RE: OSHA
Ken, Regarding frequency of inspection, my sarcastic response (with a spritz of reality) is that this depends on the budget that our Congress gives them, which will vary year to year. In the past CAL-OSHA (the California arm of OSHA) was very aggressive in workplace inspections. Nowadays, you don't even hear of CAL-OSHA, and I am not even sure that it exists as an entity. The federal OSHA recently (last 10 years or so) has become more visible on paper as to its requirements, but I don't have a feel as to its enforcement. What I read in the papers, it seems to be only in a reactive and not proactive mode. Try their web site. http://www.osha.gov http://www.osha.gov Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Matsuda, Ken [ mailto:matsu...@curtisinst.com mailto:matsu...@curtisinst.com ] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 10:08 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: OSHA Greetings !! As you are well aware of, especially in the U.S., regulatory compliance is becoming more of a liability matter than anything else, and often times our disciplines cross over into other areas, such as OSHA and CFR compliance. Does anyone know of any good information in regards to OSHA requirements? For instance, does OSHA audit every company, or just those that workplace injuries are reported? What kind of inspection do they perform? Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ken Matsuda --- 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: Risk assessment
Hi Stig, I have a copy of Croner's Industrial Equipment Safety which has a risk calculator which is based on a nomogram introduced in British Standard BS 5304:1988. The calculator has three input parameters, Probability level, Exposure Frequency and Consequences. The output of the calculator gives you a risk level. The consequences are categorised as follows, Category 1, Insignificant : Bruising, light abrasions etc Category 2, Minor : Cuts etc requiring first aid. Category 3, Major : Loss of consciousness, burns, (3 days off work)(Normally reversible) Category 4, Severe : Permanent disability, loss of sight, amputation, respiratory damage, (Normally irreversible) Category 5, Fatality : Including delayed effects. Category 6, Multiple Fatalities : Including delayed effects. The input parameters are arranged as three vertical scales with a tie line such that when you draw lines to link up your input assessments, the last line will point to the associated risk level. It's a bit difficult to describe verbally. Let me know if you would like more details. Regards, Cameron O'Phee. EMC Safety Precompliance. Aristocrat Technologies Australia. Telephone : +61 2 9697 4420 Facsimile : +61 2 9663 1412 Mobile : 0418 464 016 -Original Message- From: Stig Jorgensen [mailto:jorgen...@skyskan.com] Sent: 8 December 2000 7:25 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Risk assessment Hi Group, Dec 07,2000 I am in the process of establishing the potential for an injury from a hazard. I can get a reasonable 'expression' to describe the potential for a hazard to turn into an accident (event). I am looking for the words that classifies the degree of an injury. Can some one direct me to some standard definitions? Do we base it on the length of work stoppage? i.e. a minor burn on a finger tip smarts for an hour or two. A good shock working with vacuum tubes, 300V, slowed you down for the rest of the day and so on. Has some one worked out a practical scale for the degree of an injury. It can be numbers or words as long as they are defined. If it does not exist let us generate one that we all agree on.-- or most of us. When it comes to property damage I think that a monetary replacement cost would be expressed in 'small', 'medium', 'large' etc where each is defined in 'very' general monetary terms. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely Stig W. Jorgensen jorgen...@skyskan.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 -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -- This email is intended only to be read or used by the addressee. The information contained in this e-mail message may be confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, distribution, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. Confidentiality attached to this communication is not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery to you. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and notify us by return e-mail or telephone Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited on +61 2 9413 6300. --- 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
CE Marking Cables
Hello group, I would like to know if there are any requirements for CE Marking a cable or any passive device, such as a basic surge protector. Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: EN55024
Barry brings up a good point. The products manufactured by my company, Evans Sutherland, are typically high computer systems (flight simulators) used in a Heavy Industrial environments. As such we routinely test to EN 55022 Class A (emissions) and EN 50082-2 (immunity). More recently we have also added EN 55024 (ITE immunity) as well. Depending on the end use application, some of our lower end image generators do not have heavy industrial immunity but they are all Class A devices. These are not used in residential applications but rather as light industrial products. Rick -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 2:39 PM To: chr...@gnlp.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: EN55024 Hi Chris, I agree with 99.9% of your convincing opinions with a tiny question. You said: I believe its because the scope of EN 55024 is geared toward the residential, commercial and light industrial environment. If I were producing a piece of ITE equipment intended for a truly industrial environment, I would consider Class A emissions (yes Class A) from EN 55022 (assuming it's ITE). I would then look for the best fit of an immunity standard for industrial environments. Either a generic immunity standard such as EN 50082-2 or another whose scope is directed at an industrial environment. I respect the due diligence to find a best-fit immunity standard for industrial environment, especially when customers want to do so. Please allow me to ask a question when customer don't care: Is there any conflict with written statement in relevant standards if we simply follow EN55024 for ITE used in industrial environment? Thanks. Best Regards, Barry Mab...@anritsu.com ANRITSUhttp://www.anritsu.com Morgan Hill, CA 95037 --- 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: EN55024
Hi Chris, I agree with 99.9% of your convincing opinions with a tiny question. You said: I believe its because the scope of EN 55024 is geared toward the residential, commercial and light industrial environment. If I were producing a piece of ITE equipment intended for a truly industrial environment, I would consider Class A emissions (yes Class A) from EN 55022 (assuming it's ITE). I would then look for the best fit of an immunity standard for industrial environments. Either a generic immunity standard such as EN 50082-2 or another whose scope is directed at an industrial environment. I respect the due diligence to find a best-fit immunity standard for industrial environment, especially when customers want to do so. Please allow me to ask a question when customer dont care: Is there any conflict with written statement in relevant standards if we simply follow EN55024 for ITE used in industrial environment? Thanks. Best Regards, Barry Mab...@anritsu.com ANRITSUhttp://www.anritsu.com Morgan Hill, CA 95037 --- 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: Risk assessment
Hi Stig: I believe you are interested in severity of injury, not potential for injury, or risk of injury. Here is a numerical assignment for severity of injury that I found in my files. I have no idea of its source. 10 Death 9 Long-term or permanent coma 8 Full body paralysis (permanent) 7 Loss of more than one organ or limb 6 Loss of one organ or limb 5 Loss of a function (permanent) 4 Broken bone or tendon 3 Heals with scar 2 Heals with no scare 1 No injury While I can't cite any references, I believe that there ought to be some literature that thoroughly discusses both risk of injury and severity of injury. This isn't a new topic. Best regards, 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
Risk assessment
Hi Group, Dec 07,2000 I am in the process of establishing the potential for an injury from a hazard. I can get a reasonable 'expression' to describe the potential for a hazard to turn into an accident (event). I am looking for the words that classifies the degree of an injury. Can some one direct me to some standard definitions? Do we base it on the length of work stoppage? i.e. a minor burn on a finger tip smarts for an hour or two. A good shock working with vacuum tubes, 300V, slowed you down for the rest of the day and so on. Has some one worked out a practical scale for the degree of an injury. It can be numbers or words as long as they are defined. If it does not exist let us generate one that we all agree on.-- or most of us. When it comes to property damage I think that a monetary replacement cost would be expressed in 'small', 'medium', 'large' etc where each is defined in 'very' general monetary terms. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely Stig W. Jorgensen jorgen...@skyskan.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: EN55024
Chris, My point exactly! I was starting to wonder if my question was not clear. By the way you just made my colleagues Gold EMC List. I share the same point of view, the environment shall eventually decide the level! Thanks to all(I enjoyed the debate), William D'Orazio CAE Electronics Ltd. Electrical System Designer Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555) Fax: (514)340-5552 Email: dora...@cae.ca -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:42 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: RE: EN55024 Let me first say that I think people are missing the thrust of William's initial question. The ensuing debate has taken a life of its own. (I can't resist a debate, so I'll weigh in after looking at William's question). William is wondering why EN 55024 (an ITE standard) only has immunity limits for residential, commercial and light industrial environments while EN 55011 (an ISM standard) has emissions limits for Class A (non-residential) and Class B (residential). Even if you throw out the difference between ITE and ISM, his question is still valid. The ITE emissions standard (EN 55022) has Class A and Class B limits just like EN 55011 (ISM). I beleive its because the scope of EN 55024 is geared toward the residential, commercial and light industrial environment. If I were producing a piece of ITE equipment intended for a truly industrial environment, I would consider Class A emissions (yes Class A) from EN 55022 (assuming it's ITE). I would then look for the best fit of an immunity standard for industrial environments. Either a generic immunity standard such as EN 50082-2 or another whose scope is directed at an industrial environment. When applying any standard, we have to consider both the equipment classification and environment. As it stands right now, most ITE falls under EN 55024, but industrial ITE would need to look at a different standard geared toward an industrial environment. So, to answer William's question. I don't think we know why EN 55022 has Class A and Class B limits while its counterpart immunity standard (EN 55024) only has residential, commercial and light industrial limits. Only CENELEC can answer that. As engineers, we live with the standards as written, (while suggesting how they could be changed and questioning them when they're screwy). So, that's my answer to William's question (remember, as always, it's just the opinion of one man). As for the Class A vs. Class B debate ... I'm with Ghery on this one. Servers and mainframe computers are a prime example of ITE equipment whose normal usage environment is Class A (non-domestic). I also agree with Gert that Class A ITE can and will be used in domestic environments. However, I don't agree that this means that all ITE must meet Class B. There probably are a few people (not me) who would have a server or mainframe computer in their house. Why? I don't know. Maybe they have a home business. As the standards are now written, this doesn't make it illegal to market the Class A equipment as such. The standards simply require that the manufacturer put the Class A warning statement (See EN 55022) in the manual. By making the Class A warning statement a requirement, CISPR is acknowledging that Class A equipment could be used in a domestic environment. The responsibility is then put on the owner for taking measures to insure that the Class A equipment doesn't interfere with his or his neighbor's TV or radio reception. Consider the analogy of an industrial drill press. It is only required to meet industrial (Class A) emissions limits. However, there is a distinct possiblity that someone could buy one and put it in their house. Does this mean that all industrial drill presses need to meet Class B? Yes, the distinction between Class A and Class B environments is artificial. The entire standards themselves are artificial (they are man-made aren't they), but at least they are on paper and defined. The idea of Essential Requirements is even more artificial when compared to a standard. Essential Requirements can vary from one person to another and from one circumstance to another. Essential Requirements are only meant to fill in the gaps where standards may not apply or be adequate. There is no gap here. As the standards are now written, they define and allow for Class A ITE. As they are now written, any ITE manufacturer that has done their homework and can prove that their typical usage environment meets the definition of Class A can market in the European Union with Class A emissions. If CENELEC disapproves of this, then they would have needed to change CISPR 22 when it was harmonized as EN 55022. Long story short...It wasn't, so they don't. Of course this doesn't mean that a manufacturer shouldn't exercise due diligence. A piece of Class A or Class B equipment may have some spurious emissions that: have a
Re: International Equivalent of EN50116
Tony, My understanding is that there is no international equivalent to EN50116. It is also my understanding that IEC 60950 incoporates the essential production testing requirements of EN50116 for ITE, viz. earthing resistance and electric strength. But then I have been wrong before George reynolto%pb@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/07/2000 10:47:41 AM Please respond to reynolto%pb@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: International Equivalent of EN50116 All, Can anyone point me in the right direction of an International Equivalent of the European Standard EN50116:1996 Information Technology Equipment - Routine Electrical Safety Testing in Production. Thanks Tony Reynolds Pitney Bowes Ltd The Pinnacles Harlow Essex CM19 5BD UK Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118 E-Mail: reyno...@pb.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: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC.
I don't see the concern about identifying compliance with the standard. You analyzed it and discovered that it doesn't apply. By analyzing the requirement and arriving at a determination that it doesn't apply that constitutes , in my opinion, complaisance, just as sufficiently as passing any physical test. Just because you have no additional work or test after they review of the requirement doesn't mean that the intent of the standard hasn't been met. The worse that could happen to you is an audit that would say don't put it in the document next time, but on the other hand you may not have to explain to customs agents etc. why it doesn't appear. Bottom line, I believe you have complied and could list it on the document, but I've been wrong before Gary. Sent: Tto hursday, December 07, 2000 3:32 AM To: Chris en Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC. Good questiondoes this also hold true for 61000-3-2 if your product is under 75 watts? == Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com on 12/07/2000 03:31:14 AM Please respond to Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC. I have a question regarding EN 61000-3-3. The standard states under section 6.1 that Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce significant voltage flicker and fluctuations. This is true for the equipment in question. I have been asked by a customer to included the standard on the DoC for the unit. My question is: Is it valid to list a standard on a DoC in the above situation i.e. when the product has not been tested against it? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Chris. PLANET PROJECT will connect millions of people worldwide through the combined technology of 3Com and the Internet. Find out more and register now at http://www.planetproject.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC.
Yes. A DOC without EN61000-3-3 may be interpreted as incomplete. We are in the same sitiuation as you -- our products don't cause fluctuations or fllicker. Nevertheless, we write a test report for EN61000-3-3 (just a paragraph or so) citing section 6.1 -- and we list EN61000-3-3 on the DOC. Be aware that the paranoid promulgators of the standard have seen section 6.1 to be a horrible loophole. TC77A issued 77A/303/CDV in December 1999, modified by 77A/303A/CDV in February 2000 containing the following text. Voting on these two documents closed in May 2000 and I understand they passed. An FDIS has not yet been issued. Here's the salient text from 303A/CDV : 5. Limits Replace the whole of the existing clause by the following text: The limits shall be applicable to voltage fluctuations and flicker at the supply terminals of the equipment under test, measured or calculated according to clause 4 under test conditions described in clause 6 and annex A. Tests made to prove the compliance with the limits are considered to be type tests. The following limits apply: - the value of P st shall not be greater than 1.0; - the value of P lt shall not be greater than 0.65; - the value of d(t) during a voltage change shall not exceed 3,3% for more than 500 ms; - the relative steady-state voltage change, d c , shall not exceed 3,3%; - the maximum relative voltage change d max , shall not exceed: a) 4% without additional conditions. b) 6% for equipment with : - manual switching or - automatic switching more frequently than twice per day and has a delayed restart (the delay being not less than a few tens of seconds) or manual restart after a power supply interruption. NOTE The cycling frequency will be further limited by the Pst and Plt limit. For example: a dmax of 6% producing a rectangular voltage change characteristic twice per hour will give a Plt of about 0,65. c) 7% for equipment which - is attended whilst in use (For example: hair dryers, vacuum cleaners, kitchen equipment such as mixers, garden equipment such as lawn mowers, portable tools such as electric drills.) or - is switched on automatically or is intended to be switched on manually no more than twice per day and has a delayed restart (the delay being not less than a few tens of seconds) or manual restart after a power supply interruption. In the case of equipment incorporating multiple loads, limits b) and c) shall only apply if there is delayed or manual restart after a power supply interruption; for all equipment with automatic switching which is energised immediately on restoration of supply after a power supply interruption, limits a) shall apply ; for all equipment with manual switching, limits b) or c) shall apply, depending on the rate of switching. 6 Test conditions 6.1 General - Replace « shall » by « need » in the first paragraph. - To add after the first paragraph the following paragraphs: It may be necessary to determine, by examination of the circuit diagram and specification of the equipment and by a short functional test, whether significant voltage fluctuations are likely to be produced. For voltage changes caused by manual switching, equipment is deemed to comply without further testing if the maximum r.m.s. input current (including inrush current) evaluated over each 10 ms half-period between zero-crossings does not exceed 20 A, and the supply current after inrush is within a variation band of 1.5 A. The maximum relative voltage change dmax caused by manual switching shall be measured in accordance with Annex B. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Chris Allen[SMTP:chris_al...@eur.3com.com] Reply To: Chris Allen Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 2:31 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC. I have a question regarding EN 61000-3-3. The standard states under section 6.1 that Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce significant voltage flicker and fluctuations. This is true for the equipment in question. I have been asked by a customer to included the standard on the DoC for the unit. My question is: Is it valid to list a standard on a DoC in the above situation i.e. when the product has not been tested against it? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Chris. PLANET PROJECT will connect millions of people worldwide through the combined technology of 3Com and the Internet. Find out more and register now at http://www.planetproject.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:
International Equivalent of EN50116
All, Can anyone point me in the right direction of an International Equivalent of the European Standard EN50116:1996 Information Technology Equipment - Routine Electrical Safety Testing in Production. Thanks Tony Reynolds Pitney Bowes Ltd The Pinnacles Harlow Essex CM19 5BD UK Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118 E-Mail: reyno...@pb.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
Flicker in DoC
Hi Chris, how are you! I would say that nothing is done wrong if you assume that your product is in a scope of std but you consider it as compliant without testing. I thing the safest way would be to include the std in DoC and make a notion about the compliance w/o test in the file where you have other test reports. This way you avoid questions about missing standards and have a good answer for those who ask. regards, Ari Honkala Nokia From: rehel...@mmm.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 07-Dec-00 Good questiondoes this also hold true for 61000-3-2 if your product is under 75 watts? == Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com on 12/07/2000 03:31:14 AM Please respond to Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC. I have a question regarding EN 61000-3-3. The standard states under section 6.1 that Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce significant voltage flicker and fluctuations. This is true for the equipment in question. I have been asked by a customer to included the standard on the DoC for the unit. My question is: Is it valid to list a standard on a DoC in the above situation i.e. when the product has not been tested against it? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, 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: EN55024
Let me first say that I think people are missing the thrust of William's initial question. The ensuing debate has taken a life of its own. (I can't resist a debate, so I'll weigh in after looking at William's question). William is wondering why EN 55024 (an ITE standard) only has immunity limits for residential, commercial and light industrial environments while EN 55011 (an ISM standard) has emissions limits for Class A (non-residential) and Class B (residential). Even if you throw out the difference between ITE and ISM, his question is still valid. The ITE emissions standard (EN 55022) has Class A and Class B limits just like EN 55011 (ISM). I beleive its because the scope of EN 55024 is geared toward the residential, commercial and light industrial environment. If I were producing a piece of ITE equipment intended for a truly industrial environment, I would consider Class A emissions (yes Class A) from EN 55022 (assuming it's ITE). I would then look for the best fit of an immunity standard for industrial environments. Either a generic immunity standard such as EN 50082-2 or another whose scope is directed at an industrial environment. When applying any standard, we have to consider both the equipment classification and environment. As it stands right now, most ITE falls under EN 55024, but industrial ITE would need to look at a different standard geared toward an industrial environment. So, to answer William's question. I don't think we know why EN 55022 has Class A and Class B limits while its counterpart immunity standard (EN 55024) only has residential, commercial and light industrial limits. Only CENELEC can answer that. As engineers, we live with the standards as written, (while suggesting how they could be changed and questioning them when they're screwy). So, that's my answer to William's question (remember, as always, it's just the opinion of one man). As for the Class A vs. Class B debate ... I'm with Ghery on this one. Servers and mainframe computers are a prime example of ITE equipment whose normal usage environment is Class A (non-domestic). I also agree with Gert that Class A ITE can and will be used in domestic environments. However, I don't agree that this means that all ITE must meet Class B. There probably are a few people (not me) who would have a server or mainframe computer in their house. Why? I don't know. Maybe they have a home business. As the standards are now written, this doesn't make it illegal to market the Class A equipment as such. The standards simply require that the manufacturer put the Class A warning statement (See EN 55022) in the manual. By making the Class A warning statement a requirement, CISPR is acknowledging that Class A equipment could be used in a domestic environment. The responsibility is then put on the owner for taking measures to insure that the Class A equipment doesn't interfere with his or his neighbor's TV or radio reception. Consider the analogy of an industrial drill press. It is only required to meet industrial (Class A) emissions limits. However, there is a distinct possiblity that someone could buy one and put it in their house. Does this mean that all industrial drill presses need to meet Class B? Yes, the distinction between Class A and Class B environments is artificial. The entire standards themselves are artificial (they are man-made aren't they), but at least they are on paper and defined. The idea of Essential Requirements is even more artificial when compared to a standard. Essential Requirements can vary from one person to another and from one circumstance to another. Essential Requirements are only meant to fill in the gaps where standards may not apply or be adequate. There is no gap here. As the standards are now written, they define and allow for Class A ITE. As they are now written, any ITE manufacturer that has done their homework and can prove that their typical usage environment meets the definition of Class A can market in the European Union with Class A emissions. If CENELEC disapproves of this, then they would have needed to change CISPR 22 when it was harmonized as EN 55022. Long story short...It wasn't, so they don't. Of course this doesn't mean that a manufacturer shouldn't exercise due diligence. A piece of Class A or Class B equipment may have some spurious emissions that: have a high peak value but almost no quasi-peak; or fall into a frequency range not covered by the emissions standards. These are cases where due diligence and essential requirements would apply because there is no standard to cover such emissions, while, if the emissions are sufficiently high, there is a good probability that they could cause interference or upset of nearby equipment. I think that these instances are independent of the Class A vs. Class B argument. They could arise with either class of equipment. See ya's later. Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical
RE: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC.
Some standards are very clear that some tests may not be necessary under certain circumstances. It is required that the test report properly reflects what was done and a reason given for not performing a test. In my opinion, you can claim compliance to any standard when the equipment complies with the requirements of that standard even if some or all of the tests were not necessary (per the standard). Just make sure that the test record records your reasons. Richard Woods -- From: rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:32 AM To: Chris Allen Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC. Good questiondoes this also hold true for 61000-3-2 if your product is under 75 watts? == Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com on 12/07/2000 03:31:14 AM Please respond to Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC. I have a question regarding EN 61000-3-3. The standard states under section 6.1 that Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce significant voltage flicker and fluctuations. This is true for the equipment in question. I have been asked by a customer to included the standard on the DoC for the unit. My question is: Is it valid to list a standard on a DoC in the above situation i.e. when the product has not been tested against it? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Chris. PLANET PROJECT will connect millions of people worldwide through the combined technology of 3Com and the Internet. Find out more and register now at http://www.planetproject.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN55024
Only because I really enjoy stirring the pot...if you read EN 55022 1998, clause 4.2 clearly states, Class A is a category of all other ITE which satisfies Class A ITE limits but not the class B ITE limits. Such equipment should not be restricted in its sale but the following warning shall be included in the instructions for use... The standard does not prevent the sale of Class A equipment to residential environments, and thus the warning marking for the interference and the need to take adequate measures (if necessary). This could mean simply relocating the equipment. So what's the real risk of interference? What if the equipment is only out at one frequency by a few dB in a spectrum segment that has nothing interesting? The essential requirements of the directive are not fulfilled only when interference is caused - even if the equipment is compliant with Class B limits! Imagine that, Class B and not compliant with the Directive! What the standard is saying is that given the closer proximity of local receptors in residential environment, Class B equipment is less likely to interfere than Class A, so it would be wise to design to Class B, but, it is not required. The less compliant you are, the higher the degree of risk for interference. Regards, Mark Disclaimer - The opinions rendered herein are my own and no reflection of those of my employer. -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:36 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: RE: EN55024 Just to stay with the apples: Compliance to EN 55022 is like ordering an apple on the Internet. Your ordered it, but will you receive an apple ? Compliance with EN 55022 gives presumption of compliance only. When the product standard refuses to comply to what the EC had in mind , the EN will finally be modified. In the mean time you have bought a rotten apple. Not your fault, but you're liable. That is why I insist on this topic very hard. In a few years all these standards will be updated one after one. If one of the local authorities finds out that your product is Class A and being sold and used in Class B environments -may be because a competitor complained- then you just did not fulfill to the Essential requirements, to the EN only. Other example: You create interference at 1800 Mhz DECT frequencies. EN 55022 says -no testing above 1 Gig- . The authorities say: you interfere, you should have known EN 55022 is not enough to comply to the essential requirements. This is what they call due diligence in compliance testing. Same with the new liability directive and product warranty directive that will come into force. Your product must :be safe to the current state of workmanship , always, even 10 years after it was introduced. This means that to cover your a.. you need constant modification in the field of safeguarding your customers. 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: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:57 PM To: 'cet...@cetest.nl'; Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: RE: EN55024 Let's discuss apples vs apples and keep the discussion to ITE. Household appliances are not subject to EN 55022:1998, but have their own product specific standard. The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC Professional Employment Act of 1989). It lays down, as you note, the essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that it operate as intended in its itended environment. No more, no less. No limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive. The question then comes up, how do we show compliance with the essential requirements in 89/336/EEC? The answer, of course, is to test to the applicable requirements that have been published in the OJ. For ITE, the emissions limits are contained in EN 55022:1998. Fine. I read EN 55022:1998 and it is simply a number of modifications to CISPR 22, 3rd Edition. Well and good. I read CISPR 22, 3rd Edition and it defines Class A and Class B. If there are different emissions limits between various standards, that needs to be addressed in CISPR. My question is this - is there a significant interference problem in Europe from ITE? Based on a survey returned by over 50,000 households in the U.S., there certainly isn't one here. Whatever is being done, it is adequate. Peace! Ghery -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:39 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio';
RE: Ground potentials and communications.
Hey Cameron - Damaging currents can be either a.c. power currents due to different ground potentials, a.c. fault currents, or large lightning surges (due to external strikes as well as intrabuilding). These phenomena are the reason shielded cables can not be consistently connected at both ends between distant equipment, and leads to the use of hybrid grounding schemes. Even with isolation, there are no guarantees (can't protect against direct strikes). This is not to say that you can't use a shielded cable connected at both ends, but you have to understand the grounding environments into which the equipment is being deployed. Your circuits which are referenced to earth will see these same effects. Regards, Mark Gill EMC/Safety/NEBS Design C-MAC Engineering Design Services -Original Message- From: Cameron O'phee [mailto:O'p...@ali.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 11:37 PM To: 'EMC - PSTC Forum' Subject: Ground potentials and communications. Hi All, I believe there would be safety considerations when using non-isolated RS 485 for communications between machines that may be separated by large distances in a building and consequently be powered from different circuits/phases. The communication circuits ground is connected to the chassis ground of the machine. I am concerned that ground potentials between machines on different circuits could be enough to be a safety concern however the safety standard (AS3260) our equipment is tested to does not seem to cover this scenario. Any thoughts or information? Regards, Cameron O'Phee. EMC Safety Precompliance. Aristocrat Technologies Australia. Telephone : +61 2 9697 4420 Facsimile : +61 2 9663 1412 Mobile : 0418 464 016 -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -- This email is intended only to be read or used by the addressee. The information contained in this e-mail message may be confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, distribution, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. Confidentiality attached to this communication is not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery to you. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and notify us by return e-mail or telephone Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited on +61 2 9413 6300. --- 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: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC.
Good questiondoes this also hold true for 61000-3-2 if your product is under 75 watts? == Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com on 12/07/2000 03:31:14 AM Please respond to Chris Allen chris_al...@eur.3com.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC. I have a question regarding EN 61000-3-3. The standard states under section 6.1 that Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce significant voltage flicker and fluctuations. This is true for the equipment in question. I have been asked by a customer to included the standard on the DoC for the unit. My question is: Is it valid to list a standard on a DoC in the above situation i.e. when the product has not been tested against it? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Chris. PLANET PROJECT will connect millions of people worldwide through the combined technology of 3Com and the Internet. Find out more and register now at http://www.planetproject.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
SLIM Latest 2000.6
The very latest SLIM document can be downloaded from our web site. Just log on and select Newsflash. It is a21 page pdf file. If you prefer I can email it to you in Word. Cheers Alan E Hutley Editor EMC+Compliance Journal www.emc-journal.co.uk http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/ nutwoo...@msn.com mailto:nutwoo...@msn.com
EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC.
I have a question regarding EN 61000-3-3. The standard states under section 6.1 that Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce significant voltage flicker and fluctuations. This is true for the equipment in question. I have been asked by a customer to included the standard on the DoC for the unit. My question is: Is it valid to list a standard on a DoC in the above situation i.e. when the product has not been tested against it? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Chris. PLANET PROJECT will connect millions of people worldwide through the combined technology of 3Com and the Internet. Find out more and register now at http://www.planetproject.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: EN55024
Just to stay with the apples: Compliance to EN 55022 is like ordering an apple on the Internet. Your ordered it, but will you receive an apple ? Compliance with EN 55022 gives presumption of compliance only. When the product standard refuses to comply to what the EC had in mind , the EN will finally be modified. In the mean time you have bought a rotten apple. Not your fault, but you're liable. That is why I insist on this topic very hard. In a few years all these standards will be updated one after one. If one of the local authorities finds out that your product is Class A and being sold and used in Class B environments -may be because a competitor complained- then you just did not fulfill to the Essential requirements, to the EN only. Other example: You create interference at 1800 Mhz DECT frequencies. EN 55022 says -no testing above 1 Gig- . The authorities say: you interfere, you should have known EN 55022 is not enough to comply to the essential requirements. This is what they call due diligence in compliance testing. Same with the new liability directive and product warranty directive that will come into force. Your product must :be safe to the current state of workmanship , always, even 10 years after it was introduced. This means that to cover your a.. you need constant modification in the field of safeguarding your customers. 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: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:57 PM To: 'cet...@cetest.nl'; Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: RE: EN55024 Let's discuss apples vs apples and keep the discussion to ITE. Household appliances are not subject to EN 55022:1998, but have their own product specific standard. The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC Professional Employment Act of 1989). It lays down, as you note, the essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that it operate as intended in its itended environment. No more, no less. No limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive. The question then comes up, how do we show compliance with the essential requirements in 89/336/EEC? The answer, of course, is to test to the applicable requirements that have been published in the OJ. For ITE, the emissions limits are contained in EN 55022:1998. Fine. I read EN 55022:1998 and it is simply a number of modifications to CISPR 22, 3rd Edition. Well and good. I read CISPR 22, 3rd Edition and it defines Class A and Class B. If there are different emissions limits between various standards, that needs to be addressed in CISPR. My question is this - is there a significant interference problem in Europe from ITE? Based on a survey returned by over 50,000 households in the U.S., there certainly isn't one here. Whatever is being done, it is adequate. Peace! Ghery -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:39 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: RE: EN55024 Hi Ghery,group, Standards are NO LAW ! My reply was directed against the Clause in EN 55022, not against the possibility of EN 55022 to define suitable environments. However, there is a standards writing committee guidance document that requests the committees not to deviate more then absolutely needed from the test levels and environmental conditions as described in the generic standards EN 50082-1/2. The standards writing committees have been very independent (members of CENELEC) and all kind of powers could and have been influencing the contents of many standards. Even today commercial interests find their way into harmonized standards. The EC requested CENELEC to create standards that are compatible to the Essential requirements of the EMC-directive, it cannot be so that a house hold kitchen machine need to comply to other limits then a house hold computer. The interference a receiver receives is not less interfering if it comes from a vacuum cleaner or from a modem. Same environment, same levels. The problem comes with mixed environment products. In the past products could escape from limits by a warning label this product may cause radio interference and the suggestion to increase distance between products. At low reception levels of FM-radio and the close distances of modern urban livings that solution is not sufficient anymore. Product group level EN-type harmonized standards are (in Europe) targeted towards the details of how to test and how to judge performance and how to connect test gear and only deviate from levels and frequency
Ground potentials and communications.
Hi All, I believe there would be safety considerations when using non-isolated RS 485 for communications between machines that may be separated by large distances in a building and consequently be powered from different circuits/phases. The communication circuits ground is connected to the chassis ground of the machine. I am concerned that ground potentials between machines on different circuits could be enough to be a safety concern however the safety standard (AS3260) our equipment is tested to does not seem to cover this scenario. Any thoughts or information? Regards, Cameron O'Phee. EMC Safety Precompliance. Aristocrat Technologies Australia. Telephone : +61 2 9697 4420 Facsimile : +61 2 9663 1412 Mobile : 0418 464 016 -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -- This email is intended only to be read or used by the addressee. The information contained in this e-mail message may be confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, distribution, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. Confidentiality attached to this communication is not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery to you. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and notify us by return e-mail or telephone Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited on +61 2 9413 6300. --- 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: Current revision of the aircraft Standard (RTCA-D0-160?)?
Bill: Sorry, but I don't have any info about DO-160B. DO-160D, issued 29 July 1997, is the current version. There is a US Department of Transportation FAA Advisory Circular, AC 21-16D, dated 21 July 1998, which recommends that DO-160D may be used to demonstrate airworthiness requirements. It also says that the preceding Advisory, 21-16C, is superseded by 21-16D. So, I infer, from the FAA's viewpoint, DO-160D has superseded DO-160C. Anybody still using DO-160B must be making some really old stuff. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis -Original Message- From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:36 PM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: Current revision of the aircraft Standard (RTCA-D0-160?)? Gents, I have a couple of questions concerning equipment onboard aircrafts: I was just wondering if the current revision of RTCA-DO-160 is D. Is it possible that manufacturers are still using B. As I do not have the B revision of the standard, does the B revision have a clause that addresses Immunity to Electrostatic Discharge? If so may someone provide me with the required test level? In addition the D revision doesn't define a test setup, is anyone aware of the test setup used by the manufacturers. Any comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, ... William D'Orazio CAE Electronics Ltd. Electrical System Designer Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555) Fax: (514)340-5552 Email: dora...@cae.ca --- 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
