[no subject]

[Stig Jorgensen]

Subject: clock-work
Oct 26. 2000
Hi - Group,
Please can some one steer me in the correct direction to find the
regs./documents that define and or clarify the requirements with regards to
very slow moving mechanical parts.
The point in case is "clock like works".
We have in some cases gears that if you leave your finger on them for a long
time you will get your skin pinched. You will feel that you are being
pinched and thus will pull back your finger with or without some skin being
left in the gears.
The equipment is operated by an "operator" and not the public. Some
locations are required to be poorly lighted.
Thank you for any help that you can give me.
Sincerely
Stig W. J



---
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

Pre-owned EMC equipment for sale

[Hans Mellberg]

For sale;

1) Single phase 15A LISN, 9kHz-80MHz
2) Tilt antenna tower base for square mast
3) Antenna holder "trolley" with air piston for h and v polarization for square
shaft mast.
4) Velonex V-3300 EFT and Burst generator.

Contact me off-list for more details.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
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

FW: How to fix?

[Naftali Shani]

Could someone on this list kindly tell me how to get in touch with Tom Bao
or Wei Li who are mentioned on the http://www.rcic.com/def_abt.htm
  as the web masters. The e-mail address
(t...@uc.com  ) provided is not current.

Also looking for Garry Lundy (ga...@northyork.hp.com
  is incorrect).

Regards,
Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com)
307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8
Voice +1.613.599.6430 X.8277 Fax +1.613.599.6433 
E-mail: nsh...@catena.com or n...@ieee.org  

 -Original Message-
From:   System Administrator  
Sent:   Thursday, October 26, 2000 11:30 AM
To: 't...@uc.com'
Subject:Undeliverable: How to fix?

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

  Subject:  How to fix?
  Sent: 10/26/00 11:29 AM

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

  't...@uc.com' on 10/26/00 11:30 AM
The recipient name is not recognized
The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=Catena
Technolog;l=CAT01S2-001026152848Z-4938
MSEXCH:IMS:Catena Technologies:CAT01:CAT01S2 3550 (000B099C) 550
Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable


---
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 another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?)

[Peter Tarver]

At one time or another, we certainly all do.  Each NRTL has its own level of
absurdity, whether by being too harsh or too lax.

There is one NRTL the international safety community of a previous employer
had agreed was lax to the point of not accepting any component or OEM device
that certified exclusively by that NRTL (don't ask me for a name; I'm not
interested in a law suit).  Another NRTL questioned the validity of
_test_data_ generated by another of its offices, not a simple construction
feature in a component (this was eventually resolved).

While I'd prefer a happy medium, if I had to choose between the two
extremes, from an ethical perspective I'd rather have too harsh than too
lax.  At least with having to work a little harder to make an engineering
case, I don't have to be concerned that I failed to show due diligence or
have a compromised conscience.  With a sound engineering position and
escalating to the appropriate levels within an NRTL, you can win the day.

Keep in mind that each of these NRTLs has a real concern about their
competition, both on the business side and the engineering side.  While I
appreciate Wyle's acceptance of other NRTL test reports for components, I
hope that this is not a blanket acceptance, based on my own experience with
lax NRTLs.

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

Requirements for Saudi Arabia and Taiwan

[E Eszlari]

Can anyone tell me where I can locate Audio/Video equipment Safety and EMC 
requirements for Saudi Arabia and Taiwan?


Thanks in advance.

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

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



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

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

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

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

RE: DC Fuse for Power Supply

[Dick Grobner]

They are in the Schurter catalog dated 10/99, pages 144 - 155
Good Luck!

-Original Message-
From: jrbar...@lexmark.com [mailto:jrbar...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 1:50 PM
To: dmck...@gte.net; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: DC Fuse for Power Supply



Doug,
I ran into a problem in 1990 where we needed to add a primary fuse to a
brick
power supply, without changing the circuit board or the case.  We had two
holes
in the circuit board where we could install a pigtailed fuse if we could
find
one that would meet UL and SEMKO requirements.  (SEMKO did not allow
soldered-on
pigtails on primary fuses).   Our solution, and I have yet to see a better
alternative, was to buy 5mm x 20mm fuses from Schurter with push-on endcaps.
These endcaps have the lead wires welded on, meeting the word and the spirit
of
the EMKO Deviations that applied at that time.  Since no heat is applied
when
these endcaps are installed on the fuses, they have no effect on their
electrical characteristics.

I've given my Schurter catalog to the engineer who's taken over
specifying/qualifying power supplies from me, so I don't have the part
number
handy, and I don't know if these fuses are available in the rating you need.
But this, or something like this, might get you out of your bind.
  John Barnes  Advisory Engineer
  Lexmark International



---
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: Poland Type Approval

[JRadomski]

Look at: http://www.eto.dk/Contacts/poland.htm

John Radomski
Product Compliance Engineer
Clare Corp.




   
"Frank  
   
Harkins" To: "emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org"  
   
  
   
ectek.com>   cc:
   
Sent by: Subject: Poland Type Approval  
   
owner-emc-pst   
   
c...@ieee.org   
  

   

   
10/25/00
   
04:08 PM
   
Please  
   
respond to  
   
"Frank  
   
Harkins"
   

   

   




Hi Group

I hope some one can help me find the proper authority and regulations
for Poland to type approve certify a DSS device in the ISM 2.4Ghz range
..I am at a dead end and any help would be
appreciated.

Frank


---
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 another beef about an NRTL....

[Peter Merguerian]

Group,

All NRTLs accept other NRTL's components except for UL which cannot accept
other NRTL components which they claim is due to the integrity of the UL
Marks. 

However, UL does accept other NRTL components if the NRTL has a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with them - for example CSA abd UL have an MOU - and
they review the complete report of the other NRTL and describe the
construction as part of their procedure - ie UL wishes to do the follow-up
on the other NRTL component themselves.




At 11:57 24/10/2000 +0100, duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com wrote:
>
>Group,
>
> What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. 
>For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B'
>
>Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are
deemed
>'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions of
>acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark
they
>are all of equal standing.
>
>Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL B.
>The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no
problems (in
>all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed)
>
>So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no
>engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what happens
>next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get the
whole
>lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject anothers
>recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as competition!
>
>Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to resolve it
>without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised
component.
>
>Any comments would be greatly recieved.
>
>Regards,
>
>Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer
>Snell and Wilcox Ltd. 
>
>
>
>---
>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 THE
EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY!






---
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: VHF oscillator circuit design Questions

[Fred Townsend]

Sarmad you describe a complex design involving many tradeoffs that is probably
beyond the scope of this forum to fully analyze.  I will offer a few comments
and
hope that others will do the same.

sarmad Albanna wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I really apprecaite any inputs on that subjects, thanks in advance:
>
> This is problem, I hope that I would not bore you will very much details.
>
> We are designing a 12 layer board that has a @ 2.5 Ghz circuit. The circuit
> contains a source crystal oscillator a ~ 78 Mhz PECL signal ,this feeds into
> a PECL/TTL converter (plastic with no metal case), then the output of the
> converter is feeding into a CLK multilayer (plastic with no metal case)that
> generated a differential output of 2.5 Ghz. All the power and Clk ( ref and
> others) are on the first layer (however very short ( electrically, the
> maximum length of 5 mm).  The GND for all those chips are done through the
> voltage return pins ONLY for each one  to Digital DGND ground that is on the
> 2nd layer.  There is no shielding or  localized grounding for those three
> components.  Emission is measured at 2.5 Ghz is quite high, and we relaying
> the board by doing the following:
>
> 1. Introduce a localize GND on the 1st layer that is a solid Cu plane,  all
> three components will sit on that  GND.   The GND  will have vias connected
> to the DGND in the 2nd layer.
>
> 2. All the traces that going to and/from those chips will be buried in the
> forth layer  ( layer 3 is Voltage plane).  So effectively will be slightly
> longer than 5 mm ( <6mm)).
>
> 3. we are putting a metal SMT can on top this circuit will completely Seal
> the components and preventing them from radiating.
>
> Q1.  Do I need to barry those traced or can I run them through the localized
> GND in the 1st layer?

I'm not sure how you would do this but it sounds like you would cut up your
ground plane if you ran traces through it.  It sounds like your may already be
floating.  You have not mentioned decoupling.  It is essential you decouple
the RF energy from the power supply traces if you are going to keep the
whole assembly from becoming an antenna.

Impedance inverts every quarter wave length.  Using the formula:

lambda = 300M / f(MHz) we get a wavelength of 120 mm.  A quarter

wavelength would be 30 mm.  This means a short (0 Ohms) would
have infinite impedance 30 mm away.  Practically, ground trace lengths
of over 5 mm will be ineffective at 2.5 GHz.

>
>
> Q2> If I need to use a heat sink on the multilayer, How can use it without
> defeating the purpose of the metal RF can?

What is the purpose of the metal can?  Perhaps you are thinking it
will serve as a shield?  Not likely.  With effective grounds you may be
able to contain the electric fields but it will do very little to contain
magnetic fields.

>
>
> Q3>  Did I miss any thing interms of the layout, for better EMC?
>

Electromagnetic fields are best reduced by keeping 1) current low,
preventing 2) impedance discontinuities, and 3) preventing antenna
like constructions.

Practically there is very little you can do to control current (1) because
to prevent discontinuities (2) and antennas (3) you must use matched
transmission lines. (Transmission lines limit impedance (and thereby
current) to a relatively narrow range.)  I suggest you address these
issues in your design. Transmission line rules are well embodied by
microstrip or stripline construction techniques found in many texts .

You do not mention any of these terms in your proposed solution so
it is unlikely your changes will produce good EMC.

>
> Q4>  how much should I expect of reduction in EM radiation, when adding that
> change?

It sounds like your changes are a start in the correct direction but it is
not clear you will have any reduction.  It may be better or again it may be
worse.

Fred Townsend
Consultant
f...@poasana.com

>
> Any helpful inputs will be very appreciated.
>
> THanks very much for your responses.
>
> Sami Alkar
> Compliance Engineer
> samii...@hotmail.com
>
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


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

To cancel your s

RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?)

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

Thank you, Mel,
I always try to persuade transformer manufacturers to obtain their own UL
Recognition so that I don't have to ask for their construction details.
However, since many or most signal transformers are custom or semi-custom
parts, X-former manufacturers don't always want the expense of submitting
such to various NRTLs.   
 
My experience has been that if the transformer is UL Recognized, UL states
that in our report, and that's the end of it.   However, if the transformer
is NOT UL Recognized, then we have to provide samples to UL (to destruct and
unwind!) and provide complete construction details, at which point all this
information is printed out in OUR UL report.   So, the details are out for
all to see.   I'll bet the same thing happens in CB reports on mains
transformers.  I think that the CB Scheme should up-date their process and
establish their own CB database instead of requiring hard copies of CB
reports to be included with our CB reports.   (My last CB report is 3 inches
thick!!!  I have CB reports within CB reports.  Where will this stop!)
 
Sorry for getting off the subject.   My latest hot button are CB reports;--
there's got to be a better way.



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


-Original Message-
From: Mel Pedersen [ mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com
 ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 3:11 PM
To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'Loop, Robert'
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?)


On Component Recognition:

1)  I can certainly sympathize with an NRTL reserving the right to reject
another NRTL's component recognition/certification.  After all, an NRTL has
the right and RESPONSIBITY to protect the integrity of its mark.  It seems
to me an NRTL "listing" equipment may be a bit foolish if it does not at
least give a cursory review to the report of the NRTL giving component
"recognition"...No NRTL is perfectcertainly some are better than others.
(A certain popular NRTL I find myself having to constantly babysitsome
of its offices and engineers are VERY good, but the other 50% I have dealt
with were incompetent to the point of abysmal absurdity...I have had issues
with its own engineers not accepting another offices (same NRTL) component
certification because the two different offices (remember - SAME NRTL) had a
different "Interpretation" on a matter.  One office would be obviously
wrong...this happened more than once...cost our company and our CUSTOMERS a
LOT of time and money...I will say no more).

 It would be nice, however, if there was more of a spirit of cooperations
between the various NRTL'sIn the case of component
certification/recognition, it seems that BOTH the NRTL granting the
component certification, and the NRTL granting the equipment "listing" (UL
terminology here) would have a long term interest in trying to minimize
thier customers testing costs & headache.  Especially these days, when its
necessary to make every penny count. A spirit of cooperation would go a long
way here.  I have had a few experiences with Wyle myself, and the few I have
had left me with a good impression of Wyle regarding this issue.  I have
never give Wyle my business only because they are not nearly as accepted at
the component level as UL & CSA.

2)  Being that I work at a component manufacturer, I can sympathize with
your suppliers who are tight fisted with thier UL reports.  Certainly, it is
silly to think that a modem manufacturer, for example, is only asking for my
UL report in order to go into competition against me, a transformer
manufacturer.  But there ARE certain companies out there which have no sense
of propriety, and hand our design information off to cheap competitors.
Then we are in a position of providing these companies free engineering
support.  We like our jobs, but we have to eat too. (In my experience,
Tania, your company has not been one of these, this is not a jab against
your organization.)  But understand, after being repeatedly burned...a
component supplier can get paranoid.

My company typically is not extremely free in sharing our UL or CB reports
with our customer.  Not that we NEVER share our UL reports, but we just like
to be sure first. 

One option when dealing with a supplier who does not wish to share UL
report, is to ask if they would be willing to share thier UL reports
directly with your NRTL Engineer.  This way, your NRTL Engineer gets the
information he/she needs, and your supplier has little reason for suspicion.

Just my humble thoughts on the matter.

Regards,

Mel Pedersen

-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [ mailto:tgr...@lucent.com
 ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 1:07 PM
To: 'Loop, Robert'
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?)
Importance: High