RE: RTTE Directive Notification Period
Hello All, I see by the replies that I didn't state my problem clearly. I don't mean to imply that the devices are variants of each other they are not. They are separate devices each of which has been tested to the full extent required. The proposition is purely this. Since I notified the PTTs before about products with the same application and RF characteristics previously and I had no objections from the PTTs and that furthermore the only way PTTs can ban a device is to object on the basis of network harm then they cannot ban my new products and I need not wait the four weeks. Comments anyone? Rest Regards Kevin Harris -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:08 PM To: Wismer, Sam; Kevin Harris; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Notification Period As always, people are pragmatic, and technical reasons, how valid they may be, cannot prevail over legal ones. Any compliance matter will (-in case of dispute-) finally be judged by a legal specialist, not a technical-, and if in the end you manage to convince a lawyer that A equals B, he will ask you why calling it A anyway. Furthermore , many technical properties of radio devices nowadays depend heavily of software, such as the modulation scheme. If your previous uP served well to extremes of the test range, does the newer one ?? Your reasoning Richard, and Kevin would do well for submitting your device to a test house, as a motivation for no in-hour pre-compliance testing, but not for safeguarding your boss or customers against legal charges. Sorry... Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) Ce-test, qualified testing == Web presence http://www.cetest.nl http://www.cetest.nl/ CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm 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 Wismer, Sam Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:42 PM To: Kevin Harris; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Notification Period Hi Kevin, Unless you give it the same model number etc., there will always be what appears to someone who tries to check on it, an un-notified(is that a word?) product on the market. I suppose you could have notified a family of products if you had visibility of them prior to the initial notification. It's a bit like adding a new antenna to a spread spectrum device here in the US. If the antenna is of the same type and equal or lesser gain than one that has already been approved by the FCC, then you don't have to test it. However, you do have to identify it. This means you have to file a class 2 permissive change to add the antenna to the file and wait the 12 week cycle time or so until it gets granted. For your question though, if the label cannot identify it as something that has been notified, then you should re-notify. Just be glad you only have to wait 4 weeks and not 12. My 2 cents... ~ Sam Wismer Lead Regulatory Engineer/ Radio Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [ mailto:harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com ] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:35 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE Directive Notification Period Hello Sages, I am trying to assess what could possibly happen under the following scenario for the notification period. Lets say I had some SRD devices that have gone through the notification period without comment. At some later point I decide to introduce further devices in the line. The radios are not identical schematically but all the RF characteristics are identical, including percentage on time. The new devices are all type tested, EMC and safety tested in exactly the same manner as the devices previously notified and will be used in the same application. My proposal at that point would be to not wait for 4 weeks to expire on notification but to market the devices immediately. My reasoning for this is that a country can only object to a device being marketed on harm to the network and then follow the procedure in Article 9.5 for banning the device. Since they did not happen previously, they cannot object now. I know that attitude might put some regulatory noses out of joint but does anyone see a problem with the argument. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
RE: RTTE Directive Notification Period
RE: RTTE Directive Notification PeriodAs always, people are pragmatic, and technical reasons, how valid they may be, cannot prevail over legal ones. Any compliance matter will (-in case of dispute-) finally be judged by a legal specialist, not a technical-, and if in the end you manage to convince a lawyer that A equals B, he will ask you why calling it A anyway. Furthermore , many technical properties of radio devices nowadays depend heavily of software, such as the modulation scheme. If your previous uP served well to extremes of the test range, does the newer one ?? Your reasoning Richard, and Kevin would do well for submitting your device to a test house, as a motivation for no in-hour pre-compliance testing, but not for safeguarding your boss or customers against legal charges. Sorry... 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 Wismer, Sam Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:42 PM To: Kevin Harris; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Notification Period Hi Kevin, Unless you give it the same model number etc., there will always be what appears to someone who tries to check on it, an un-notified(is that a word?) product on the market. I suppose you could have notified a family of products if you had visibility of them prior to the initial notification. It's a bit like adding a new antenna to a spread spectrum device here in the US. If the antenna is of the same type and equal or lesser gain than one that has already been approved by the FCC, then you don't have to test it. However, you do have to identify it. This means you have to file a class 2 permissive change to add the antenna to the file and wait the 12 week cycle time or so until it gets granted. For your question though, if the label cannot identify it as something that has been notified, then you should re-notify. Just be glad you only have to wait 4 weeks and not 12. My 2 cents... ~ Sam Wismer Lead Regulatory Engineer/ Radio Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:35 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE Directive Notification Period Hello Sages, I am trying to assess what could possibly happen under the following scenario for the notification period. Lets say I had some SRD devices that have gone through the notification period without comment. At some later point I decide to introduce further devices in the line. The radios are not identical schematically but all the RF characteristics are identical, including percentage on time. The new devices are all type tested, EMC and safety tested in exactly the same manner as the devices previously notified and will be used in the same application. My proposal at that point would be to not wait for 4 weeks to expire on notification but to market the devices immediately. My reasoning for this is that a country can only object to a device being marketed on harm to the network and then follow the procedure in Article 9.5 for banning the device. Since they did not happen previously, they cannot object now. I know that attitude might put some regulatory noses out of joint but does anyone see a problem with the argument. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf
Re: Site Correlation
We are also in the process of setting up a 3 meter indoor site. Would it not be better to compare a 3 meter site to a 3 meter site vs a 10 meter site and add 10db to your limit line? Joe Martin Neven Pischl npis...@cisco.com@ieee.org on 01/11/2001 08:12:38 AM Please respond to Neven Pischl npis...@cisco.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org To: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com, EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: Subject: Re: Site Correlation Allen, the main problem you will have is not whether to use signal generator or a comb generator, but the difference in the radiation characteristic of your source for correlation and the DUTs that you will later put in the chamber. You will measure a lots of near-field in you 3m or smaller chamber. The field pattern at 10 m will be very different. Correlation from near-field to far-field obtained with source of one (near-field) radiation characteristics can not be used to predict 10 m radiation of a source with very different (near-field) radiation characteristics. To answer your question directly first, the best would be if you could use a network analyzer or a spectrum analyzer with a tracking generator, so that you can do swept measurement. However, the way you generate your test field will make huge difference to the test results. If you use a certain transmit antenna for your test (correlation), you will get the correlation for that antenna, but not for a DUT that you might want to test (and use the correlation) later. I suggest you take your typical product, physically configure it as in your typical test setup, it may but does not have be powered. Then couple your signal source (whatever you choose to use) to the DUT PCB and wiring (here you have to be a little creative) and do the measurement. Then you can repeat the same at 10 m site. By doing that you will be ale to get correlation for that particular kind of DUT. However, if you obtain your correlation with a DSL modem (e.g. a small box with one power, one DSL, and one UTP cable) on a wooden 80 cm high turntable, you can not use it to predict 10 m radiation of a rack-mount multi-port Ethernet switch or any other DUT that is physically much different. If you do it like that, and run your test a few times, you will soon gain experience (some will be from the obtain correlation and some will be your developed feeling) that you can use to correlate your product measured in your precompliance chamber to 10 m. I suggest you plot your predicted data (obtained from the correlation measurement) versus measured over each other every time you do it (at least for the first 5-10 tests), and it will show you the spread (uncertainty) of your correlation. Hope this will help you, Neven - Original Message - From: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:58 AM Subject: Site Correlation Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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: Site Correlation
My understanding is that quite good correlation can be drawn between three and ten meter sites, as long as the EUT is in the far field of the antenna AND the antenna is in the far field of the EUT at both separation distances. However, if this is not the case, then you have problems. -- From: Brent Pahl bre...@dynarc.com To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com, EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Site Correlation Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 1:31 PM Hi Ken, Very true. I was simply looking at the question of which of the two listed methods would work best, without taking into account the overall accuracy of either method. No matter what you try, you will never get direct correlation between a 10m OATS and a 3m chamber, but by utilizing one of the listed methods, he may get a slightly clearer picture than he would without any correction factors at all. The measurements from the 3m chamber will always need to be taken with a grain of salt. Regards, Brent -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:02 AM To: Brent Pahl; Tudor, Allen; EMC-PCST (E-mail) Subject: Re: Site Correlation Have to take strong exception. If EUT is much larger than comb generator, a correlation between sites using the comb generator will not work for the larger EUT. Measurement antenna is in far field of comb generator on both sites, but is more in the far field of the EUT at 10 m than at 3 m. -- From: Brent Pahl bre...@dynarc.com To: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com, EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Site Correlation Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 11:31 AM Allen, We just did this in our 3-meter lab using a comb generator. After interviewing several test labs, I found out that they use comb generator's occasionally to see if they are still properly calibrated. Evidently, a good comb generator will give a consistent output, give or take 0.5dB, over it's lifetime. As long as the comb generator is consistently set up the same way every time (e.g. with power cord vs. on battery, same distance from antenna, facing same direction), and the measurements are taken the same way at the 10m site as they are in your 3m chamber (e.g. not maximizing at every frequency vs. maximizing at every frequency, peak hold vs. continuous run), you should get consistent results. In regards to the vs. options listed above, I would recommend using the 1st option in all cases. Honestly, either a comb generator or a signal-generator/antenna should both give you accurate results, but the comb generator reduces the number of variables you need to consider/double-check during setup. Best of luck, Brent -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tudor, Allen Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:58 AM To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) Subject: Site Correlation Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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
RE: Site Correlation
Hi Ken, Very true. I was simply looking at the question of which of the two listed methods would work best, without taking into account the overall accuracy of either method. No matter what you try, you will never get direct correlation between a 10m OATS and a 3m chamber, but by utilizing one of the listed methods, he may get a slightly clearer picture than he would without any correction factors at all. The measurements from the 3m chamber will always need to be taken with a grain of salt. Regards, Brent -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:02 AM To: Brent Pahl; Tudor, Allen; EMC-PCST (E-mail) Subject: Re: Site Correlation Have to take strong exception. If EUT is much larger than comb generator, a correlation between sites using the comb generator will not work for the larger EUT. Measurement antenna is in far field of comb generator on both sites, but is more in the far field of the EUT at 10 m than at 3 m. -- From: Brent Pahl bre...@dynarc.com To: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com, EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Site Correlation Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 11:31 AM Allen, We just did this in our 3-meter lab using a comb generator. After interviewing several test labs, I found out that they use comb generator's occasionally to see if they are still properly calibrated. Evidently, a good comb generator will give a consistent output, give or take 0.5dB, over it's lifetime. As long as the comb generator is consistently set up the same way every time (e.g. with power cord vs. on battery, same distance from antenna, facing same direction), and the measurements are taken the same way at the 10m site as they are in your 3m chamber (e.g. not maximizing at every frequency vs. maximizing at every frequency, peak hold vs. continuous run), you should get consistent results. In regards to the vs. options listed above, I would recommend using the 1st option in all cases. Honestly, either a comb generator or a signal-generator/antenna should both give you accurate results, but the comb generator reduces the number of variables you need to consider/double-check during setup. Best of luck, Brent -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tudor, Allen Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:58 AM To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) Subject: Site Correlation Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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: Site Correlation
Have to take strong exception. If EUT is much larger than comb generator, a correlation between sites using the comb generator will not work for the larger EUT. Measurement antenna is in far field of comb generator on both sites, but is more in the far field of the EUT at 10 m than at 3 m. -- From: Brent Pahl bre...@dynarc.com To: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com, EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Site Correlation Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 11:31 AM Allen, We just did this in our 3-meter lab using a comb generator. After interviewing several test labs, I found out that they use comb generator's occasionally to see if they are still properly calibrated. Evidently, a good comb generator will give a consistent output, give or take 0.5dB, over it's lifetime. As long as the comb generator is consistently set up the same way every time (e.g. with power cord vs. on battery, same distance from antenna, facing same direction), and the measurements are taken the same way at the 10m site as they are in your 3m chamber (e.g. not maximizing at every frequency vs. maximizing at every frequency, peak hold vs. continuous run), you should get consistent results. In regards to the vs. options listed above, I would recommend using the 1st option in all cases. Honestly, either a comb generator or a signal-generator/antenna should both give you accurate results, but the comb generator reduces the number of variables you need to consider/double-check during setup. Best of luck, Brent -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tudor, Allen Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:58 AM To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) Subject: Site Correlation Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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: Zo
E1 cable, which is 26 AWG, is 120 0hms and T1 is 100 ohms. Impedance will vary depending on things such as; shielding, wire gauge, twists/ft, etc. Bill Fleury -Original Message- From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:49 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: Zo Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? Thanks in advance, ...OLE_Obj... 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
RE: RTTE Directive Notification Period
Hi Kevin, Unless you give it the same model number etc., there will always be what appears to someone who tries to check on it, an un-notified(is that a word?) product on the market. I suppose you could have notified a family of products if you had visibility of them prior to the initial notification. It's a bit like adding a new antenna to a spread spectrum device here in the US. If the antenna is of the same type and equal or lesser gain than one that has already been approved by the FCC, then you don't have to test it. However, you do have to identify it. This means you have to file a class 2 permissive change to add the antenna to the file and wait the 12 week cycle time or so until it gets granted. For your question though, if the label cannot identify it as something that has been notified, then you should re-notify. Just be glad you only have to wait 4 weeks and not 12. My 2 cents... ~ Sam Wismer Lead Regulatory Engineer/ Radio Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:35 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE Directive Notification Period Hello Sages, I am trying to assess what could possibly happen under the following scenario for the notification period. Lets say I had some SRD devices that have gone through the notification period without comment. At some later point I decide to introduce further devices in the line. The radios are not identical schematically but all the RF characteristics are identical, including percentage on time. The new devices are all type tested, EMC and safety tested in exactly the same manner as the devices previously notified and will be used in the same application. My proposal at that point would be to not wait for 4 weeks to expire on notification but to market the devices immediately. My reasoning for this is that a country can only object to a device being marketed on harm to the network and then follow the procedure in Article 9.5 for banning the device. Since they did not happen previously, they cannot object now. I know that attitude might put some regulatory noses out of joint but does anyone see a problem with the argument. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Zo
If you don't have a network analyzer, you can a good handle on the impedance using a signal generator, scope and a resistor. Make sure the electrical length of the cable is much larger (10X) than the rise time of the generator. Load one end with 100 ohms or so and connect the generator and scope at the other end. If the impedance is more or less than the resistor value, you will see reflections from the resistor. Change the resistor value until the reflections are minimized and that is the impedance. Richard Woods -- From: David Spencer [SMTP:dspen...@oresis.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 12:42 PM To: 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: RE: Zo Hi William, This is a dynamic quantity dependent on the size of the wire, number of twists, and frequency range of interest. You can get a lot of good information from the web pages of various twisted pair cable manufacturers. The normal impedance for twisted pair sold as CAT 3 and CAT 5 (and others) is 100 ohms for a given frequency range, 1-16 MHz for CAT3 and 1-100MHz for CAT5. There are others available (E1 telephony @ 120 ohms.) New flavors of twisted pair are extending the frequency range up to 350MHz. If you have access to a network analyzer, you can probably characterize a given twist/inch of xxASG wire for your frequency range of interest. Hope this helps, Dave Spencer Oresis Communications -Original Message- From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:49 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: Zo Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? Thanks in advance, ...OLE_Obj... 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 --- 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 60439-1 ???
This is the text of the scope from the standard. - 1.1 Scope and object This International Standard applies to low-voltage switchgear and controlgear ASSEMBLIES (type-tested ASSEMBLIES (TTA) and partially type-tested ASSEMBLIES (PTTA)), the rated voltage of which does not exceed 1 000 V a.c. at frequencies not exceeding 1 000 Hz, or 1 500 V d.c. This standard also applies to ASSEMBLIES incorporating control and/or power equipment, the frequencies of which are higher. In this case, appropriate additional requirements will apply. This standard applies to stationary or movable ASSEMBLIES with or without enclosure. NOTE Additional requirements for certain specific types of assemblies are given in supplementary IEC standards. This standard applies to ASSEMBLIES intended for use in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution and conversion of electric energy, and for the control of electric energy consuming equipment. It also applies to ASSEMBLIES designed for use under special service conditions, for example in ships, in rail vehicles, for machine tools, for hoisting equipment or in explosive atmospheres, and for domestic (operated by unskilled persons) applications, provided that the relevant specific requirements are complied with. This standard does not apply to individual devices and self-contained components, such as motor starters, fuse switches, electronic equipment, etc. complying with their relevant standards. The object of this standard is to lay down the definitions and to state the service conditions, construction requirements, technical characteristics and tests for low-voltage switchgear and controlgear ASSEMBLIES. - Ted Eckert Regulatory Compliance Engineer American Power Conversion Corporation ted.eck...@apcc.com The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC's official position on any matter. Mike Cantwell Michael.cantwell@flextrTo: emc-pstc (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org onics.com cc: Sent by:Subject: EN 60439-1 ??? owner-emc-p...@ieee.org 01/11/01 09:41 AM Please respond to Mike Cantwell All, EN 60439-1 is titled Low-voltage switchgear and control gear asemblies - Part 1: Type-tested and partially type-tested assemblies and is listed as a harmonized standard under the EMC Directive. Does any one know the scope of this standard ??? If you know the scope, does it apply to diesel - generator sets (or maybe some of it's controls) ?? As always, trying to determine what it is prior to buying it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Michael Cantwell, PE, NCE ...OLE_Obj... EMC Laboratories 762 Park Avenue Youngsville, NC 27596 Tel: (919) 554-0901 Fax: (919) 556-2043 Cell: (919) 815-4067 --- 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:
RE: Zo
Hi William, This is a dynamic quantity dependent on the size of the wire, number of twists, and frequency range of interest. You can get a lot of good information from the web pages of various twisted pair cable manufacturers. The normal impedance for twisted pair sold as CAT 3 and CAT 5 (and others) is 100 ohms for a given frequency range, 1-16 MHz for CAT3 and 1-100MHz for CAT5. There are others available (E1 telephony @ 120 ohms.) New flavors of twisted pair are extending the frequency range up to 350MHz. If you have access to a network analyzer, you can probably characterize a given twist/inch of xxASG wire for your frequency range of interest. Hope this helps, Dave Spencer Oresis Communications -Original Message- From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:49 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: Zo Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? Thanks in advance, ...OLE_Obj... 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
RE: Site Correlation
Allen, We just did this in our 3-meter lab using a comb generator. After interviewing several test labs, I found out that they use comb generator's occasionally to see if they are still properly calibrated. Evidently, a good comb generator will give a consistent output, give or take 0.5dB, over it's lifetime. As long as the comb generator is consistently set up the same way every time (e.g. with power cord vs. on battery, same distance from antenna, facing same direction), and the measurements are taken the same way at the 10m site as they are in your 3m chamber (e.g. not maximizing at every frequency vs. maximizing at every frequency, peak hold vs. continuous run), you should get consistent results. In regards to the vs. options listed above, I would recommend using the 1st option in all cases. Honestly, either a comb generator or a signal-generator/antenna should both give you accurate results, but the comb generator reduces the number of variables you need to consider/double-check during setup. Best of luck, Brent -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tudor, Allen Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:58 AM To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) Subject: Site Correlation Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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: Site Correlation
I would assume that the 10m semi-anechoic chamber complies with ANSI C63.4 volumetric NSA. I would also assume that the 3m chamber noes not comply. The major correlation issues would relate to: 1) 3m versus 10m (regardless of the sites) 2) non-compliant room (with peaks and nulls) versus compliant site (meets NSA) 3) antenna geometry (Bilog, bicon, log-periodic) There are lots more reasons but I believe these to be the major reasons for difficulty in correlation. A comb generator with fixed antenna is more reproducible than signal generator and antenna as part of the correlation issue is also the personell performing the test. Think about the York CNE (Constant Noise Emitter) which puts out junk continuously up to 2 GHz. With it, you can see any resonances between the sites (if they exist) and you can develop as good a correlation factor as is probably possible. Good Luck. -Original Message- From: Tudor, Allen [mailto:allen_tu...@adc.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:58 AM To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) Subject: Site Correlation Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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: Site Correlation
If you don't use a source of similar size to the EUT you won't get the right answer. -- From: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Site Correlation Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 7:58 AM Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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: Zo
Zo= eta(free space)/ (pi * sqrt(epsilon effective) * inversecosh (D/d) where epsilon effective is = 1 + (.25 + 0.0004 theta^2)*(epsilon of insulation-1.) use 0.001 instead of 0.0004 for soft insulation theta= inversetan( twists per length * pi * D) D= diameter of coductor + insulator d = diameter of conductor I am attaching a Powerpoint file that should help twistedpairzo.ppt Vicente RodrÃguez, Ph.D., E.I.T. RF/Electromagnetics Engineer ETS-Lindgren (an ESCO Company) P.O.Box 80589, Austin TX 78708-0589 phone 512.835.4684 x648 fax 512.835.4729 vicente.rodrig...@emctest.com http://www.emctest.com http://home.austintx.com/~vicenter -Original Message- From: William D'Orazio [SMTP:dora...@cae.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:49 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: Zo Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? Thanks in advance, ...OLE_Obj... 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 twistedpairzo.ppt Description: MS-Powerpoint presentation
Re: Zo
The old style B insulated wire used for telephone drops and similar lamp cord when twisted always made good balanced feedline for antennas with an impedance somewhere around 70 ohms. This assumes conductors in the range 16-18ga. a.w.g. with rubber insulation. Ralph Cameron EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronic Equipment (After sale) - Original Message - From: William D'Orazio dora...@cae.ca To: EMC Posting (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:49 AM Subject: Zo Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? Thanks in advance, ...OLE_Obj... 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
RE: Zo
William, If you want to calculate the impedance, the equation for a lossless line is simply Z = sqrt(l/c) where l = per unit length inductance c = per unit length capacitance. For lossy line, it gets more complex: Z = sqrt((r+jwl)/(g+jwc)) where unit length parameters are r = resistance (series, as a function of frequency) w = radian frequency g = conductance (line to line) DB -- From: wo...@sensormatic.com[SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Reply To: wo...@sensormatic.com Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:25 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Zo My experience is that it is in the order of 75-150 ohms and depends upon the material, lay and shielding, if any. Increased lay and shielding will reduce the impedance. Richard Woods -- From: William D'Orazio [SMTP:dora...@cae.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:49 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: Zo Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? Thanks in advance, ...OLE_Obj... 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 --- 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: RTTE Directive Notification Period
I agree. We use the same regulatory ID number on a product which include variants not affecting the rf properties. We see no reason to apply to the Notified Body for an opinion of compliance nor to notify the PTTs when a new variant is marketed where the rf properties have not changed. That new variant will have the same ID number that was previously notified to the PTTs, Richard Woods -- From: Kevin Harris [SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:35 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE Directive Notification Period Hello Sages, I am trying to assess what could possibly happen under the following scenario for the notification period. Lets say I had some SRD devices that have gone through the notification period without comment. At some later point I decide to introduce further devices in the line. The radios are not identical schematically but all the RF characteristics are identical, including percentage on time. The new devices are all type tested, EMC and safety tested in exactly the same manner as the devices previously notified and will be used in the same application. My proposal at that point would be to not wait for 4 weeks to expire on notification but to market the devices immediately. My reasoning for this is that a country can only object to a device being marketed on harm to the network and then follow the procedure in Article 9.5 for banning the device. Since they did not happen previously, they cannot object now. I know that attitude might put some regulatory noses out of joint but does anyone see a problem with the argument. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- 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: Zo
My experience is that it is in the order of 75-150 ohms and depends upon the material, lay and shielding, if any. Increased lay and shielding will reduce the impedance. Richard Woods -- From: William D'Orazio [SMTP:dora...@cae.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:49 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: Zo Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? Thanks in advance, ...OLE_Obj... 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
Re: Site Correlation
Allen, the main problem you will have is not whether to use signal generator or a comb generator, but the difference in the radiation characteristic of your source for correlation and the DUTs that you will later put in the chamber. You will measure a lots of near-field in you 3m or smaller chamber. The field pattern at 10 m will be very different. Correlation from near-field to far-field obtained with source of one (near-field) radiation characteristics can not be used to predict 10 m radiation of a source with very different (near-field) radiation characteristics. To answer your question directly first, the best would be if you could use a network analyzer or a spectrum analyzer with a tracking generator, so that you can do swept measurement. However, the way you generate your test field will make huge difference to the test results. If you use a certain transmit antenna for your test (correlation), you will get the correlation for that antenna, but not for a DUT that you might want to test (and use the correlation) later. I suggest you take your typical product, physically configure it as in your typical test setup, it may but does not have be powered. Then couple your signal source (whatever you choose to use) to the DUT PCB and wiring (here you have to be a little creative) and do the measurement. Then you can repeat the same at 10 m site. By doing that you will be ale to get correlation for that particular kind of DUT. However, if you obtain your correlation with a DSL modem (e.g. a small box with one power, one DSL, and one UTP cable) on a wooden 80 cm high turntable, you can not use it to predict 10 m radiation of a rack-mount multi-port Ethernet switch or any other DUT that is physically much different. If you do it like that, and run your test a few times, you will soon gain experience (some will be from the obtain correlation and some will be your developed feeling) that you can use to correlate your product measured in your precompliance chamber to 10 m. I suggest you plot your predicted data (obtained from the correlation measurement) versus measured over each other every time you do it (at least for the first 5-10 tests), and it will show you the spread (uncertainty) of your correlation. Hope this will help you, Neven - Original Message - From: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:58 AM Subject: Site Correlation Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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
ANNOUNCE (UK): EMC European Directive Update
Information Workshop and Buffet Supper: ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE UPDATE at the London Business Innovation Centre, Innova Park, Enfield on Wednesday 24 January 2001, 6.30pm - 9pm This essential workshop will give you the knowledge to enable your company to assess the implications of the proposed changes and to ensure you comply with the law. Speakers include: Update on EMC legislation - Dave Imeson, Compliance Europe Ltd Life after SLIM - John Woodgate, JM Woodgate Associates There will be time for questions and answers after each presentation. This is a joint event between the Compliance Essex and The North London Product Conformance Clubs. Business Link London North is sponsoring the event, and all we ask is that you pay a nominal cost of GBP25 (plus VAT) to reserve your place. To request a booking form, please contact: David Pearce Business Link London North Tel:020 8443 4040 Fax:020 8443 5312 Email: dpea...@nltec.co.uk Web:www.conformancelink.org.uk -- Posted for David Pearce by Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EN 60439-1 ???
All, EN 60439-1 is titled Low-voltage switchgear and control gear asemblies - Part 1: Type-tested and partially type-tested assemblies and is listed as a harmonized standard under the EMC Directive. Does any one know the scope of this standard ??? If you know the scope, does it apply to diesel - generator sets (or maybe some of it's controls) ?? As always, trying to determine what it is prior to buying it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Michael Cantwell, PE, NCE ...OLE_Obj... EMC Laboratories 762 Park Avenue Youngsville, NC 27596 Tel: (919) 554-0901 Fax: (919) 556-2043 Cell: (919) 815-4067 --- 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: Site Correlation
Hello all There are a few variables that need to be addressed to answer this question. The first is the nature of the chamber. My reply will assume that this is a fully anechoic chamber (walls, floor, and ceiling all lined with absorber material). Otherwise, all bets are off due to the unpredictable reflections from the surfaces in the chamber. In a chamber this size, I will also assume that the antenna height is fixed, or at least not very adjustable. Given a fully anechoic room and a fixed antenna height, theoretically you should be able to extrapolate (about 10 dB from 1 to 3 meters antenna distance and another 10 dB from 3 to 10 meters) with only about 6 dB of uncertainty. In practice this is usually accurate but real world conditions have slightly more uncertainty so 10 dB is a fairly safe margin to use. A few things to keep in mind: if the chamber is only semi-anechoic (walls and ceiling lined) you will have more uncertainty due to possible cancellation due to floor reflections. At this point, relative change or frequency identification is about the only thing the chamber is good for. Also, near field readings can be significantly different from far-field readings. If you come up with marginal near field readings, be prepared for the worst when you take 10m readings. Finally, be sure to check BOTH antenna polarities. I hope this helps Usual employer disclaimer . . .David Heald Senior EMC Engineer/ Product Safety Engineer Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Safety, and Telecom Voice:978.486.8880x254 Fax:978.486.8828 www.curtis-straus.com Tudor, Allen wrote: Greetings:What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3mchamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator andantenna or should I use a comb generator?Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliancechamber to an OATS?Thanks in advance.Allen Tudor, Compliance EngineerADC DSL Systems Inc.6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616phone: 919.875.3382email: allen_tu...@adc.com---This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product SafetyTechnical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org! with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstcFor help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.orgFor 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
RTTE Directive Notification Period
Hello Sages, I am trying to assess what could possibly happen under the following scenario for the notification period. Lets say I had some SRD devices that have gone through the notification period without comment. At some later point I decide to introduce further devices in the line. The radios are not identical schematically but all the RF characteristics are identical, including percentage on time. The new devices are all type tested, EMC and safety tested in exactly the same manner as the devices previously notified and will be used in the same application. My proposal at that point would be to not wait for 4 weeks to expire on notification but to market the devices immediately. My reasoning for this is that a country can only object to a device being marketed on harm to the network and then follow the procedure in Article 9.5 for banning the device. Since they did not happen previously, they cannot object now. I know that attitude might put some regulatory noses out of joint but does anyone see a problem with the argument. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Zo
Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair? Thanks in advance, ...OLE_Obj... 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
Site Correlation
Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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: Looking for a referral for a distributor...
Bill, For plugs/sockets for overseas and information as to which is appropriate for which countries a good source is Panel Components Corp. Check out their website at www.panelcomponents.com and click on Guide to Worldwide Plug/Socket Patterns Power Mains. It will detail the plugs/sockets and voltages and frequencies for most countries. The website also indicates that they have a sales rep. in southwest Ohio. The sell power cords, plugs, sockets, cordage, circuit breakers, switches, power inlets, fuses, fuseholders, etc. It does not appear from their catalog that they sell GFCIs although they may be able to recommend a source. Hope this at least gets you started on your quest. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ -Original Message- From: Summers, Bill [SMTP:summe...@visionfinancialgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:43 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Looking for a referral for a distributor... Ladies and Gents: Judging from highly technical email exchanges that I've witnessed on this forum over the past two days (I'm new), this request should be easy as pie. I am responsible for introducing a US manufactured-electrically-powered-industrial-cleaning-machine to the European markets, setting up distribution, and managing the export sales from start to finish. The owners of the company have already certified that the machine meets the necessary CE Mark compliance regulations that are applicable to the unit. (The CE marking was done before I joined the company...I am in the process of auditing our compliance in regard to the EU compliance directives.) ...Believe it or not, our current distributor of Electrical Plug Connections and Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters does not carry anything suitable for any country outside of the U.S. We are immediately looking for a wiring devices distributor that (1) can supply us any materials we need that will be suitable for the European markets (emphasizing the UK, France, and Germany) and (2) Offer us general knowledge in terms of knowing what plug configurations are suitable for which countries without us having to provide a schematic. (If you have any other words of wisdom in addition to a wiring devices distributor referral - - they are welcome and would be appreciated!) - It would be fantastic if the distributor is located in the Cincinnati, OH general area... as that is where our manufacturing facility is located. Cheers, Bill Summers Pittsburgh, PA Meriwether-Clark Corp. Vision Financial Group, Inc. PS - It appears that most of the folks on your forum are engineers or rocket scientist. Thank you for allowing me some air time on your exchange - - (I'm just a simple salesman trying his best to buffer the pending US recession by decreasing the U.S. foreign trade deficit. Thanks for your help!) --- 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: Approvals for Russia
As can we. ITS has been approved by Gosstandart to issue the GOST-R mark required for Russia. Bob Martin, P.E., N.C.E. Intertek Testing Services, NA 978-263-2662 fax 978-263-7086 www.etlsemko.com -Original Message- From: rar...@us.tuv.com [mailto:rar...@us.tuv.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 7:59 PM To: 'Courtland Thomas'; Gorodetsky, Vitaly Cc: emcpost Subject: RE: Approvals for Russia Courtland, you can reach me on my cell at 403-615-4672. We can help out here. Regards, Regan Arndt TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. Thanks Vitaly. Gorodetsky, Vitaly vgorodet...@canoga.com@ieee.org on 01/10/2001 10:44:14 AM Please respond to Gorodetsky, Vitaly vgorodet...@canoga.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org To: 'Courtland Thomas' ctho...@patton.com, emcpost emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: Subject: RE: Approvals for Russia Thomas - There are many additional requirements. First, your product has to be approved for GOST-R mark; telecom homologation has to be evaluated by a Russian Telecom Certification Center. In some cases, additional, what Russians call hygienic (ergonomic), requirements are applicable. Good news is that Russia is a member of IEC and that they accept CB scheme Reports and, in many instances, EMC Reports for CE mark (FCC is not sufficient). Also, to my knowledge, they require annual follow-up inspections. For details, contact TUV Rheinland, UL, ITS (and few others) which have been accredited to do Russian ITE certification. Vitaly Gorodetsky Compliance EngineerDirect:(818) 678-3840 Canoga Perkins Corp.Main: (818) 718-6300 20600 Prairie StreetFAX: (818) 678-3740 Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008 e-mail: vgorodet...@canoga.com mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the reader -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [SMTP:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:07 AM To: emcpost Subject: Approvals for Russia Hello Group, I am interested in knowing if there are any special types of approvals required for Russia concerning IT equipment. We typically test our products to, and label them with CE, FCC Part 15, UL and where required BABT. We also self verify to CTR's 12,13 ad 14 when applicable. Is there anything else required. 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 --- 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
Chamber Acceptability Questions
Hello to all in the group, I have been inundated with questions from the executive staff from my company and would like to field these questions with the listserv group: 1. There has been talk about CISPR accepting 3-meter Semi anechoic full-size chambers for CE Compliance. If this is true when can we expect this to be published in the CISPR documents? 2. Can a 3-meter compact semi-anechoic chamber be used for FCC compliance/verification testing? 3. The is supposedly a draft standard for the Free-Space Chambers. Will these chambers be accepted for FCC/CE? How far along is the draft standard from being published? 4. Is the free-space chamber data accepted by the FCC? 5. Are there any companies using a Free-space chamber for compliance? 6. What certifications will be required for a manufacturer to test/certify using a in-house facility? Robert L. Mavis Compliance Engineering Specialist Engineering Department, Compliance Engineering Group Pelco 3500 Pelco Way Clovis, CA 93612-5699 Phone: (559) 292-1981 x2309 Toll Free: (800) 292-1981 x2309 Fax:(559) 291-3775 email: rma...@pelco.com URL:http://www.pelco.com -
RE: Approvals for Russia
Courtland, you can reach me on my cell at 403-615-4672. We can help out here. Regards, Regan Arndt TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. Thanks Vitaly. Gorodetsky, Vitaly vgorodet...@canoga.com@ieee.org on 01/10/2001 10:44:14 AM Please respond to Gorodetsky, Vitaly vgorodet...@canoga.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org To: 'Courtland Thomas' ctho...@patton.com, emcpost emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: Subject: RE: Approvals for Russia Thomas - There are many additional requirements. First, your product has to be approved for GOST-R mark; telecom homologation has to be evaluated by a Russian Telecom Certification Center. In some cases, additional, what Russians call hygienic (ergonomic), requirements are applicable. Good news is that Russia is a member of IEC and that they accept CB scheme Reports and, in many instances, EMC Reports for CE mark (FCC is not sufficient). Also, to my knowledge, they require annual follow-up inspections. For details, contact TUV Rheinland, UL, ITS (and few others) which have been accredited to do Russian ITE certification. Vitaly Gorodetsky Compliance EngineerDirect:(818) 678-3840 Canoga Perkins Corp.Main: (818) 718-6300 20600 Prairie StreetFAX: (818) 678-3740 Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008 e-mail: vgorodet...@canoga.com mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the reader -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [SMTP:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:07 AM To: emcpost Subject: Approvals for Russia Hello Group, I am interested in knowing if there are any special types of approvals required for Russia concerning IT equipment. We typically test our products to, and label them with CE, FCC Part 15, UL and where required BABT. We also self verify to CTR's 12,13 ad 14 when applicable. Is there anything else required. 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 --- 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: Laser approval
The component is marked, does not comply...? I haven't seen that one yet. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina.com -Original Message- From: acar...@uk.xyratex.com [mailto:acar...@uk.xyratex.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 2:21 AM We use a class 3B component laser in one of our products. It has a FDA accession number as a component and bears a big label stating Does not comply with 21CFR Ch1, 1040.10(f). For use in a Class 1 system only So my advice is yes, FDA registration as a component is required. At the end of the day a Class 3B device is hazardous, and as an importer/manufacturere of a hazardous device, you need to show some due diligence and consideration to end use safety.
RE: Laser approval
Hi, KB. It is incorrect that IEC825 does not apply to components. In the case of components, the worst case emissions, based on power supply and any other factors that affect output power/energy must be considered. The FDA requirements in 21CFR requires all laser sources, devices or products to be certified. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina.com -Original Message- From: k...@i-data.com [mailto:k...@i-data.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:58 PM Hi all, I have been asked if a laser which will be sold as a component will have to be FDA approved. IEC 825 does not include lasers which are components, only end-user products. I can't understand the FDA requirements concerning components. The laser is a Class 3B laser Please send me a clear simple answer, if anybody can. K. B. Jensen
