3 meter anechoic room quote
Greeting group, I am currently looking for quotes for a 3 meter anechoic chamber. Anyone know of any sources as well as rough estimates on costs? 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
RE: Radiated Immunity
Oh . . .how I WISH that were the case!!! With all due respect, you may want to re-consider using that source for regulatory information . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:51 PM To: emcpost Subject: Radiated Immunity Hello group, I have heard that the Radiated Immunity test is not required for 'CE'. I don't recall reading that anywhere, so I would like to know what the story is. Thanks, Courtland Thomas --- 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: Shipping RMA/Repair product to Europe
Micheal, My understanding of this scenario is that as long as the unit for repair stayed with in the EU. There is no problem provided it is sent to the original customer. If the product leaves the EU then it must meet the new requirements. Josh -Original Message- From: michael.garret...@radisys.com [mailto:michael.garret...@radisys.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:44 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Shipping RMA/Repair product to Europe Group: I ran into an interesting curve on 61000-3-2/-3-3 that I wanted to make sure I dealt with appropriately. In our efforts to requalify our products for these requirements we handled most of the situations we could come up with, but the one area I missed was our Service department. We have product with an older supply that does not meet the requirements for -3-2/-3-3 that was returned to us for service late last year. After it has been repaired, our shipping group noted that this model was on our hold list due to the power supply requirements that went into effect 1 Jan 2001. I am assuming that we would have been able to ship the unit back into the EU through 31 December 2000, but now will need to bring it into compliance with the new standard (i.e. change the power supply to a compliant supply). Please let me know if what I've outlined above is correct or whether there are provisions for returns for service or other issues that we might consider. Regards, Michael Garretson Sr. Compliance Engineer RadiSys Corporation +1 503 615-1227 --- 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: Radiated Immunity
No way Courtland, Immunity test are not the first priority of governmental officers, that may have tempted someone to overlook these requirements. 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 Courtland Thomas >>Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:51 PM >>To: emcpost >>Subject: Radiated Immunity >> >> >> >>Hello group, >> >>I have heard that the Radiated Immunity test is not required for 'CE'. I >>don't recall reading that anywhere, so I would like to know what the story >>is. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Courtland Thomas >> >> >>--- >>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: HCFC ban in Europe - EC reg 2037/2000
resend - didn't see original post > -Original Message- > From: Crane, Lauren > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:15 AM > To: 's...@world.std.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: HCFC ban in Europe - EC reg 2037/2000 > > Summary === > > The EC "ozone regulation" No. 2037/2000 does, indeed, prohibit the use of > HCFC's as early as 1/1/00. In fact, some uses of HCFC's as early as > 1/1/96. The trick to reading this regulation is to understand that the > prohibition dates are scheduled according to the use of the HCFC. There > are different dates, for example, for HCFC's used as solvents, aerosols, > and refrigerants. The refrigerant use is, itself, broken down into > different use sectors (i.e. Military Vehicles, Public Transport > Air-conditioning) > > Before you can determine when your products use of HCFC will be > prohibited, you must determine how the regulation speaks of your > product...not always an easy task. > > Since the regulation is focused on the EU it is more difficult to find the > language pointed towards manufacturers outside the EU who are selling into > the EU. Note, for example, that "producer" in this document means a > producer of HCFC (or other banned material), NOT a producer of equipment > that utilizes the material. (ref article 2). > > As with most EU legislation, the primary burden of compliance is on those > people in the union. Therefore, the burden is on the importer of equipment > utilizing banned materials, not specifically on the exporter outside the > EU. Of course, many US based companies have a Euro affiliate, and share > reputation and "bottom line" or have contractual agreements not to get the > Euro guys in trouble with "the law." > > Also note that this regulation seems to include reporting requirements for > those who IMPORT HCFC's and related materials into the EU. Article 4 and > or Article 6 describes this. So if you export equipment that utilizes > HCFC's, but it is imported EMPTY of the HCFCs, you are pretty clear of > obligations. However if you export HCFC containing equipment, even during > the period before prohibition for your particular product, the importer of > your equipment probably has reporting responsibilities. > > The body that must receive these reports, and how import quota's are > determined are unclear to me at this time. I need to re-read the > regulation 10 or so more times. > > Attached is an analysis I did for a "chiller" that uses HCFC's in its > primary cooling cycle against the prohibition requirements of article 5. > It is a specific case study, but may be useful to you. > > <> > > I do not know how a "regulation" is different from a "directive." - more > to learn ! > > The two amendments to this regulation to not change the base document in a > large way. > > Details === > Found by searching at "Directory of Community legislation in force" > (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/ind/en_analytical_index_15.html) with > key word "2037/200) selecting 'legislation in force' and 'consolidated > legislation' check boxes on search page. > > > The basic act > http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/2000/en_300R2037.html > > A first amendment > http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/2000/en_300R2038.html > > A second amendment > http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/2000/en_300R2039.html > > Lauren Crane > * Principal Safety & Compliance Engineer > * Ion Beam and Thermal Processing Systems > * Axcelis Technologies Inc. > * 108 Cherry Hill Dr. > * Beverly, MA 01915 > * 978.787-9745 lauren.cr...@axcelis.com > Analysis of CFC directive.doc Description: MS-Word document
Radiated Immunity
Hello group, I have heard that the Radiated Immunity test is not required for 'CE'. I don't recall reading that anywhere, so I would like to know what the story is. Thanks, Courtland Thomas --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EN documents for service, support, vibration and shock?
Dear List, Can anyone provide reference to the correct European Standards on length of time service and support must be maintained for a product? (ie. five years, ten years, etc.) Also, what are the appropriate EN documents relating to the vibration and shock that instruments must withstand during shipment and normal use? The product family is laboratory instrumentation. Many thanks for your assistance. Paul O'Shaughnessy Affymetrix, Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it obsolete?
>"Dear Valued Regulatory Test Solution Customer, >Agilent Technologies has recently made a strategic decision regarding our >acsource product family..." >"...to withdraw from the EMI compliance market. So, within a frame >of less than five years, I have a $13,000 software investment which >is no longer supported..." I notice the Agilent Technologies stationery includes the slogan "Innovating the HP Way." This kind of makes you wonder what the innovative "HP Way" of customer support is all about, doesn't it? How many millions of dollars' worth of equipment have each of us authorized, or will authorize during our 30 or 40 year careers? Personally, I very much doubt that I will ever recommend purchasing another piece of HP/Agilent equipment. Mike Mertinooke --- 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: EN61000-3-2 / EN61000-3-3 (Again)
Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions regarding EN61000-3-2 / 3-3. This was a great help as the responses were very clear and consistent. At least for now, I have a much better understanding of these standards and their scope. Craig Hensley Iomega Corp. >>> Craig Hensley 01/03/01 10:49AM >>> This is probably a gross over-simplification, but I want to make sure I understand the applicability of the new EN61000-3-2 (harmonic) and EN61000-3-3 (flicker) standards. In reviewing the standards as well as previous communications within this group I have arrived at the following conclusions. EN61000-3-2 - Applies only to products with input power higher than 75W. Per paragraph 7.4 of the standard, "no limits apply for equipment with an active input power up to and including 75W". EN61000-3-3 - Per paragraph 6.1 of the standard, "Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce significant voltage fluctuations or flicker". Per an earlier e-mail from Gert Gremmen "unlikely" means that the equipment has no variations in power supply current, or variations that cause voltage fluctuations below the most stringent level in the standard. In general: - Equipment with a power consumption below 100 VA max is unlikely to create flicker problems, and, - Most equipment under 500VA will not create flicker problems. You could actually do a simple check the 230V mains side to see if the product causes dips or fluctuations. If there are no dips there is no need to measure. If a product does not fall under the applicability of EN61000-3-2 or EN61000-3-3 per the above explanations, what is the consensus regarding referencing these standards on the DoC? Based on some earlier e-mails, it appears that a few of you are going to add these to the DoC. This should take away questions that may arise with DoC's that do not contain these standards. Based on this approach, couldn't you also reference other non-applicable harmonized standards? Recently I have been asked to sign a document from one of our distributors that states all product provided after 01/01/01 will comply with EN61000-3-2 and EN61000-3-3. However, my products fall outside the scope of these standards (per above explanations), so what I am wondering is can I say I comply because I have evaluated the standards and found they are not applicable. I face the same dilemma on the DoC's. Is it reasonable to claim compliance via non-applicability? I apologize for the conversational tone of this e-mail, but I am interested in any other views and opinions. Best Regards for 2001, Craig Hensley Iomega Corp. Roy, UT --- 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
Shipping RMA/Repair product to Europe
Group: I ran into an interesting curve on 61000-3-2/-3-3 that I wanted to make sure I dealt with appropriately. In our efforts to requalify our products for these requirements we handled most of the situations we could come up with, but the one area I missed was our Service department. We have product with an older supply that does not meet the requirements for -3-2/-3-3 that was returned to us for service late last year. After it has been repaired, our shipping group noted that this model was on our hold list due to the power supply requirements that went into effect 1 Jan 2001. I am assuming that we would have been able to ship the unit back into the EU through 31 December 2000, but now will need to bring it into compliance with the new standard (i.e. change the power supply to a compliant supply). Please let me know if what I've outlined above is correct or whether there are provisions for returns for service or other issues that we might consider. Regards, Michael Garretson Sr. Compliance Engineer RadiSys Corporation +1 503 615-1227 --- 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: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved
If I may interject my opinion here . . . On only two occassions have I had to provide a report to back-up my DoC. The laboratory has their accreditations listed at the bottom of the cover page. I did not receive any further queries about the data or the lab that performed it. Was it because the lab was accredited? I don't know for sure. But I do know that I have plenty of work to do without having to worry about trying to convince someone (whether their queries are justified or not) that the data was generated in a properly NSA'd site buy competent indiviuals. If all it takes to prevent that is using an 'accredited' lab, then so be it. (If a company goes through the expense of creating their own site, it may be worth to at least have some 'minimal' - if that exists, amount of accreditation). John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:19 AM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'lfresea...@aol.com'; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved Ghery, Personal opinion time. You may want to re-think the Europe thing. Even if you are correct that you don't currently need them for Europe, accredited labs are really the underpinnings for global acceptance of EMC data (Okay - not Korea but don't get me started on them for the moment, besides I believe the FCC frowns on the language that would be necessary). The concept is that if differing countries can agree on how and to what criteria labs are accredited, and by such accreditation provide some reasonable assurance that their site, equipment, personnel, and process will product accurate data we can get MRA's signed that will allow "one stop" testing, if you will. The benefits of an accredited lab seem to be a little more obvious in the US, because we no longer have to wait six weeks after test for review of the data and equipment grant, but I would contend that the long term benefit is much greater. Besides I have never seen a cost impact on using an accredited lab, and knowing that my test lab reads this forum, I had better not see one (Morning, Paul and Jim), so it just doesn't seem prudent to me not to use an accredited lab. Heck, accreditation of a lab also does some of your homework for you in giving you a back-door quality audit of the facilities you intend to use, because these labs have to first prove their competency but they have to be audited every other year. So I guess I am confused why you would chose not to use accredited labs. Take Care Gary -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:44 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; Pettit, Ghery; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved No argument there, Derek. I was looking at a wider picture which includes personal computers under the FCC Rules. In that case, for self declaration, an accredited laboratory is required. For the EMC Directive in Europe, no accreditation is required. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:34 PM To: ghery.pet...@intel.com; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved Ghery, in your reply it reads as though an accredited lab is required. I want to make sure it is clear that for compliance with the EMC Directive it IS NOT the case. Use of an accredited lab may make life easier, but, I reiterate, it is not required. Best regards, Derek Walton --- 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: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved
Gary, you make this statement... Besides I have never seen a cost impact on using an accredited lab, and knowing that my test lab reads this forum, I had better not see one (Morning, Paul and Jim), so it just doesn't seem prudent to me not to use an accredited lab I charge $600/day for members of my EMC Club, and $800/day for non-memebers. I suspect that most acredited labs out there are a bit higher than that I also know that my data is every bit as good as any other lab I've ever seen So, I can't agree with you about the cost impact. Acreditation is for building confidence, especially when products leave the country. It's only because the FCC is paronoid that Acredited labs are required here! Ironic really when they blow off the need for immunity testing. In good faith, Derek Walton --- 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: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved
Gary, Good points, but the fact remains that laboratory accreditation is not required for testing to the EMC Directive in Europe. It is my opinion that they got this one right. If we are going to have lab accreditation, it should be in the country in which the lab is located and then accepted world wide. It's amazing how much time a lab can lose with all the visiting firemen from around the world coming through to check and re-check your paperwork. I won't get you started on Korea. You and I would just spin each other up on that one as I'm sure we are in full agreement. Our in-house labs are accredited (at least, the ones that do qualification testing). The outside labs we use are also accredited. Yes, it does help show that a lab has good procedures on paper and demonstrated them to an assessor. However, I've seen accredited labs that I wouldn't go near, and back when accreditation wasn't a big thing, there were non-accredited labs that did excellent work. I'm not convinced that it is a guarantee that a lab is good. It does, however, make the bureaucrats feel better. I didn't say that I would use non-accredited labs, I just said that accreditation isn't required for the EMC Directive in Europe. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:19 AM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'lfresea...@aol.com'; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved Ghery, Personal opinion time. You may want to re-think the Europe thing. Even if you are correct that you don't currently need them for Europe, accredited labs are really the underpinnings for global acceptance of EMC data (Okay - not Korea but don't get me started on them for the moment, besides I believe the FCC frowns on the language that would be necessary). The concept is that if differing countries can agree on how and to what criteria labs are accredited, and by such accreditation provide some reasonable assurance that their site, equipment, personnel, and process will product accurate data we can get MRA's signed that will allow "one stop" testing, if you will. The benefits of an accredited lab seem to be a little more obvious in the US, because we no longer have to wait six weeks after test for review of the data and equipment grant, but I would contend that the long term benefit is much greater. Besides I have never seen a cost impact on using an accredited lab, and knowing that my test lab reads this forum, I had better not see one (Morning, Paul and Jim), so it just doesn't seem prudent to me not to use an accredited lab. Heck, accreditation of a lab also does some of your homework for you in giving you a back-door quality audit of the facilities you intend to use, because these labs have to first prove their competency but they have to be audited every other year. So I guess I am confused why you would chose not to use accredited labs. Take Care Gary -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:44 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; Pettit, Ghery; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved No argument there, Derek. I was looking at a wider picture which includes personal computers under the FCC Rules. In that case, for self declaration, an accredited laboratory is required. For the EMC Directive in Europe, no accreditation is required. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:34 PM To: ghery.pet...@intel.com; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved Ghery, in your reply it reads as though an accredited lab is required. I want to make sure it is clear that for compliance with the EMC Directive it IS NOT the case. Use of an accredited lab may make life easier, but, I reiterate, it is not required. Best regards, Derek Walton --- 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:
HCFC ban in Europe - EC reg 2037/2000
Summary === The EC "ozone regulation" No. 2037/2000 does, indeed, prohibit the use of HCFC's as early as 1/1/00. In fact, some uses of HCFC's as early as 1/1/96. The trick to reading this regulation is to understand that the prohibition dates are scheduled according to the use of the HCFC. There are different dates, for example, for HCFC's used as solvents, aerosols, and refrigerants. The refrigerant use is, itself, broken down into different use sectors (i.e. Military Vehicles, Public Transport Air-conditioning) Before you can determine when your products use of HCFC will be prohibited, you must determine how the regulation speaks of your product...not always an easy task. Since the regulation is focused on the EU it is more difficult to find the language pointed towards manufacturers outside the EU who are selling into the EU. Note, for example, that "producer" in this document means a producer of HCFC (or other banned material), NOT a producer of equipment that utilizes the material. (ref article 2). As with most EU legislation, the primary burden of compliance is on those people in the union. Therefore, the burden is on the importer of equipment utilizing banned materials, not specifically on the exporter outside the EU. Of course, many US based companies have a Euro affiliate, and share reputation and "bottom line" or have contractual agreements not to get the Euro guys in trouble with "the law." Also note that this regulation seems to include reporting requirements for those who IMPORT HCFC's and related materials into the EU. Article 4 and or Article 6 describes this. So if you export equipment that utilizes HCFC's, but it is imported EMPTY of the HCFCs, you are pretty clear of obligations. However if you export HCFC containing equipment, even during the period before prohibition for your particular product, the importer of your equipment probably has reporting responsibilities. The body that must receive these reports, and how import quota's are determined are unclear to me at this time. I need to re-read the regulation 10 or so more times. Attached is an analysis I did for a "chiller" that uses HCFC's in its primary cooling cycle against the prohibition requirements of article 5. It is a specific case study, but may be useful to you. <> I do not know how a "regulation" is different from a "directive." - more to learn ! The two amendments to this regulation to not change the base document in a large way. Details === Found by searching at "Directory of Community legislation in force" (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/ind/en_analytical_index_15.html) with key word "2037/200) selecting 'legislation in force' and 'consolidated legislation' check boxes on search page. The basic act http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/2000/en_300R2037.html A first amendment http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/2000/en_300R2038.html A second amendment http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/2000/en_300R2039.html Lauren Crane * Principal Safety & Compliance Engineer * Ion Beam and Thermal Processing Systems * Axcelis Technologies Inc. * 108 Cherry Hill Dr. * Beverly, MA 01915 * 978.787-9745 lauren.cr...@axcelis.com Analysis of CFC directive.doc Description: MS-Word document
RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved
Ghery, Personal opinion time. You may want to re-think the Europe thing. Even if you are correct that you don't currently need them for Europe, accredited labs are really the underpinnings for global acceptance of EMC data (Okay - not Korea but don't get me started on them for the moment, besides I believe the FCC frowns on the language that would be necessary). The concept is that if differing countries can agree on how and to what criteria labs are accredited, and by such accreditation provide some reasonable assurance that their site, equipment, personnel, and process will product accurate data we can get MRA's signed that will allow "one stop" testing, if you will. The benefits of an accredited lab seem to be a little more obvious in the US, because we no longer have to wait six weeks after test for review of the data and equipment grant, but I would contend that the long term benefit is much greater. Besides I have never seen a cost impact on using an accredited lab, and knowing that my test lab reads this forum, I had better not see one (Morning, Paul and Jim), so it just doesn't seem prudent to me not to use an accredited lab. Heck, accreditation of a lab also does some of your homework for you in giving you a back-door quality audit of the facilities you intend to use, because these labs have to first prove their competency but they have to be audited every other year. So I guess I am confused why you would chose not to use accredited labs. Take Care Gary -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:44 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; Pettit, Ghery; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved No argument there, Derek. I was looking at a wider picture which includes personal computers under the FCC Rules. In that case, for self declaration, an accredited laboratory is required. For the EMC Directive in Europe, no accreditation is required. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:34 PM To: ghery.pet...@intel.com; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved Ghery, in your reply it reads as though an accredited lab is required. I want to make sure it is clear that for compliance with the EMC Directive it IS NOT the case. Use of an accredited lab may make life easier, but, I reiterate, it is not required. Best regards, Derek Walton --- 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: HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it obsolete?
I have spent the last couple of days ploughing through EN61000-3-2, it's amendment A14, IEC1000-4-7 and the HP harmonics application note 1273. I am 90% sure that I can continue using the 6842A for compliance measurements but I would love to have some confirmation. I have tried asking Agilent but I don't think that they have even bothered to read the amendment, I suspect they are too busy writing rubbish like this: "Dear Valued Regulatory Test Solution Customer, Agilent Technologies has recently made a strategic decision regarding our acsource product family. I wanted to let you know as quickly as possible, so that you can begin to evaluate how this may affect your current test equipment plans, and to give you as much time as possible to manage any changes that may result." I used to respect HP for their products and the support, now I wouldn't consider buying even a printer off them. Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com * http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com > -Original Message- > From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] > Sent: 04 January 2001 15:21 > To: 'CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...'; > eric.lif...@ni.com; Colgan, Chris > Cc: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) > Subject: RE: HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it obsolete? > > > I bought the HP-8571A Receiver System and an HP Series 300 Workstation, > with > the associated HP-85869A EMI Acquisition software ($8000) about 5 years > ago. > When the workstation developed a problem about three years ago, I found I > could replace the workstation with a PC (by buying the HP-85869PC and HP > Windows Basic software for another $5100). > > After Agilent was created, I got a letter from them saying that they were > in > the exciting process of re-creating their company, and that they had > decided > to withdraw from the EMI compliance market. So, within a frame of less > than > five years, I have a $13,000 software investment which is no longer > supported. Now of course, the code doesn't just stop working, but a number > of small bugs will now never get fixed. And I have no flexibility for the > future, since the HP code is protected. If I want to do anything new, I > will > have to become my own programmer, or look for 3rd party software. > > (I didn't attach the letter because I think the IEEE server will delete > any > attachments. For anyone interested, I'll email them a copy of the small > 12KB > pdf file. It includes a schedule of support discontinuance dates for > various > HP EMI products.) > > 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: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... > [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:17 PM > To: eric.lif...@ni.com; Colgan, Chris > Cc: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) > Subject: RE: HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it obsolete? > > > > I got the same confirmation from Agilent Netherlands. > I cannot recommend the purchase of Agilent equipment > for harmonics , flicker etc. to regulatory purposes at the moment. > > Basically it's the software that becomes obsolete. > > I think your 68xx system will be obsolete but for > precompliance purposes. > > You might add a separate harmonics/flicker analyser however and use > the 68xx for programmable power supply only. > > > 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 eric.lif...@ni.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:55 PM > >>To: Colgan, Chris > >>Cc: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) > >>Subject: Re: HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it obsolete? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Colgan et al, > >> > >>We just received a full one-page letter from Agilent dated 19 December > >>2000, if I may reduce it to the essential messages: > >> > >>Agilent DISCONTINUES any plans to support A14. > >> > >>Agilent DISCONTINUES as of 31 Dec 2000 (or 1 Jan 2001) the > >>14761A/62A/63A software packages for regulatory testing. > >> > >>Agilent DISCONTINUES manufacture of AC sources rated higher than > 1750 > >>VA. > >> > >>Agilent will CONTINUE to make the 6811B/12B/13B models AC sources > >>(those rated at and below 1750 VA). > >> > >>The last date to place an ORDER for discontinued products > >>(hardware/software) is
Draft Decision of European Parliament and Council on Radio Sp ect rum Policy
The attached draft decision> was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on> 19 December 2000. > > <> > <> Richard Woods ce36520001219en02560261.pdf Description: Binary data ce36520001219en02560261.pdf Description: Binary data
Re: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts
As I recall, the requirements for label durability came years ago from UL, where the original test specified kerosene. As the standards evolved, propagated and became international, the term kerosene was complained about since it varied worldwide. In attempts to be more specific, someone came up with the description which now appears in IEC 60950 clause 1.7.3 (for kerosene I assumed). It seemed acceptable and none of us had the expertise to improve or change it. Describing petroleum distillates is a pretty vague problem anyway. It's a lot like trying to chemically describe smoke. It depends on the source, the cracking process, the distillate fractions, etc. In general, the lighter the distillate, the better it will dissolve some things. You can get anything from wax to lighter fluid to gases from the same process. You might be able to get a chemical supplier to match the description from the standard, you may want to try something rather worst case like lighter fluid, but your best bet is to get agreement on what to use between you and the agency you are certifying with. Bob Johnson --- 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
Dec. 29, 2000 EMC/Telco/Product Safety Update Now Available
The Curtis-Straus Update for the week ending Dec. 29, 2000 is now available at: http://www.conformity-update.com This week's headlines are: FCC MAY REQUIRE UNIQUE ID FOR ALL. GE DISHWASHER DEBACLE CONTINUES. EU BREAKS IMPASSE, PREPARES FOR ENLARGEMENT. EU PONDERS A BILL OF RIGHTS. THE IEC'S LAST WORD ON 61000-3-2 AND 61000-3-3. U.S./EU REGULATORY UPDATE. STANDARDS UPDATE. MEETINGS AND SEMINARS. --- 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: HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it obsolete?
I bought the HP-8571A Receiver System and an HP Series 300 Workstation, with the associated HP-85869A EMI Acquisition software ($8000) about 5 years ago. When the workstation developed a problem about three years ago, I found I could replace the workstation with a PC (by buying the HP-85869PC and HP Windows Basic software for another $5100). After Agilent was created, I got a letter from them saying that they were in the exciting process of re-creating their company, and that they had decided to withdraw from the EMI compliance market. So, within a frame of less than five years, I have a $13,000 software investment which is no longer supported. Now of course, the code doesn't just stop working, but a number of small bugs will now never get fixed. And I have no flexibility for the future, since the HP code is protected. If I want to do anything new, I will have to become my own programmer, or look for 3rd party software. (I didn't attach the letter because I think the IEEE server will delete any attachments. For anyone interested, I'll email them a copy of the small 12KB pdf file. It includes a schedule of support discontinuance dates for various HP EMI products.) 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: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:17 PM To: eric.lif...@ni.com; Colgan, Chris Cc: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) Subject: RE: HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it obsolete? I got the same confirmation from Agilent Netherlands. I cannot recommend the purchase of Agilent equipment for harmonics , flicker etc. to regulatory purposes at the moment. Basically it's the software that becomes obsolete. I think your 68xx system will be obsolete but for precompliance purposes. You might add a separate harmonics/flicker analyser however and use the 68xx for programmable power supply only. 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 eric.lif...@ni.com >>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:55 PM >>To: Colgan, Chris >>Cc: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) >>Subject: Re: HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it obsolete? >> >> >> >> >>Colgan et al, >> >>We just received a full one-page letter from Agilent dated 19 December >>2000, if I may reduce it to the essential messages: >> >>Agilent DISCONTINUES any plans to support A14. >> >>Agilent DISCONTINUES as of 31 Dec 2000 (or 1 Jan 2001) the >>14761A/62A/63A software packages for regulatory testing. >> >>Agilent DISCONTINUES manufacture of AC sources rated higher than 1750 >>VA. >> >>Agilent will CONTINUE to make the 6811B/12B/13B models AC sources >>(those rated at and below 1750 VA). >> >>The last date to place an ORDER for discontinued products >>(hardware/software) is 31 May 2001. >> >>Agilent suggests using the 684X as a precompliance tool after the A14 DOW. >> >>The email address provided in the letter is: ppd_supp...@agilient.com >> >>I hope I paraphrased the letter correctly. If you have any questions, I >>suggest you contact Agilent. >> >>Best Regards, >>Eric Lifsey >> Compliance Manager, National Instruments >> USA 512-683-8474, Fax 512-683-8880 >> >> >> >> >> >>"Colgan, Chris" >> >>>"'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)" >>Audio.com> >> >>Sent by:cc: >> >>owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: >>HP6842A harmonics analyser - is it >>obsolete? >> >> >> >>01/02/2001 04:36 AM >> >>Please respond to >> >>"Colgan, Chris" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Happy New Year! >> >>Not such a happy start for me though. I have been informed by >>Agilent that >>they will not be supporting a software upgrade for the 6800 series >>harmonics >>analysers for A14 to EN61000-3-2. >> >>I have studied A14 and there appear to be some measurement technique >>changes. Does this mean that I cannot just set my HP6842A to >>measure class >>A limits to test to A14? If I cannot, does anyone know of a company that >>has written or can write a software upgrade for me? >> >>Or have Agilent turned several thousand pounds worth of compliance test >>equipment into a few hundred pounds worth of power supply? >> >>Regards >> >>Chris Colgan >>Compliance Engineer >>TAG McLaren Audio Ltd >>The Summit, Latham Road >>H
RE: NSA above 1 GHz
NSA above 1 GHz becomes (technically spoken) less relevant , as it becomes increasingly easier to calibrate antennas as if they were used in free space. The short wavelength makes is easy to choose the antenna-antenna distance very short compared to the height of them. In this way reflections are most attenuated and close field coupling to the ground plane does not exist. This makes it very easy to measure emissions from EUT's in any standard (shielded) room as one is allowed to come closer to the EUT. Echo's and interference from other sources are to become irrelevant then. The extreme directivity of broadband horn antenna's add to this advantage. One may select the direction of measurement to the least environmental interference. Remember the close-field/far-field (lambda/2pi) transition determines the technical need to maintain a 3-10-30 meter distance (in addition to EUT size). Developments are ongoing to allow the method of "partial illumination" also to be used for emission measurements on large EUT's. 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 rehel...@mmm.com >>Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:54 PM >>To: Mike Cantwell >>Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >>Subject: Re: NSA above 1 GHz >> >> >> >> >>Mike, in C63.4, the project number is 1-13.2. The contact is Michael >>Windler. >> >>michael.j.wind...@us.ul.com >> >>>From the latest C63 Newsletter: >> >>"The key issues being addressed in this project include ground plane >>influences, site reflections and practical frequency limits to the >>traditional method for normalized site attenuation (NSA) under 1000 MHz. >>There are five labs making various reflective ambient measurements >>(including placing absorber material on the ground plane between the >>transmitter and receive antennas)." >> >>== >>== >> >> >> >> >>Mike Cantwell on 01/03/2001 02:06:20 PM >> >>Please respond to Mike Cantwell >> >> >>To: "'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'" >>cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) >>Subject: NSA above 1 GHz >> >> >> >> >> >>Does anyone know of any Normalized Site Attenuation measurements above 1 >>GHz? I'm specifically interested in whether or not ANSI C63.4 or CISPR-22 >>is >>planning this, and if so, is there any preliminary info? >> >>Any help would be greatly appreciated. >> >> >>Thanks, >> >>Mike Cantwell >> >>--- >>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: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts
>>We might be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. I agree that a mountain is being made of a molehill - however, I think the TC made the mountain, not those of us who have tried to interpret the mountain. For my part, I have posted this exact question in the past and found the same spread of answers. So, I now use isopropyl alcohol as it is a harsher solvent than kerosene, and being an electronics manufacturer, we have boodles of it around here. If it stands up to the alcohol rub it will take the kerosene rub. Also, we manufacture some medical device products, and those standards call out alcohol for the rub test. (IEC601.1 clause 6.1(z)). Doug Massey LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:29 PM To: kmccormick...@hotmail.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts We might be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. The basic intent of the various standards is to ensure that power rating information is not easily rubbed off. The international standards IEC/EN60950 (sec. 1.7.15) stipulate 15 second rub tests using water and "petroleum spirits". The makeup of these spirits is stipulated. However, if a label withstands the rub test with any of the usual "household" spirits, e.g. kerosene, isopropyl alcohol, rubbing alcohol, lamp oil, lighter fluid, gasoline etc., it will probably withstand the test same with any of the uniquely specified petroleum spirits. I assume each of us has at one time tried to remove printing or the complete label from a jar or bottle for other uses. My own experience is that if one "spirit" will work, so will the others. Some (gasoline) will work faster than others (lighter fluid). Conversely, if a randomly chosen spirit will not work, it is time to try a knife blade or blow torch (just kidding about the torch). George Alspaugh kmccormickinc%hotmail@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/02/2001 03:40:42 PM Please respond to kmccormickinc%hotmail@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts Thanks guys...BUT, I am not trying to convince UL that I am correct. This is all internal to the company I am working with. Just to give you an idea of how confusing this issue is, I have privately received responses stating that all the following are acceptable: Kerosene Isopropyl alcohol Rubbing Alcahol Lamp Oil Hexane Now I am not a chemical expert, but the chemical properties of these chemicals are not similar to one another (the simplest comparison is the boiling point, the above range from 60C - 300C). Calling UL and asking them what they use is easy...the hard part is proving that whatever the subject chemical is, it complies with the standard. Just wondering if anyone has had this experience before. >From: Gary McInturff >To: "'oover...@lexmark.com'" , >kmccormick...@hotmail.com >CC: emc-p...@ieee.org >Subject: RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:24:17 -0800 > >Not only cheap, but sometimes it is much easier just to do it their way >than >argue with them that you material should or should not be acceptable. Pick >your battles. Let them win this one. >Gary > >-Original Message- >From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:46 AM >To: kmccormick...@hotmail.com >Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org >Subject: Re: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts > > >From the UL Test Data Sheets provided to me by my UL engineering office, >the >material listed in the text of the test data sheet is kerosene. >I don't know what the actual physical characteristics are, but if UL uses >this >for their test I would assume that it is acceptable for me to use. >Kerosene is an easy product to obtain and is not that expensive. > >I have included an excerpt of the UL 1950 test data sheet that I was given >by >UL. > >Oscar > ># Excerpt from the UL 1950 Test Data Sheets # > >1.7.15 - PERMANENCE OF MARKING TEST: > >METHOD > > A sample of the marking label was subjected to this test. The >surface >of >each marking as noted below was rubbed by hand for a period of 15 seconds >with a >water soaked cloth, and again for a period of 15 seconds with a cloth >soaked >with the petroleum spirit noted below. > >RESULTS > >TEST CONDITIONS: > >Use of Marking _ > >Material_ > >Held by _ > >Applied Surface Material_ > > >OBSERVATIONS: > Water Kerosene > >Any Damage? _ _ > >Legible? _ _ > >Curled? _ _ > >Edge Lifted? _ _ > >Easily Removed Intact?_ ___
Re: NSA above 1 GHz
Mike, in C63.4, the project number is 1-13.2. The contact is Michael Windler. michael.j.wind...@us.ul.com >From the latest C63 Newsletter: "The key issues being addressed in this project include ground plane influences, site reflections and practical frequency limits to the traditional method for normalized site attenuation (NSA) under 1000 MHz. There are five labs making various reflective ambient measurements (including placing absorber material on the ground plane between the transmitter and receive antennas)." Mike Cantwell on 01/03/2001 02:06:20 PM Please respond to Mike Cantwell To: "'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'" cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: NSA above 1 GHz Does anyone know of any Normalized Site Attenuation measurements above 1 GHz? I'm specifically interested in whether or not ANSI C63.4 or CISPR-22 is planning this, and if so, is there any preliminary info? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mike Cantwell --- 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
