UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1

[Veit, Andy]

Folks-
Can someone give the scope of UL 3111-1?  Or tell me how is it's scope
differs from UL 3101-1?
I have a copy of UL 3101-1, and it appears that it is very similar to IEC
1010-1, but I don't have a copy of UL 3111-1 (yet!).
I read a message in the IEEE-PSTC archive where someone said that UL created
the standards 3111-1 and 3101-1 from IEC 1010-1, but there were no further
details about how the standards differ.

Thank you-
-Andy Veit

Andrew Veit
Systems Design Engineer
MTS Systems Corp
Ph: 919.677.2507
Fax: 919.677.2480
1001 Sheldon Drive 
Cary, NC 27513 


---
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: Impedance & Shielding Eff.

[Lfresearch]

Ken,

a jig like you describe was made and marketed by Elgal in the USA. It was 
called a SET 19 I believe.

Derek.

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

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

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

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

Re: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core

[daniel . sicard]

Chris,

>From what has been said during the NEBS 2000 Conference held
in Baltimore at the beginning of October.  The only report
acceptable to the RBOCs are those issued by a Test House located
in the United States.

Thus if your intended market is the United States, which I think
is the cases, than you will have to test in a US based facility.


DISCLAIMER:  The above opinion is mine and does not necessarily
 reflects that of my employer.

Daniel Sicard
Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification
Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp
Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631  Fax: 514-822-4077
E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com
Web: http://www.marconi.com



Hi,

I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for
Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE?
Thanks for any information.

Chris Collin

Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
http://www.shopping.altavista.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

Telecom housing units

[Pryor McGinnis]

Does anyone know of any EU requirements/certifications necessary for Telecom
Housing Units as outlined below?

Thanks in advance,
Pryor McGinnis
c...@prodigy.net

Product Specification
Exterior Dimensions: 10' wide x 12 long x 9' 6" high
Interior Dimensions: 9'3'' wide x 11' 3" long x 8' high

Construction Details
3 ½" concrete floor, 20 gauge metal stud walls and roof, wrapped with 7/16"
OSB and 5/16" fiber concrete hardi panel then coated with tan colored
sealer.

Structural and Architectural details
1- cable Port Entry
1-  Telco entry 4'' dia.(4x4 telco board mounted on wall)
1- Insulated metal door, 3' x 7', 18 gauge with 16 gauge frame, Best lock
set, pick guard, security hinges, door sweep and door hood.
1- R-11 insulation with OSB and FRP on walls, painted OSB on ceiling.
1- Floor tile with vinyl base board trim

Electrical
1- Electrical package, 200 amp, single phase service
Includes: one, (30) space distribution panel, 3 interior fluorescent light
fixtures with 4' 40 watt bulbs, interior switch, acrylic lens cover, 2
duplex receptacles mounted on wall and one exterior motion light.

Grounding
1- Interior #2 copper grounding halo with #2 solid tinned copper wire
leaving all 4 corners of the building.
2- Ground bars, ¼" x 4" x 20" solid copper with insulated standoff brackets

HVAC
2-   2 ton, wall mounted unit with lead lag auto thermostat

Cable Ladder
20'- 12" wide cable tray and ceiling support brackets

Alarms
1- High-low temp alarm
1- Door contact
1- Smoke detector



<>

RE: MoD Form 911 (Safety Assessment)

[Price, Ed]

William:

The British Ministry of Defence maintains a nice web site at:

http://www.dstan.mod.uk/


I'm not familiar with a 911 document, but you can always ask MoD about it.

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: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:36 AM
To: Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: Re:MoD Form 911 (Safety Assessment)



forwarded for wjack...@rfc.comm.harris.com

Reply Separator
Subject:MoD Form 911 (Safety Assessment)
Author: "Jackson; William" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   1/16/01 11:30 AM

 
 
Greetings List,
 
Can any tell me where I might find a copy of the subject document?


Thanks, 
Bill 
Bill Jackson, CQE 
QA Prgms&Eng/Product Safety 
Harris 
RF Communications Division (RFCD) 
(716)-242-3897 
wjack...@harris.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: Consumer Electronics Compatibility

[Ralph Cameron]

There are two ways external RF signals enter a product :  via the power
mains source or via the antenna, front end, or connecting cable i,e  any
input /ouput connecting cable.

It would be possible to generalize and state that a simple common mode
filter on the power /mains input will provide the necessary isolation  and
in some cases better rf port design is necessary. For the specific cases you
have cited , I can tell you what my experince can be but remember that the
length of the connecting cable(s) play a large role in how much undesired
signal is carried to the device and this is frequency sensitive. The only
sure way to provide isolation is right at the device so that the length of
attachning /controlling cabling is isolated..

Victim Equipment   FI threshold
Proper Control

IR motion sensors varies by model .some are <100 mV/m   narrower
sector/ cm chokes at device
Car alarms rare but  has been <  1.0 V/m
microprocessor activated, required filtering on control leads
Garage door openers   due to frequency conflicts with other services  uV.m
powersupply  induced  typically 2-3 V/mlenghten coding sequence,
filter mains
supply
Baby monitorsuV/m
better rf selectivity required
Telephones 1-2V/m caused
by audio rectification rf bypass on transmitter, cm chokes in
line
Computer speakers  <100 microvolts (typical)
Computer modems   100-500uV conducted rf
on power adaptor  wrap DC cable to device through toroid core

Note:  While the above devices will respond to radiated emissions they are
also affected by conducted currents induced in the connecting mains source.
   Due to the random nature of connecting power/control/ antenna
cables  any of the above devices may appear more radiosensitive and respond
in unintended ways. . I call the connecting wiring " unintentional "
antennas. RI and CI limits for Europe appear to be quite practical and
reasonable in today's ever increasing wireless market and I have yet to have
to suppress devices so marked.

Ralph cameron
EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronics Equipment
(After Sale)





- Original Message -
From: "Ken Javor" 
To: "Ralph Cameron" ; "Price, Ed" ;
"EMC-PCST (E-mail)" 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Consumer Electronics Compatibility


>
> I would surmise the following, and would appreciate if Mr. Cameron could
> confirm / correct as appropriate:
>
> Victim equipmentFI threshold   proper control
>
> IR motion sensors   > 100 mV/m RI
>
> car alarms  > 100 mV/m RI
>
> garage door openers uV/m   RE/better rf port design
>
> baby monitors   uV/m   RE/better rf port design
>
> telephones (cordless?)  uV/m   RE/better rf port design
>
> computer speakers   > 100 mV/m RI
>
> The point being that RE are only controlled to protect intentional radio
> reception, and RI is imposed to protect equipment from intentional radio
> transmissions.  A grey area would be a garage door opener succumbing to a
> high level signal out of band to its design frequency, which would be
> addressed by limits placed on out-of-band sensitivity, like the old
> MIL-STD-461 CS03/04/05/08.
>
> Ken Javor
>
> --
> >From: "Ralph Cameron" 
> >To: "Price, Ed" , "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"
> 
> >Subject: Re: Consumer Electronics Compatibility
> >Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 3:54 PM
> >
>
> >
> > Ed and all who responded:
> >
> > I'm sorry to belabor this issue but I think it is generally one of
awareness
> > and perhaps may not have been raised before in such a manner. I think
all of
> > your observations are correct as Ed surmised  < Consumer electronics has
not
> > been well addressed because it has been largely a voluntary requirement.
My
> > opinion is such requirements are not observed in the real world.
> >
> > I am attached a PDF file called EMCAB-1 which in this country was
> > promolgated many years ago and I think that will provide the information
you
> > ae missing.  I might say that EMCAB-1 was ignored by manufacturers but
the
> > problems have persisted.
> >
> > I can also say that 15 years ago there were 30,000 cases a year in Cnada
> > alone. This has dropped considerably in the last ten years but now we
find
> > consumer switch mode power supplies casuing the same problem . These are
> > type, typically free running  that do not contain microprocessors so do
not
> > fall under the Digital emissions regulations ( FCC Part 15).
> >
> > The harmonics from "electronic" transformers is condcuted back into the
> > powerline and from there is re radiated by house wiring . It is not a CE
> > problem relating to cables.
> >
> > My experience has been that the majority of this 'nuisance " can be
removed
> > effectively with common mode inductors which could be offered as some
> > consumer relief.   In Canada, thi

Re: Impedance & Shielding Eff.

[Ken Javor]

There is an ASTM (I do not recall the number) for just your purpose.  The 
jig is an expanded piece of coax, with a slot into which a puck of the test
material may be inserted.  If the material is a perfect conductor, it shorts
the input and you get no output.  If the material is a perfect insulator,
you get 100% transmission.  In between, you can relate the percent
transmission to SE (dB).  I bet someone reading this knows the number and
can cite a source for the jig.  The jig and technique were developed at NBS
(now NIST).

Note that this is purely a measure of far field SE.

Ken Javor

--
>From: Antonio Cinquino 
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Impedance & Shielding Eff.
>Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2001, 11:27 AM
>

>
> Dear Group,
>
> I have a task assigned and I don't know where to begin. I'll be
> as descriptive as I can and look forward to hearing your
> comments/suggestions.
>
> Within our company it has been suggested that the fiberglass
> body that acts as a structural support (a sort of canopy) be impregnated
> with copper mesh to give it shielding properties.  It will be used to
> provide extended shielding of some electronics inside.  My question is with
> regards to determining the following:
>
>
> 1) the shielding effectiveness  (near and far field)
>
> 2) Impedance over frequency (up to 500Mhz)  (I've seen several plots of
> impedance over frequency for "grounding straps" and "system reference
> potential planes", does anyone know how these plots are formed, measurement
> or calculation?)
>
>
> What has been put on my desk is several pieces of fiber glass about
> 1ftx1ft.  One has the wire mesh impregnated, one has a conductive coating,
> the other has, i think a mixture of the two,  (by the way the overall
> structure of the final product will be irregular and fairly large)  Can any
> one suggest to me a quick test jig that I can setup to help determine the
> above two points (using the 1ftx1ft fiber glass and required measurement
> equipment). This would help determine which of the three fiberglass pieces
> is best.
>
> I'm not sure what this question might sound like to the rest of you.
> I guess I'll figure it out from the responses :)
>
> Thanx in Advance
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Antonio L. Cinquino
> CAE Electronics Ltd.
> Electrical System Designer
>
> Phone : (514) 341-2000 (ext. 4303)
> Fax  : (514) 340-5552
> Pager  : (514) 897-5166
>
> Email  :   cinqu...@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

FW: Medical devices

[Dick Grobner]

The device will need CE, thus the typical route is a tech file and a DoC.
Refer to the Medical Device Directive (MDD) or the In-Vitro directive. From
the little info you provided I would guess the Medical Directive is the one.
Reading the scope of both should assist you in selecting the appropriate
directive. Annex I in the directive provides the "essential requirements"
you need to be compliant with. You also need to (first thing) classify your
device, article 9 of the MDD will assist here. Article 11 of the MDD
addresses conformity assessment procedure, this identifies which of the
other Annexes you may follow to  allow CE marking of the device. 
This is somewhat condensed, best advise - obtain the directives, read
through them (more than once is highly recommended) and comprehend the
contents.
Good Luck!
If you wish you can contact me directly with any other questions, I may have
the right answer! 

 

-Original Message-
From: k...@i-data.com [mailto:k...@i-data.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:13 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Medical devices



Hi all

Can some one give me links to information regarding EU Medical Devices
directive.

My problem is to define the requirement for the following situation:

A manufacturer is making an add-on device for another company's medical
device and the total equipment is CE approved without involving the
manufacturer. Now the manufacturer want to CE mark this add-on device and
sell it to other companies as a CE approved device still for medical
equipment.

What is the requirements for this manufacturer, they have never been into
CE markin before.

The equipment is used in laboratoriums to move small glases with different
materials for testing in another test device.

best regards,

Kim  Jensen



---
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: Consumer Electronics Compatibility

[Ralph Cameron]

Sorry, the attachment called EMCAB-1, Elecrtomagnetic Compatibility
Bulletin -1 is 230K of PDF format so it exceeds the server limit.

If any one is interested i will send it to you separately.

Ralph Cameron

- Original Message -
From: "Price, Ed" 
To: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)" 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:02 AM
Subject: Consumer Electronics Compatibility


>
> Ralph:
>
> Would you provide a little more detail about the <30MHz Consumer
Electronics
> compatibility problems that you have been addressing? Are you finding that
> the path is a direct galvanic connection, or is the problem caused
primarily
> by radiation of energy off of the power lines? What are the most common
> emitting devices, and what types of devices are the most numerous victims?
> And of course, what's usually the best solution?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Cameron [mailto:ral...@igs.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 7:57 PM
> To: Ken Javor; dan kwok
> Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>
>
>
> No, your message is clear, what I am saying is that the emissions below
> 30Mhz cause the majority of the interference problems to consumer
> electronics and that's not being addressed.
>
> Ralph Cameron
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ken Javor" 
> To: "Ralph Cameron" ; "dan kwok" 
> Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)" 
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>
>
> > I must have been unclear in my previous message.  The purpose of
> controlling
> > cable cm CE is to control the resultant cable-induced RE, which are
> > controlled to protect tunable antenna-connected radio receivers, period.
> > There was never any other purpose for controlling CE or RE.
> >
> > Ken Javor
>
> 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
>
> ---
> 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: Impedance & Shielding Eff.

[Lfresearch]

Antonio,

When I was a little younger, we tested a bunch of panels to help determine the 
make up of an aircraft structure. Our panels were about 10" by 18".

We did the testing by putting the panel in the shared wall between two shield 
rooms, creating a field in one, then measuring the field in the second. It was 
done, with and without the panel in place.

Needless to say we learned a bunch of things NOT to do;-). There are a bunch of 
test houses, including mine, that can do this test. The difficulty is getting 
the correct interface between the panel and the room wall.

If you want to know more about the in's and outs of this testing, talk to me 
off line.

Best regards,

Derek.

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

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

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

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

Re:Japan

[Jim Bacher]

forwarding for: bay...@aol.com

Reply Separator
Subject:Japan
Author: bay...@aol.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   1/17/01 12:57 PM

Has anyone had any experience with a Japan MITI law that requires a minimum 
insulation resistance between primary circuitry and ground?  I am advised 
that a minimum of 0.1 Mohm is required for equipment up to 150V and 0.2 Mohms 
for equipment 150V up to 300V.

Best regards,

Charlie Bayhi
CPSM Corporation



---
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: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core

[Naftali Shani]

Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I
believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more).
Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin
or Gonen Usishkin.

Feel free to post your findings.

Regards,
Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com)
307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8
Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 
E-mail: nsh...@catena.com

 -Original Message-
From:   Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Testfacilities GR-1089-Core


Hi,

I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for
Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE?
Thanks for any information.

Chris Collin

Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
http://www.shopping.altavista.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

Impedance & Shielding Eff.

[Antonio Cinquino]

 
Dear Group,
 
I have a task assigned and I don't know where to begin. I'll be
as descriptive as I can and look forward to hearing your
comments/suggestions.  
 
Within our company it has been suggested that the fiberglass
body that acts as a structural support (a sort of canopy) be impregnated
with copper mesh to give it shielding properties.  It will be used to
provide extended shielding of some electronics inside.  My question is with
regards to determining the following:
 
 
1) the shielding effectiveness  (near and far field)
 
2) Impedance over frequency (up to 500Mhz)  (I've seen several plots of
impedance over frequency for "grounding straps" and "system reference
potential planes", does anyone know how these plots are formed, measurement
or calculation?)
 
 
What has been put on my desk is several pieces of fiber glass about
1ftx1ft.  One has the wire mesh impregnated, one has a conductive coating,
the other has, i think a mixture of the two,  (by the way the overall
structure of the final product will be irregular and fairly large)  Can any
one suggest to me a quick test jig that I can setup to help determine the
above two points (using the 1ftx1ft fiber glass and required measurement
equipment). This would help determine which of the three fiberglass pieces
is best.
 
I'm not sure what this question might sound like to the rest of you.
I guess I'll figure it out from the responses :) 
 
Thanx in Advance   
 
Best Regards,

 

 

 

Antonio L. Cinquino 
CAE Electronics Ltd. 
Electrical System Designer 

Phone : (514) 341-2000 (ext. 4303) 
Fax  : (514) 340-5552 
Pager  : (514) 897-5166

Email  :   cinqu...@cae.ca 

 
<>

RE: Beta Shipments

[Lou Guerin]

Brent,
I just went through this exercise and the FCC section you want to pay
attention to is 

Sec. 2.803  Marketing of radio frequency devices prior to equipment
authorization.

(a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell
or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or
lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing
or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless:


(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and 
(f) of this section, a radio frequency device may be advertised or 
displayed, e.g., at a trade show or exhibition, prior to equipment 
authorization or, for devices not subject to the equipment authorization
requirements, prior to a determination of compliance with the applicable
technical requirements provided that the advertising contains, and the
display is accompanied by, a conspicuous notice worded as follows:

"This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the 
Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, 
offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is 
obtained."
...
(e)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this 
section, prior to equipment authorization or determination of compliance
with the applicable technical requirements any radio frequency device may be
operated, but not marketed, for the following purposes and under the
following conditions:
(i) Compliance testing;
(ii) Demonstrations at a trade show provided the notice contained in
paragraph (c) of this section is displayed in a conspicuous location on, or
immediately adjacent to, the device;
(e)(3) The provisions of paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), 
(e)(1)(iii), (e)(1)(iv), and (e)(1)(v) of this section do not eliminate 
any requirements for station licenses for products that normally require a
license to operate, as specified elsewhere in this chapter. 

(v) Evaluation of product performance and determination of customer
acceptability where customer acceptability of a radio frequency device
cannot be determined at the manufacturer's facilities because of size or
unique capability of the device, provided the device is operated at a
business, commercial, industrial, scientific, or medical user's site, but
not at a residential site, during the development, design or pre-production
stages. A product operated under this provision shall be labeled, in a
conspicuous location, with the notice in paragraph (c) of this section.

Operation shall be required to cease upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference and shall not
resume until the condition causing the harmful interference is corrected.

For Europe you have less leeway,  you can show the product at a trade show
with a PROMINENT label declaring that the product has not been evaluated for
compliance to the appropriate LVD and EMC directives.  The directives
prohibit the "placing on the market" or "putting into service" any product
that does not conform to the directives. This only allows you to demonstrate
the product at the customer's site if it is always under the control of the
manufacturer. For a Beta unit, you would need to send one of your people to
operate the equipment until it is returned to your factory or you get
approvals on that configuration. 
Good luck,
Lou Guerin
Littlefeet, Inc.
The usual disclaimers apply, my employer is not responsible for any
statements I make. 

 -Original Message-
From:   Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] 
Sent:   Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:23 AM
To: 'Brent Pahl'; EMC-PSTC
Subject:RE: Beta Shipments


Brent,
I wasn't going to answer this because I don't have my references at
hand, but I see you haven't a response to this point.
The short course is you can't market or accept money prior to
receiving approval. With the DOC process that can be as soon as you get the
data, really. 
The more interesting questions is when can you operate the device,
and part 2, I believe, does have several allowances for operating the
equipment ahead of time. All of which still require that the non-compliance
be plainly marked - not stuck in the Marketing folks' jacket at the trade
show for example. But you are allowed to operate on the manufacturing site,
trade shows, and other areas that are under the manufacturers control. A
beta test site, and you have taken no money for the product yet, is in my
opinion one such place. The purpose of Beta sites is to wring out or to
locate the last few bugs and other "hitches in the git-along" for complex
equipment.
You have to notify the customer that it is not yet approved and that
it will be before it is actually sold to them. 
Sorry don't have the appropriate paragraphs to point you at for the
movement, but they are easy to find just by looking at the section

RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.

[Doug Best]

Agreed Jim,

I just got done testing a portable piece of test equipment that has a AC
power draw of 110W nominally, this equipment has a lead acid battery that
provides battery operation, when the battery is fully charged the equipment
passes class A marginally (10% under the limit worst case), but when the
battery charger is running the AC power draw increases 20 Watts and the 13th
harmonic goes out of spec (8-10% above limit).

My question is, can we specify compliance to the specification when the
battery is suitably charged, and note non-compliance if the first condition
is not meant?

-Doug Best
Compliance Technician
IFR Americas Inc.
Design Engineering
doug.b...@ifrsys.com

-Original Message-
From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 13:44
To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum'
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.


Jim:  You wrote "essentially anything will pass now".  Oh how I wish that
were true!

The absolute requirements do make it easier for low power equipment to pass,
but for anything  above several hundred watts all bets are off and running
the test can lead to ugly surprises.  For example, I recently tested 2
battery chargers to A14:  one with approx. 400W draw and the other approx.
800W.   The 400W one just barely passes and the 800W one fails miserably.
Smaller bulk filter caps would help, but there's that pesky functionality
thing!

Regards,

Jim Eichner
Sr. Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Mobile Markets
Xantrex Technology Inc.
Email: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
Website: www.xantrex.com
Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists.
Honest.




-Original Message-
From: Jim Conrad [mailto:jc...@shore.net]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 12:10 PM
To: 'Allan, James'; brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.



Al,

It relaxed the limits for almost all products except ITE, TV's, etc.  I do
not remember all the details since I have not had to apply it yet.
Essentially the harmonic current limits are no longer relative based on the
power consumption of the device but based are on absolute values as if the
product was drawing 15A(not sure of this exact #).   But essentially
anything will pass now.  You can purchase A14 on the IEC web site at
www.iec.chThere is also a 75 watt exemption.  Products less that 75
watts automatically comply.

Best regards,


Jim'


Jim Conrad
P.O. Box 25
Hamilton, MA 01936-0025
USA

jc...@shore.net
Phone #:  978-468-3909
FAX #: 978-468-3909


-Original Message-
From:Allan, James [mailto:james_al...@milgo.com]
Sent:Friday, January 12, 2001 2:53 PM
To:brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)';
'jc...@shore.net'
Subject:RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.

In a nutshell how did A14 change 61000-3-2.  I don't have a copy of
A14 yet.

Jim Allan
Manager, Engineering Services
Milgo Solutions LLC
1619 N Harrison Parkway
Sunrise, FL, 33323
E-mail james_al...@milgo.com
Phone (954) 846-3720
Fax (954) 846-5693

> -Original Message-
> From:Jim Conrad [SMTP:jc...@shore.net]
> Sent:Friday, January 12, 2001 10:09 AM
> To:brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)'
> Subject:RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
>
>
> Yes, you can use the A14 for the January 1, 2001 compliance.  Just be sure
> to add 61000-3-2 A14 to your DOC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jim
>
> Jim Conrad
> P.O. Box 25
> Hamilton, MA 01936-0025
> USA
>
> jc...@shore.net
> Phone #:  978-468-3909
> FAX #: 978-468-3909
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On
Behalf
> Of
> brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com
> Sent:Friday, January 12, 2001 7:43 AM
> To:emc-pstc (E-mail)
> Subject:EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
>
>
> Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its
> January
> 2001 compliance date?
>
>  As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies,
> the
> amendments are  of great importance to me.
>
>
> ---
> 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...@mai

Re: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance]

[Perry Qu]

Hi! Cortland:

Thanks for your comments. In your experience, does  the size/spacing of the
copper dots or islands matter as long as their dimension is much smaller than
the wavelength for the highest possible frequency on the card ? Any special
considerations other than that ?

Regards

Perry

Cortland Richmond wrote:

> Yes indeed. My preference is for thieving to be done with "dots" or
> "islands" small with respect to the shortest wavelength of concern. This is
> because thieving can be constructed so as to resonate and aggravate an EMI
> problem.
>
> Some years ago, at an employer far away (grin), we had obtained compliance
> on a computer using a plug-in processor board.  On testing the first
> production items, we found they were some dB over -- at 350 Mhz! It took
> some time, but I found the PWB manufacturer had added a ring of thieving
> material around the board. This ring was resonating at 350 Mhz and
> significantly increasing the shielding required.
>
> Chopping it up into strips made the problem go away.
>
> (Many devices use so-called "ESD traces" to protect board-mounted devices
> from being affected by ESD during maintenance. Unless care is taken with
> these, they can act the same way as thieving copper above.)
>
> Cortland
>
> (cortland.richm...@usa.alcatel.com)
>
> The post above does not represent my employer's opinions or policies
>
> ==  (some snipped)  
>
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:10:43 -0500
> From: "Perry Qu" 
> Organization: Alcatel CID
> Subject: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance]
> Reply-To: "Perry Qu" 
>
> Hi!
>
> We are looking for some advice on copper thieving on the PCB. The
> concern is  the EMC impact of the floating copper.  Anyone is willing to
> share his/her experience on the best configuration for high percentage
> of copper coverage and low EMI at the same time ? Refer to the post to
> SI list by my colleague Dorin on this issue.
>
> Any advice on this will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards
>
> Perry Qu


---
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: Beta Shipments

[Schanker, Jacob]

Brent:

So far as the US is concerned, it is generally OK in limited quantities. You
will need to label them as not for sale and not FCC approved. DO NOT sell
them before certification or DOC, or at least not without a conditional
sales agreement. All the details are in the FCC rules (WORD file) which I
have attached. Hope this helps. This is all my opinion, and should not be
regarded as a legal opinion which can only be rendered by someone whose
middle name is "the hammer".

Jack


Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E.
Director of Agency Compliance
Adaptive Broadband Corporation
615 Fishers Run
Victor, NY 14564
+716 742 6154 (voice)
+716 742 6102 (fax)
+716 820 7364 (US cellphone)
+0777 992 5368 (UK cellphone)
jschan...@adaptivebroadband.com
  

 

-Original Message-
From: Brent Pahl [mailto:bre...@dynarc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 2:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Beta Shipments



I am researching the stipulations for the shipping of Beta versions of ITE
type equipment that is not yet compliant with the EU or FCC requirements.  I
hope I won't need to use this information, but just in case, I would like to
know what my options are.  Any help in these two arenas (i.e. Europe and US)
would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Brent Pahl


---
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




FCC Marketing 2.803.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Annother EN61000-4-8 Issue

[WOODS]

I believe that Clause 7.2 contains an error.

Clause 6.2.1 requires the field variation be no more than +/- 3 dB over the
volume of the EUT. For a 1 m square loop, the test volume is 0.6 m x 0.6 m x
0.5 m (h) with the loop centered on the test volume. Therefore, a vertically
oriented loop would be spaced at least 0.2 m above and below an EUT that
would fit within the test volume.

However, the first paragraph in Clause 7.2 requires that the equipment be
raised 0.1 m above the ground reference plain. - no more and no less. But,
the third paragraph of Clause 7.4 says that 0.1 m is the minimum distance. 

It appears that Clause 7.2 is in error and Clause 7.4 is correct (it to is
wrong for a 1 m loop, but would be correct for a 0.5 m and smaller loop).

Comments?

Richard Woods

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

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

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

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

FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance

[Courtland Thomas]

Hello group,

I have a question concerning coninuing compliance for Part 68. I believe
that we are required to submit units for testing every six months. If the
FCC audits and finds that the test reports aren't up to date, then there can
be problems. This testing costs around $1500.00 for our ITE products. This
becomes a very expensive process. Is there anything that can be done to
eliminate this cost. I would like to test the units in house and log the
results and use that info as my continuing compliance data. Any thoughts on
this?

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: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance]

[Cortland Richmond]

Yes indeed. My preference is for thieving to be done with "dots" or
"islands" small with respect to the shortest wavelength of concern. This is
because thieving can be constructed so as to resonate and aggravate an EMI
problem.

Some years ago, at an employer far away (grin), we had obtained compliance
on a computer using a plug-in processor board.  On testing the first
production items, we found they were some dB over -- at 350 Mhz! It took
some time, but I found the PWB manufacturer had added a ring of thieving
material around the board. This ring was resonating at 350 Mhz and
significantly increasing the shielding required.

Chopping it up into strips made the problem go away.

(Many devices use so-called "ESD traces" to protect board-mounted devices
from being affected by ESD during maintenance. Unless care is taken with
these, they can act the same way as thieving copper above.)

Cortland 

(cortland.richm...@usa.alcatel.com)

The post above does not represent my employer's opinions or policies


==  (some snipped)  



List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:10:43 -0500
From: "Perry Qu" 
Organization: Alcatel CID
Subject: [Fwd: [SI-LIST] : Copper balance]
Reply-To: "Perry Qu" 
 
Hi!

We are looking for some advice on copper thieving on the PCB. The
concern is  the EMC impact of the floating copper.  Anyone is willing to
share his/her experience on the best configuration for high percentage
of copper coverage and low EMI at the same time ? Refer to the post to
SI list by my colleague Dorin on this issue.

Any advice on this will be greatly appreciated.

Regards

Perry Qu

---
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

bALUNS

[Courtland Thomas]

Hello group,

I am interested in knowing if anyone has run into compliance issues
concerning Baluns. Is there any testing required where CE is concerned? The
unit is a passive device so I don't see where the EMC or LVD directives
apply. Any information on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


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

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

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

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

RE: Beta Shipments

[Gary McInturff]

Brent,
I wasn't going to answer this because I don't have my references at
hand, but I see you haven't a response to this point.
The short course is you can't market or accept money prior to
receiving approval. With the DOC process that can be as soon as you get the
data, really. 
The more interesting questions is when can you operate the device,
and part 2, I believe, does have several allowances for operating the
equipment ahead of time. All of which still require that the non-compliance
be plainly marked - not stuck in the Marketing folks' jacket at the trade
show for example. But you are allowed to operate on the manufacturing site,
trade shows, and other areas that are under the manufacturers control. A
beta test site, and you have taken no money for the product yet, is in my
opinion one such place. The purpose of Beta sites is to wring out or to
locate the last few bugs and other "hitches in the git-along" for complex
equipment.
You have to notify the customer that it is not yet approved and that
it will be before it is actually sold to them. 
Sorry don't have the appropriate paragraphs to point you at for the
movement, but they are easy to find just by looking at the section indices -
again it has to be either part 2 or part 15.
If you run into a real grind give me a call and I'll try and get the
actual paragraphs into your hands.
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Brent Pahl [mailto:bre...@dynarc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Beta Shipments



I am researching the stipulations for the shipping of Beta versions of ITE
type equipment that is not yet compliant with the EU or FCC requirements.  I
hope I won't need to use this information, but just in case, I would like to
know what my options are.  Any help in these two arenas (i.e. Europe and US)
would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Brent Pahl


---
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

[Gary McInturff]

Many a good conversation veers off onto other interesting threads
and indeed this is one of the things I enjoy about reading the various
messages even those that have no direct impact on me. 
Sorry you felt ignored, although as I followed it the first
responses did address the issue. It sorta can't be done, but you might want
to try CE emissions as a way to correlate from your site data to the OATS 10
meter.
Not trying to get your hackles up, but I would hate to see good
discussions get stymied just because they wander from topic to topic.
Take care
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paolo...@tin.it]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 3:08 AM
To: Lothar Schmidt
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Site Correlation



Good point Lothar,
it was about time that the original technical grounds and limitations of CE 
method were brought up.
Just one additional point: with the ever increasing operating frequencies 
of many electronic products, box and/or PCB level radiation is getting more 
and more important vs cable radiation (and as a by-product cable layout 
should weigh less in measurement uncertainty).

One last point: I was a bit perplexed by the way this thread shifted from 
the original question. I myself stepped in early with a question about 
fully-anechoic vs semi-anechoic pre-compliance chambers but then the 
subject switched to the CE vs RE issue and nobody gave a damn about me..

Paolo


At 11:28 AM 1/16/01 -0800, Lothar Schmidt wrote:

>I have the feeling that different issues are mixed in this discussion.
>
>supposed that CE vs. RE methods is the issue, I can give you some
historical
>information. The CE method is used as a simplified method for the radiation
>of the tested device.
>The CE method was used for devices which have to met several conditions
>1. the cable length was long compared to the size of the device ( the
>longest side should not be longer than 80 cm)
>2. the number of cable is limited to one or maximum 2 cables.
>3. the frequencies produced in the equipment have to be low due the
>limitation of the method to 300 MHz.
>
>Reasons for
>1. the cable should be the preferred antenna for the emission of the device
>2. You can only made a correlation between CE and RE if all the radiated by
>the one cable. You will not be able to calculate the sum of different
cables
>because you don't know the relation.
>3. The method is only specified up to 300 MHz. At higher frequencies the
>cables act different.
>
>This method was used e. g. simple household devices and tools.
>
>I don't know if I got the real point because I didn't followed the whole
>discussion, but perhaps I can put in some more ideas.
>
>Best Regards
>
>Lothar Schmidt
>Technical Manager EMC/Bluetooth,
>BQB, Competent Body
>Cetecom Inc.
>411 Dixon Landing Road
>Milpitas, CA 95035
>Phone: +1 (408) 586 6214
>Fax:   +1 (408) 586 6299
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:45 AM
>To: Ralph Cameron; chris maxwell; dan kwok
>Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>
>
>
>I am getting the distinct (but uncomfortable) feeling that was is being
>discussed by a lot of people on this thread is that cable cm CE need to be
>controlled to prevent either crosstalk to another bundle, or to prevent
>interference to equipment connected to the same bundle.  Am I interpreting
>these comments correctly?  For the record, I don't believe either of these
>is a real issue.  The only traditional, and in my experience, legitimate
>purpose of controlling cable cm CE is to prevent coupling to the antennas
>connected to radio receivers.
>
>Ken Javor
>
>--
> >From: "Ralph Cameron" 
> >To: "Chris Maxwell" , "Ken Javor"
>, "dan kwok" 
> >Cc: "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)" 
> >Subject: Re: Site Correlation
> >Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 9:01 AM
> >
>
> > What it boils down to Chris is the lack of immunity of the consumer
> > equipment contributes to degradation of the intended function. Once the
> > undesired energy reaches the consumer device there's no way to get rid
of
> > it. The rememdy is to prevent it from reaching the device and or
isolating
> > it from the source.
> >
> > At one time injection clamps were used for immunity testing- are they
>still?
> >
> > Ralph Cameron
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Chris Maxwell" 
> > To: "'Ralph Cameron'" ; "Ken Javor"
> > ; "dan kwok" 
> > Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)" 
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:38 AM
> > Subject: RE: Site Correlation
> >
> >
> >> Seems like this thread has gotten into how to correlate common mode
cable
> >> currents with their expected radiated emissions.
> >>
> >> For those interested, Fischer Custom Communications makes coupling and
> >> measuring clamps which can measure common mode surface currents on
cables
> >> and surfaces.  They used to publish some application notes regarding
the
> >> usage of their clamps to m

Testfacilities GR-1089-Core

[Chris Collin]

Hi,

I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for 
Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE?
Thanks for any information.

Chris Collin

Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
http://www.shopping.altavista.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

Battery Requirement

[Koh N. G.]

Hi group,
Thanks to those who had given their precious advice.

Regards
Koh


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

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

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

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

RE: EN 61000-4-8

[WOODS]

I appreciate the comments that I have received, but no one is answering my
question, which is, can tall (> 0.5 m) equipment be tested using a single
horizontal 1 m loop that is moved along the height of the equipment?
Obviously, a larger loop is required for the vertical testing.

Richard Woods

--
From:  WOODS, RICHARD
Sent:  Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:42 AM
To:  'emc-pstc'
Subject:  EN 61000-4-8

We will have to apply the magnetic field immunity test to some of our
Generic and ITE products in order to comply with the new revisions of the
standards. One of the tests is not clear to us. Consider a product whose
width and depth are such that it fits correctly inside the standard 1 m
loop, but also assume that the equipment height exceeds 0.5 m.  On one hand,
the standard tends to indicate that a two or more loops are required to
ensure that the entire height of the equipment is immersed during a single
test. But on the other hand, there is mention of moving a single loop over
the height of the equipment. 

Do I understand correctly, that tall (> 0.5 m) equipment may be tested using
a single 1 m loop that is moved along the height of the equipment?
  
Richard Woods

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

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

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

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

FW: Medical devices

[Jon Griver]

Kim,

Check out
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/re
flist.html

>From that page you can get to both the "In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices
Directive" and the "Medical Devices Directive", as well as the Harmonised
Standards for these Directives.

It sounds like your product falls under the In Vitro Diagnostic Directive,
but check the scope. As an accessory, your product still has to fully comply
with the directive.

Best Wishes,

Jon Griver
Medson Ltd.
VP Quality Assurance
email: jo...@medson.com



> Hi all
>
> Can some one give me links to information regarding EU Medical Devices
> directive.
>
> My problem is to define the requirement for the following situation:
>
> A manufacturer is making an add-on device for another company's medical
> device and the total equipment is CE approved without involving the
> manufacturer. Now the manufacturer want to CE mark this add-on device and
> sell it to other companies as a CE approved device still for medical
> equipment.
>
> What is the requirements for this manufacturer, they have never been into
> CE markin before.
>
> The equipment is used in laboratoriums to move small glases with different
> materials for testing in another test device.
>
> best regards,
>
> Kim  Jensen
>
>
>


---
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

[Paolo Roncone]

Good point Lothar,
it was about time that the original technical grounds and limitations of CE 
method were brought up.
Just one additional point: with the ever increasing operating frequencies 
of many electronic products, box and/or PCB level radiation is getting more 
and more important vs cable radiation (and as a by-product cable layout 
should weigh less in measurement uncertainty).


One last point: I was a bit perplexed by the way this thread shifted from 
the original question. I myself stepped in early with a question about 
fully-anechoic vs semi-anechoic pre-compliance chambers but then the 
subject switched to the CE vs RE issue and nobody gave a damn about me..


Paolo


At 11:28 AM 1/16/01 -0800, Lothar Schmidt wrote:


I have the feeling that different issues are mixed in this discussion.

supposed that CE vs. RE methods is the issue, I can give you some historical
information. The CE method is used as a simplified method for the radiation
of the tested device.
The CE method was used for devices which have to met several conditions
1. the cable length was long compared to the size of the device ( the
longest side should not be longer than 80 cm)
2. the number of cable is limited to one or maximum 2 cables.
3. the frequencies produced in the equipment have to be low due the
limitation of the method to 300 MHz.

Reasons for
1. the cable should be the preferred antenna for the emission of the device
2. You can only made a correlation between CE and RE if all the radiated by
the one cable. You will not be able to calculate the sum of different cables
because you don't know the relation.
3. The method is only specified up to 300 MHz. At higher frequencies the
cables act different.

This method was used e. g. simple household devices and tools.

I don't know if I got the real point because I didn't followed the whole
discussion, but perhaps I can put in some more ideas.

Best Regards

Lothar Schmidt
Technical Manager EMC/Bluetooth,
BQB, Competent Body
Cetecom Inc.
411 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone: +1 (408) 586 6214
Fax:   +1 (408) 586 6299


-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:45 AM
To: Ralph Cameron; chris maxwell; dan kwok
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation



I am getting the distinct (but uncomfortable) feeling that was is being
discussed by a lot of people on this thread is that cable cm CE need to be
controlled to prevent either crosstalk to another bundle, or to prevent
interference to equipment connected to the same bundle.  Am I interpreting
these comments correctly?  For the record, I don't believe either of these
is a real issue.  The only traditional, and in my experience, legitimate
purpose of controlling cable cm CE is to prevent coupling to the antennas
connected to radio receivers.

Ken Javor

--
>From: "Ralph Cameron" 
>To: "Chris Maxwell" , "Ken Javor"
, "dan kwok" 
>Cc: "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)" 
>Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 9:01 AM
>

> What it boils down to Chris is the lack of immunity of the consumer
> equipment contributes to degradation of the intended function. Once the
> undesired energy reaches the consumer device there's no way to get rid of
> it. The rememdy is to prevent it from reaching the device and or isolating
> it from the source.
>
> At one time injection clamps were used for immunity testing- are they
still?
>
> Ralph Cameron
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chris Maxwell" 
> To: "'Ralph Cameron'" ; "Ken Javor"
> ; "dan kwok" 
> Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)" 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:38 AM
> Subject: RE: Site Correlation
>
>
>> Seems like this thread has gotten into how to correlate common mode cable
>> currents with their expected radiated emissions.
>>
>> For those interested, Fischer Custom Communications makes coupling and
>> measuring clamps which can measure common mode surface currents on cables
>> and surfaces.  They used to publish some application notes regarding the
>> usage of their clamps to measure surface/cable currents and how to
> correlate
>> them to expected radiated emissions.
>>
>> I read them a couple of years ago.  I never bought the clamps, but it did
>> make for some very good technical reading.
>>
>> I do know of a table top power supply manufacturer that uses this method
>> almost exclusively.  They send one power supply to a calibrated OATS.
> They
>> get it to pass.  Then, when the sample comes back to the factory, they
> take
>> clamp measurements of the common mode currents of the AC input and DC
> output
>> cable.
>>
>> They then model the power supply as a dipole antenna with the AC input
> cable
>> and DC output cable being the two poles.
>>
>> For future power supplies, they then use the clamp method in-house to
>> measure the cable currents, if the currents pass, they assume the supply
>> passes radiated emissions.
>>
>> This won't work for every product, but it doe

EN55013 on CD Player

[Mr. Paul Chan]

Dear group,

I am confused with the the tests applicable to CD Player according to EN55013.  
Do I perform radiated emission test?
>From FCC Part 15 experience, CD players fail this test sometimes.  Please 
>advise.

Thanks and Regards
Paul Chan
Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre

Re: Consumer Electronics Compatibility

[Ken Javor]

I would surmise the following, and would appreciate if Mr. Cameron could 
confirm / correct as appropriate:

Victim equipmentFI threshold   proper control

IR motion sensors   > 100 mV/m RI

car alarms  > 100 mV/m RI

garage door openers uV/m   RE/better rf port design

baby monitors   uV/m   RE/better rf port design

telephones (cordless?)  uV/m   RE/better rf port design

computer speakers   > 100 mV/m RI

The point being that RE are only controlled to protect intentional radio
reception, and RI is imposed to protect equipment from intentional radio
transmissions.  A grey area would be a garage door opener succumbing to a
high level signal out of band to its design frequency, which would be
addressed by limits placed on out-of-band sensitivity, like the old
MIL-STD-461 CS03/04/05/08.

Ken Javor

--
>From: "Ralph Cameron" 
>To: "Price, Ed" , "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"

>Subject: Re: Consumer Electronics Compatibility
>Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 3:54 PM
>

>
> Ed and all who responded:
>
> I'm sorry to belabor this issue but I think it is generally one of awareness
> and perhaps may not have been raised before in such a manner. I think all of
> your observations are correct as Ed surmised  < Consumer electronics has not
> been well addressed because it has been largely a voluntary requirement. My
> opinion is such requirements are not observed in the real world.
>
> I am attached a PDF file called EMCAB-1 which in this country was
> promolgated many years ago and I think that will provide the information you
> ae missing.  I might say that EMCAB-1 was ignored by manufacturers but the
> problems have persisted.
>
> I can also say that 15 years ago there were 30,000 cases a year in Cnada
> alone. This has dropped considerably in the last ten years but now we find
> consumer switch mode power supplies casuing the same problem . These are
> type, typically free running  that do not contain microprocessors so do not
> fall under the Digital emissions regulations ( FCC Part 15).
>
> The harmonics from "electronic" transformers is condcuted back into the
> powerline and from there is re radiated by house wiring . It is not a CE
> problem relating to cables.
>
> My experience has been that the majority of this 'nuisance " can be removed
> effectively with common mode inductors which could be offered as some
> consumer relief.   In Canada, this is the consumer's responsibility.
>
> p.s  recent devices exhibiting radiosensitivity are :  Infra red motion
> sensors, car alarms, garage door openers, baby monitors, telephones ,
> computer speakers etc.
>
> Ralph Cameron
> - Original Message -
> From: "Price, Ed" 
> To: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)" 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:02 AM
> Subject: Consumer Electronics Compatibility
>
>
>>
>> Ralph:
>>
>> Would you provide a little more detail about the <30MHz Consumer
> Electronics
>> compatibility problems that you have been addressing? Are you finding that
>> the path is a direct galvanic connection, or is the problem caused
> primarily
>> by radiation of energy off of the power lines? What are the most common
>> emitting devices, and what types of devices are the most numerous victims?
>> And of course, what's usually the best solution?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ralph Cameron [mailto:ral...@igs.net]
>> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 7:57 PM
>> To: Ken Javor; dan kwok
>> Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
>> Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>>
>>
>>
>> No, your message is clear, what I am saying is that the emissions below
>> 30Mhz cause the majority of the interference problems to consumer
>> electronics and that's not being addressed.
>>
>> Ralph Cameron
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ken Javor" 
>> To: "Ralph Cameron" ; "dan kwok" 
>> Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)" 
>> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>>
>>
>> > I must have been unclear in my previous message.  The purpose of
>> controlling
>> > cable cm CE is to control the resultant cable-induced RE, which are
>> > controlled to protect tunable antenna-connected radio receivers, period.
>> > There was never any other purpose for controlling CE or RE.
>> >
>> > Ken Javor
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ---
>> 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 Garre

Re: EN 61000-4-8

[Jim Ericson]

Richard, our approach has been to size the loop to the EUT.  We presently
have 1 meter and 2 meter (square) loops that are multi-turn conductors
inside 3/4-inch thickwall white PVC.  Our 3 meter multi-turn loop uses
external supports, and is designed with a multi-conductor plug and socket so
that it can be easily manipulated and set up in each of the required test
planes.

Coil factors are a good rule of thumb for doing the initial loop design
(i.e., square, round, number of turns etc.), but we use a small 6-inch Solar
calibration loop and spectrum analyzer combination to develop actual
"current versus H-field" calibration curves for each of our large test
loops.

Give me a call if you'd like to discuss details.

Regards,

Jim Ericson
Acme Testing Co.

- Original Message -
From: 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:42 AM
Subject: EN 61000-4-8


>
> We will have to apply the magnetic field immunity test to some of our
> Generic and ITE products in order to comply with the new revisions of the
> standards. One of the tests is not clear to us. Consider a product whose
> width and depth are such that it fits correctly inside the standard 1 m
> loop, but also assume that the equipment height exceeds 0.5 m.  On one
hand,
> the standard tends to indicate that a two or more loops are required to
> ensure that the entire height of the equipment is immersed during a single
> test. But on the other hand, there is mention of moving a single loop over
> the height of the equipment.
>
> Do I understand correctly, that tall (> 0.5 m) equipment may be tested
using
> a single 1 m loop that is moved along the height of the equipment?
>
> Richard Woods
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>
>


---
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

Medical devices

[KBJ]

Hi all

Can some one give me links to information regarding EU Medical Devices
directive.

My problem is to define the requirement for the following situation:

A manufacturer is making an add-on device for another company's medical
device and the total equipment is CE approved without involving the
manufacturer. Now the manufacturer want to CE mark this add-on device and
sell it to other companies as a CE approved device still for medical
equipment.

What is the requirements for this manufacturer, they have never been into
CE markin before.

The equipment is used in laboratoriums to move small glases with different
materials for testing in another test device.

best regards,

Kim  Jensen



---
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

EN60598 or EN60922 (UL1029 or UL1573)

[Enci]

Anyone with experience in applying any of the standards in the subject, I
would
appreciate your comments.

Product in question:
DC supplied Independant Electronic Ballast for Metal Halide lamp.
30V DC in, Max Power 250W. Max output 300V (Pulse voltage)
Ignitor fitted in remote lamphead.

Conformity to EN standards required for European sales. Also UL conformity 
for future third party testing for USA sales.

Which standard do I apply?
EN60598-1 or EN60922, and which UL standard should I be looking at? 

I have copies of 60598 and 60922 and my comments are below:

60922:1997 
---
"Section 1.1 Scope and object:
 The standard covers inductive ballasts for use on a.c. supplies up to
1000V..."
"
Parts of this standard can be applied, most ignored, and some leave me
in the dark. 
60922 concentrates on mechanical and thermal properties of the ballast. 
The ballast I am looking for a standard for is just a DC driven switch
mode power supply.
There are no big windings as in inductive ballasts


60598-1:2000 (supersedes 60598-1:1997 +A1:1998 + A12:1998 + A13:1999)
--
Section 0.5.1
"Components, other than integral components, shall comply with the
requirements of the relevant IEC standard, if any."

Section 0.5.3
"Components for which no appropriate IEC standard exists shall satisfy
the relevant requirements of this luminaire standard as part of the 
luminaire."
"Note - Examples of components are lampholders, switches, ballasts,
flexible cables and cords and plugs."

This is a whopper of a read, and also the standard applied by a
consultancy company when evaluating an A.C. version of this ballast.

I also came across IEC 60923:1996, Ballasts for discharge lamps
(excluding tubular fluorescent lamps) 


I feel EN60598-1 is the correct standard. Does anyone agree?

Thanks in advance.
Enci.



---
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