo/query_en.htm will take you to the EU Commission Search Engine Enter 95/54/EC as the search criteria and this will throw up a list of relevant documents, including the actual directive - but the on-line copy is missing the diagrams and tables with the technical test levels and limits. I should think you can get a paper copy from any of the major regulations information sources in the USA - this has the diagrams and tables. John Allen Thomson Racal Defence Electronics Bracknell UK -Original Message- From: Ned Devine [mailto:ndev...@entela.com] Sent: 19 October 2000 13:55 To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject: Automotive EMC Directive Hi, I have been volunteered to research the Automotive EMC Directive. What I have found so far is, - The directive is 95/54/EC which is an amendment to 72/245/EEC. - The directive is an "old approach" and has all of the necessary test procedures and methods in the directive. - Self declaration is not allowed. You need a "technical service" to approve your unit. - The mark is the "e" mark and not the CE marking. - The effective date is 01 October 2002. - The tests listed in the directive are radiated broadband emissions, radiated narrowband emissions and radiated immunity. The questions I have are. - Is what I have above correct? - How do I get a copy of the directive(s)? - Does anyone have a list of the "technical services", or know where I can get one? - Does anyone have a sample of the "e" mark, or know where I can get one? - Are there any labs in the USA that do this type of testing? Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.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: EU DoC
I would say that you have to list the amendments. For instance some of our products currently comply with EN55013:1990 + A12 + A13 and this is stated on the DoC. I am currently re-testing these products to include A14:1999. I will re-issue the DoCs stating this. If I just stated EN55013:1990 on the DoC, there would be no way of knowing which version of the standard the products complied with unless the test documentation was referred to. Hardly precise, compete and clearly defined? Just my humble opinion. Chris > -Original Message- > From: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] > Sent: 19 October 2000 15:01 > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: EU DoC > > > EN 45014:1998 specifies the "General criteria for supplier's declaration > of > conformity." Concerning the identification of standards, the document > says > the DoC shall contain "the referenced normative documents in a precise, > complete and clearly defined way . . ." The example of a DoC in Annex A > lists the document number, title and edition/date of issue. > > Thus, it appears that "EN60950" is not "precise, complete and clearly > defined" since there is a 1992 and a 2000 version. > > Does "EN60950:1992" meet the criteria or is necessary to list the applied > amendments? e.g., "EN60950:1992 + A1 + A2 + A3 + A4" > > I require the latter in DoCs from my OEM suppliers so I will know that > they > are up to date, but I am not clear on just what is sufficient from a legal > point of view. > > Richard Woods > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > ** 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: Automotive EMC Directive
I know Elite in Chicago have been looking into Automotive testing, give Ray Klouda a call. Derek. --- 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
EU DoC
EN 45014:1998 specifies the "General criteria for supplier's declaration of conformity." Concerning the identification of standards, the document says the DoC shall contain "the referenced normative documents in a precise, complete and clearly defined way . . ." The example of a DoC in Annex A lists the document number, title and edition/date of issue. Thus, it appears that "EN60950" is not "precise, complete and clearly defined" since there is a 1992 and a 2000 version. Does "EN60950:1992" meet the criteria or is necessary to list the applied amendments? e.g., "EN60950:1992 + A1 + A2 + A3 + A4" I require the latter in DoCs from my OEM suppliers so I will know that they are up to date, but I am not clear on just what is sufficient from a legal point of view. Richard Woods --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Automotive EMC Directive
TUV Rheinland is heavily involved in automobile testing in Germany. You might try them. Richard Woods -- From: Ned Devine [SMTP:ndev...@entela.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 8:55 AM To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject: Automotive EMC Directive Hi, I have been volunteered to research the Automotive EMC Directive. What I have found so far is, - The directive is 95/54/EC which is an amendment to 72/245/EEC. - The directive is an "old approach" and has all of the necessary test procedures and methods in the directive. - Self declaration is not allowed. You need a "technical service" to approve your unit. - The mark is the "e" mark and not the CE marking. - The effective date is 01 October 2002. - The tests listed in the directive are radiated broadband emissions, radiated narrowband emissions and radiated immunity. The questions I have are. - Is what I have above correct? - How do I get a copy of the directive(s)? - Does anyone have a list of the "technical services", or know where I can get one? - Does anyone have a sample of the "e" mark, or know where I can get one? - Are there any labs in the USA that do this type of testing? Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.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: For UL watchers... a job opening...
So, you didn't want the job then Chris? Chris. "Colgan, Chris" on 19/10/2000 09:58:22 Please respond to "Colgan, Chris" Sent by: "Colgan, Chris" To: "'Emc-Pstc' cc:(Chris Allen/GB/3Com) Subject: RE: For UL watchers... a job opening... Looks like an essential requirement is the ability to write long winded, self congratulatory mission statements. Chris > -Original Message- > From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] > Sent: 18 October 2000 23:49 > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: For UL watchers... a job opening... > > > > > > ... check out: > > http://www.ul.com/about/newsrel/nr101300.html > > > 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 > ** 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 --- 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: Australia and NZ requirements for safety
Chris,
I have researched this topic recently. There are apparently no requirements
at the national level. The Dept of Fair Trading of New South Wales has
authority over product safety in that state. Fundamental requirements can be
found in ELECTRICITY SAFETY (EQUIPMENT SAFETY) REGULATION 1999.
See
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/essr1999481/index.html.
This regulation covers requirements for both "declared" and non-declared
articles.
Declared products are specific product types that must be tested/approved. A
list of declared articles can be found on the website of Testing and
Certification Australia. (http://www.tcaust.com/framwork.htm) These declared
products are primarily household consumer devices, not ITE or telecom gear.
Non-declared products are not subject to mandatory testing. However,
non-declared products are subject to minimum standards, as defined in Part 3
Division 2 of the regulation, which refers to clauses contained in AS/NZS
3820: 1998 - Essential Safety Requirements for Low Voltage Electrical
Equipment.
As far as proof of compliance, there are several possible routes:
· Certification by electrical regulator ("certificate of suitability")
· Certification by competent third party (to applicable AS/NZS std)
· RCM mark
· Test report from accredited lab
· Test report issued under CB scheme showing variations
Hope this helps.
Mike Prussel
Principal Engineer
Spike Broadband Systems
+1 603 578 7341
www.spikebroadband.net
-Original Message-
From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 7:17 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Australia and NZ requirements for safety
Hello group,
Can some-one give me guidance/ references on how to get an ITE product from
a European manufacturer compliant for safety regulations in Australia and
NZ?
Is an EN60950 safety test report sufficient?
Chris Collin
___
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
---
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
Automotive EMC Directive
Hi, I have been volunteered to research the Automotive EMC Directive. What I have found so far is, - The directive is 95/54/EC which is an amendment to 72/245/EEC. - The directive is an "old approach" and has all of the necessary test procedures and methods in the directive. - Self declaration is not allowed. You need a "technical service" to approve your unit. - The mark is the "e" mark and not the CE marking. - The effective date is 01 October 2002. - The tests listed in the directive are radiated broadband emissions, radiated narrowband emissions and radiated immunity. The questions I have are. - Is what I have above correct? - How do I get a copy of the directive(s)? - Does anyone have a list of the "technical services", or know where I can get one? - Does anyone have a sample of the "e" mark, or know where I can get one? - Are there any labs in the USA that do this type of testing? Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.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
Thanks
Thanks again to everyone who helped explain then similarities between FCC part 15 vrs. CISPR 22 requirements! B. Keith Zell Electrical Design Engineer PMI Food Equipment Group Troy, OH 45374 (937) 332-3067 (ph) (937) 332-3007 (fax) zell...@pmifeg.com
RE: NEBS compliant Power Supplies.
NEBS Tested does not mean NEBS Compliant! Dave Wilson on 10/18/2000 08:44:06 PM Please respond to Dave Wilson To: "'ron_du...@agilent.com'" , emc-p...@ieee.org cc: john_mahlb...@agilent.com (bcc: Penny D. Robbins/Telcordia) Subject: RE: NEBS compliant Power Supplies. The Hendry power supplies displayed at the NEBS 2000 symposium in Las Vegas all bore NTS "NEBS Tested" labels. Regards, Dave Wilson Alidian Networks -Original Message- From: ron_du...@agilent.com [mailto:ron_du...@agilent.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:22 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: john_mahlb...@agilent.com Subject: NEBS compliant Power Supplies. I am looking for a source for NEBS compliant power supplies. Any suggestions are welcome. Ron Duffy ron_du...@agilent.com 719-590-2335 --- 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: EN55022 vs. FCC Part 15
Chris,
My point was EUT-related, not spec-related. You must perform FCC conducted
RF emissions testing with the correct US mains interface, or be prepared to
justify that the 230V test results are sufficiently equivalent (e.g. based
on past history).
Your point on limits is valid, but moot if you use CISPR RF-radiated test
results; FCC explicitly forbids mix-and-match, i.e. CISPR radiated and FCC
conducted {see CFR 47 paragraphs 15.107(e)(2) and 15.109(g)(4)}.
David
-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:51 AM
To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15
No.
The class B FCC limits for conducted disturbance at the mains ports are
lower than EN55022 class B.
QP limits:
FCC - 0.45 to 30MHz = 48dBuV
EN - 0.15 to 0.5MHz = 66 to 56dBuV (decreasing linearly with the log of
frequency)
0.5 to 5MHz = 56dBuV
5 to 30MHz = 60dBuV
Radiated disturbance is performed at 3m for FCC and 10m for EN55022. The
limits and are different.
QP limits:
FCC @ 3m - 30 to 88MHz = 34dBuV/m
88 to 216MHz = 37.5dBuV/m
216 to 960MHz = 40dBuV/m
960 to 1000MHz = 48dBuV/m
EN @ 10m - 30 to 230MHz = 30dBuV/m
230 to 1000MHz = 37dBuV/m
I'm afraid the only way to compare the two standards is to buy copies of
them.
Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
> TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
United Kingdom
> * Phone: +44 (0)1480 415627
> * Fax: +44 (0)1480 415689
> * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
> * http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Zell [SMTP:zell...@pmifeg.com]
> Sent: 18 October 2000 14:53
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15
>
>
> Will a product certified to EN55022 class B necessarily comply to FCC Part
> 15 Class A limits? Where might I find a valid comparison of these two EMC
> standards.
>
> As always, thanks for your help.
>
> B. Keith Zell
> Electrical Design Engineer
> PMI Food Equipment Group
> Troy, OH 45374
> (937) 332-3067 (ph)
> (937) 332-3007 (fax)
> zell...@pmifeg.com
**
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
---
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:High Frequency Measurements Seminar
forwarding for chas...@email.msn.com Reply Separator Subject:High Frequency Measurements Seminar Author: "chasgra" List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 10/18/00 6:29 PM To all interested parties: Rocky Mountain Chapter EMC Society presents: High Frequency Measurements and Noise in Electronic Circuits - one day demonstration based seminar. An informative and entertaining multimedia seminar for digital and analog designers as well as test engineering and EMC personnel. by Douglas C. Smith Author of High Frequency Measurements and Noise in Electronic Circuits This seminar is unique. Demonstrations on real circuits are used to illustrate most of the concepts being taught unlike most seminars which are taught through the use of vu-graphs as the main medium. About 70% of class time is spent in demonstrations. Complicated math is avoided. This format makes the seminar more interesting to the students and helps them to achieve a deeper understanding of the material covered. Many students have said that this was the best technical seminar they ever attended! When: Dec 1 2000. If you are interested then goto our website http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc Look for the Dec 1 meeting link and sign up!! Charles Grasso Vice Chair RMCEMCS --- 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: For UL watchers... a job opening...
Looks like an essential requirement is the ability to write long winded, self congratulatory mission statements. Chris > -Original Message- > From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] > Sent: 18 October 2000 23:49 > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: For UL watchers... a job opening... > > > > > > ... check out: > > http://www.ul.com/about/newsrel/nr101300.html > > > 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 > ** 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: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15
No. The class B FCC limits for conducted disturbance at the mains ports are lower than EN55022 class B. QP limits: FCC - 0.45 to 30MHz = 48dBuV EN - 0.15 to 0.5MHz = 66 to 56dBuV (decreasing linearly with the log of frequency) 0.5 to 5MHz = 56dBuV 5 to 30MHz = 60dBuV Radiated disturbance is performed at 3m for FCC and 10m for EN55022. The limits and are different. QP limits: FCC @ 3m - 30 to 88MHz = 34dBuV/m 88 to 216MHz = 37.5dBuV/m 216 to 960MHz = 40dBuV/m 960 to 1000MHz = 48dBuV/m EN @ 10m - 30 to 230MHz = 30dBuV/m 230 to 1000MHz = 37dBuV/m I'm afraid the only way to compare the two standards is to buy copies of them. Chris Colgan EMC & Safety > TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU United Kingdom > * Phone: +44 (0)1480 415627 > * Fax: +44 (0)1480 415689 > * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com > * http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: Keith Zell [SMTP:zell...@pmifeg.com] > Sent: 18 October 2000 14:53 > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15 > > > Will a product certified to EN55022 class B necessarily comply to FCC Part > 15 Class A limits? Where might I find a valid comparison of these two EMC > standards. > > As always, thanks for your help. > > B. Keith Zell > Electrical Design Engineer > PMI Food Equipment Group > Troy, OH 45374 > (937) 332-3067 (ph) > (937) 332-3007 (fax) > zell...@pmifeg.com ** 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: Australia and NZ requirements for safety
Chris, Here is my 2 cents worth: 1. For ITE such as a computer or router (without a connection to a telecommunication network), the applicable standards and requirements are AS3260 (safety) and AS3548 (emc) and the manufacturer applies the C-Tick Mark (ie for EMC Compliance). EMC is mandatory, safety is voluntary. 2. AS/NZS 3260 and other safety standards such as TS-001 are called up by both ACA and those other authorities who are concerned by safety issues [ only ] . Thus ITE without telecoms connection requires AS/NZS 3260 only on a voluntary basis. 3. There is a new RCM Mark intended to show compliance with both EMC and safety standards relevant to the product. It applies to a wide range of products which do not connect to the Telecom's network, including ITE Product. The mark belongs to the Standards Association. You need to purchase the right to use the mark and to give an undertaking to respect its copyright status. You can get more information from the Standards Association Website "Standards Australia". 4. Be careful of the telecommunication network definition. For example, X.25 and E1/T1 are both services or interafces falling under ACA requirements. In Australia they didn't specify the interface rather schedule 1 of the Telecommunications Labelling Notice sets out the types of services and connecting Customer Premises Equipment which is required to meet specific standards. This needs skillful interpretation and a knowledge of precedent. For example X.25 is not mentioned specifically. You can download the whole Telecommunications Labelling Notice from the ACA Website. 5. The importer is the party required to make the declaration, also to maintain a compliance folder and to authorise the manufacturer to apply a label which also contains the unique importer identifier. The importer can appoint an Agent to handle these technical and compliance issues. When a manufacturer ships direct to customers in Australia these customers become the importers liable under the regulations (as described above) hence it is best to use Australian Agents who do the work on behalf of your customers in Australia. In this case the manufacturer can protect the confidentiality of their intellectual property and also apply only one Label to equipment (the Australian Agent supplier code Label) to shipments to different customers. 6. Equipment which does not comply with the required standards must be marked with the "not A-tick" before it is sold. It can only be connected to the telecommunications network with a specific permission of the particular carrier. This is called a "Permit to Connect". 7. I recommend that the manufacturer and the Australian Services Agent get involved at the very beginning so that an assessment is made of what are the compliance requirements. The schedule 1 only covers customer premises equipment, the regulations affecting equipment on carrier premises are different. In addition there are precedents, practices and loopholes in the regulations which need to be considered for an optimum and cost effective result. The Australian Services Agent's second function is to setup and manage the compliance folders either on behalf of the importer using his supplier code or using the Agent's own supplier code. We work very closely with R Medding and Associates who are very knowledgeable on issues affecting compliance issues in Australia and New Zealand. You may wish to contact him at: rmedd...@meddingassoc.com.au Intnl Ph: +61 3 9532 8848 ; Fax: +61 3 9532 8849 15 Helenslea Rd Caulfield Nth Melbourne Victoria 3161 Australia At 16:16 18/10/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >Hello group, >Can some-one give me guidance/ references on how to get an ITE product from a European manufacturer compliant for safety regulations in Australia and NZ? >Is an EN60950 safety test report sufficient? > >Chris Collin > >___ > >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 > > Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT TH
RE: NEBS compliant Power Supplies.
The Hendry power supplies displayed at the NEBS 2000 symposium in Las Vegas all bore NTS "NEBS Tested" labels. Regards, Dave Wilson Alidian Networks -Original Message- From: ron_du...@agilent.com [mailto:ron_du...@agilent.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:22 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: john_mahlb...@agilent.com Subject:NEBS compliant Power Supplies. I am looking for a source for NEBS compliant power supplies. Any suggestions are welcome. Ron Duffy ron_du...@agilent.com 719-590-2335 --- 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
