RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
I think the FCC would say- Yes!! However - with component level tests you would not be. OK - Before you all jump all over me.. Yes there will be cost added to the components. After all it is hard to skim every cent out of a part when you do not know the system it will go in. However the advantages from a compliance standpoint are many. Here are some I can think of: 1. Testing can be done either on the bench or in a chamber 2. Testing can be done without the entire system 3. Testing and debug can be done during the design phase. 4. Once completed - the component can be immediately released. 5. System tests can be cut to a minimum. 6. There is some assurance that the assembled product has had mitigation work done on the\ components irrespective of the manufacuring location. 7. Add your own.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ?
Dan, Without knowing any detail on your product, my vote is to say that all of the requirements of 60950 that apply to any other power supply would apply in full to a hot swappable supply. Assuming the supply you're handling is akin to a bank of rectifiers in a shelf, the shelf would also need space fillers to close off access to hazardous parts in the event that a full complement of supplies is not used. I assume the over-all design addresses in-rush currents at both the supply and shelf ends, labels, warnings, instructions, etcthe full monty. My opinion and not that of my employer. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com -Original Message- From: Richardson, William G [mailto:william.richard...@unisys.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 4:50 PM To: 'Dan Teninty' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ? There must be a bleeder resistor (across the X caps) to make the AC input pins safe to touch once the supply is removed from the cabinet. If there are exposed voltage or energy hazards with the supply removed, there must be a restriction such that only trained personnel are instructed to do this OR a tool must be used to remove the supply. -Original Message- From: Dan Teninty [mailto:dteni...@dtec-associates.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 4:16 PM To: Emc-Pstc@Majordomo. Ieee. Org Subject: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ? Do any of my esteemed colleagues know of any specific requirements in 60950 (UL/CSA or EN) relating specifically to hot swappable power supplies? A search in the PDF version of UL/CSA 60950 reveals nothing specific when searching for hot, swap, or power supply. A visual search of the TOC also reveals nothing specific. 2.6.5.4 deals with : Parts that can be removed by an operator Protective earthing connections shall make earlier and break later than the supply connections in each of the following: - the connector of a part that can be removed by an OPERATOR; - a plug on a power supply cord; - an appliance coupler. Compliance is checked by inspection. This is the most I could find that was related, and then it is referring to the AC side. Thought I would triple check with the collective brain trust to be sure. Appreciate any pointers to passages that I missed. Thanks, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ?
There must be a bleeder resistor (across the X caps) to make the AC input pins safe to touch once the supply is removed from the cabinet. If there are exposed voltage or energy hazards with the supply removed, there must be a restriction such that only trained personnel are instructed to do this OR a tool must be used to remove the supply. -Original Message- From: Dan Teninty [mailto:dteni...@dtec-associates.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 4:16 PM To: Emc-Pstc@Majordomo. Ieee. Org Subject: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ? Do any of my esteemed colleagues know of any specific requirements in 60950 (UL/CSA or EN) relating specifically to hot swappable power supplies? A search in the PDF version of UL/CSA 60950 reveals nothing specific when searching for hot, swap, or power supply. A visual search of the TOC also reveals nothing specific. 2.6.5.4 deals with : Parts that can be removed by an operator Protective earthing connections shall make earlier and break later than the supply connections in each of the following: - the connector of a part that can be removed by an OPERATOR; - a plug on a power supply cord; - an appliance coupler. Compliance is checked by inspection. This is the most I could find that was related, and then it is referring to the AC side. Thought I would triple check with the collective brain trust to be sure. Appreciate any pointers to passages that I missed. Thanks, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: CE Marking
What if the product was split up into 10 separate boxes and each box was shipped out one at a time? The bill of lading should show that one box has one part and another box has another part. So, since the product has a CE mark on it to begin with, CE mark both boxes, throw the Cert in both boxes, and ship ... - Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Hot Swappable Power Supplies ?
Do any of my esteemed colleagues know of any specific requirements in 60950 (UL/CSA or EN) relating specifically to hot swappable power supplies? A search in the PDF version of UL/CSA 60950 reveals nothing specific when searching for hot, swap, or power supply. A visual search of the TOC also reveals nothing specific. 2.6.5.4 deals with : Parts that can be removed by an operator Protective earthing connections shall make earlier and break later than the supply connections in each of the following: the connector of a part that can be removed by an OPERATOR; a plug on a power supply cord; an appliance coupler. Compliance is checked by inspection. This is the most I could find that was related, and then it is referring to the AC side. Thought I would triple check with the collective brain trust to be sure. Appreciate any pointers to passages that I missed. Thanks, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Examples of EMC problems in the real world
There have been requests in the past on this forum for examples of real world events that were EMC related, as I recall we got a few but not many examples. In an email with Ralph he mentioned some work and an article that he had written chronically some of these problems. I asked him for some of his examples and he kindly sent the items below and has graciously allowed me to forward them. Thanks Ralph, and I hope that you enjoy them as much as I did. Gary -Original Message- From: Ralph Cameron [mailto:ral...@igs.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 6:14 PM To: Gary McInturff Subject: Some life threatening cases of EMI and others Gary: These cases were reviewed in an article I wrote about 14-15 years ago. Most incidents could happen tomorrow and came from a record of emi cases reported to all Canadian district offices of what used to be called Communications Canada. The reports covered a planned three month monitoring period during which time ther were 439 emi related reports and another 242 cases of swamping ( RF overload of TV, radio etc.) If you consider that Canadian incidents represented about 8% of the total number of incidents in the U.S. at that time, it may help to place the occurrences in perspective. Since that time, Industry Canada has not recorded domestic problems or complaints due to a lack of immunity ( radiated or conducted) but do have an advisory bulletin specifying field strengths communication transmitter owners cannot exceed. These limits are taken from the EU requirements for electronic equipment radiated immunity . Not surprisingly, I have found at least 95% of interference cases have been resolved not by increasing radiated immunity but, by reducing or eliminating most of the conducted component That's why I believe the simple expedient of designed in conducted immunity levels the playing field for all consumers and removes the nuisance of trying to find a solution, particularly, after sale. Examples: London Ont. A vhf broadcast radio link , owned by a commercial broadcast station , operating in a shopping mall, disrupted electronic weigh scale operation. False and incorrect weights and prices were displayed while the link was operating. Peterborough Ont. A CAT scan medical device's operation was disrupted by transmissions from a new FM broadcast transmitter. Brampton ON Radio frequency plastic sealing equipment located in close proximity to a neighbouring paint operation seized control of the six foot paddles stirring the vat of paint to the point where the shaft broke away from the motor , burst through a water tank and embedded itself in the factory wall. Toronto ON A hospital heart monitoring system displayed erroneous readings when the hospital radio despatch system was operated. Toronto ON A Federal government's computer system would crash when a nearby chiropractor operated his diathermy ( radio frequency generator ) machine. Edmonton Ab The telephone company lost billing data from their computer system which was attributed to the operation of a nearby private commercial radio despatch system. Calgary Ab An amateur radio operator's transmissions were heard in the recording equipment of a professional recording studio. Until the problem was resolved, the studio lost money on their operations. Grande Prairie Ab When a hospital's diathermy was used, the hospitl alert system would occasionally issue a a 'code 9' alert, in error. The diathermy also affected the physiotherapist's treadmill by accelerating the motor control mechanism. Grande Prairie Ab The mobile cranes on a logging company's railway had a collision avoidance system installed in each crane. Radio transmissions would occasionally defeat the protection offered by these systems. In Ottawa ON Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission reported that Oil fired generating stations' control equipment on oil fired generators was affected by operation of nearby mobile radio equipment . Gas monitors, required for confined space atmosphere, continuous monitoring of toxic/ explosive gases and oxygen were found to give false alarms in 7 of 8 tested near UHF , narrowband ( 466Mhz ) transmissions and one had problems from 49Mhz narrow band signals. Because many amateur radio operators reside in urban areas, their HF operations ( covering 1.8-144Mhz ) have been demonstrated to affect the following . In some instances they could cause harmful effects: Intravenous pump in hosptial room went into the reset ( fail safe) mode when a 2W(144Mhz) handy talky was operated any closer than six feet from the pump. A manual reset is necessary to continue pump function. Although this happened on 26 separate occasions and I reported it to our Federal Dept of Health, they had the manufacturer investigate the problem and couldn't duplicate it. VCR and kitchen mantle radios generate objectionable noise when NOT powered Output transistor junctions make good detectors when energy
Re: Radio controlled cars (toys)
I believe the I.S.M. bands in Canada but will verify that tomorrow- Ralph Cameron - Original Message - From: Pettit, Ghery To: 'Bailey, Jeff' ; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:40 PM Subject: RE: Radio controlled cars (toys) Just remember that the frequencies between 50 and 54 MHz require an amateur radio license in order to use them. They are not for unlicensed use. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: Bailey, Jeff [mailto:jbai...@mysst.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 10:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Radio controlled cars (toys) Lothar: There are also several channels allocated in the 75 MHz, 50 MHz and 27MHz region. Jeff Jeff Bailey Compliance Engineering SST - A Division of Woodhead Canada Phone: (519) 725 5136 ext. 363 Fax: (519) 725 1515 Email: mailto:jbai...@mysst.com Web: www.sstech.on.ca -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 10:19 AM To: 'Lothar Schmidt'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Radio controlled cars (toys) Lothar: There are several channels allocated in the 72 MHz region for the USA. I'm not current on this area, but I believe there are some channels specifically for model aircraft control (possibly only by the modelers' private convention). 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: Lothar Schmidt [mailto:lothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:59 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Radio controlled cars (toys) Hi Group, is there any special frequency range assigned to radio remote control toys? Are there different classes like professional devices to control e.g. planes or helicopters? My customer is looking for a frequency range above 300 MHz. 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
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC?
If you are so am I. As are a few dozen people I know. The only way to get an OS other than Windows to run well is to build your own machine. Steve -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:42 PM To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? Just to further confuscate the issue - I once built my own home PC. I bought a box, motherboard, CPU, memory, variety of ISA cards, etc. It worked so well, I built a couple or three more for family and friends, and sold them to those family and friends at a good price. I didn't check radiated emissions. Am I an FCC Outlaw ? Doug Massey LXE, Inc. snip --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: CE Marking
ofe3b05737.c4036401-on86256a71.0063f...@mmm.com, rehel...@mmm.com inimitably wrote: Good question. Does the shipping packaging/crating even have to have CE marking or is it only the equipment, sales packaging, and accompanying documentation? It only HAS to be on the product at present (unless it's too small), but that may change. It is *advisable* to put it everywhere that a Customs officer might look, to prevent, as far as possible, the Customs opening the packaging. So: Packaging Shipping documents Guarantee card Instruction book But if putting it in any of these optional places causes a problem, as it does for the OP, just don't do it. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC?
Just to further confuscate the issue - I once built my own home PC. I bought a box, motherboard, CPU, memory, variety of ISA cards, etc. It worked so well, I built a couple or three more for family and friends, and sold them to those family and friends at a good price. I didn't check radiated emissions. Am I an FCC Outlaw ? Doug Massey LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:01 PM To: John Cronin; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? Talk about ripping the lid off of Pandora's box... -- From: John Cronin croni...@hotmail.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC + FCC = FCC? List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, Jun 19, 2001, 5:24 PM Hi Group This is a question regarding a plug in PC card that has been stated as FCC compliant which is inserted in a PC that is also stated to be FCC compliant and the emissions are found to actually exceed the FCC limits. What is the responsibility of the manufacturer who is intending to place this on the market as a functional unit? Are they liable for the overall unit or can they sell on the basis that it comprises FCC compliant sub assemblies, albeit evidently originally tested in different configurations. If they are liable, how can anyone sell any PC/PC card combination considering that the card could have originally been tested in a so called golden PC. Many thanks John Cronin _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Radio controlled cars (toys)
Hi all Thanks a lot for the inputs I got. It is great to have a group like this you can just ask questions and you get a lot of answers. Thanks again. Lothar Hi Group, is there any special frequency range assigned to radio remote control toys? Are there different classes like professional devices to control e.g. planes or helicopters? My customer is looking for a frequency range above 300 MHz. 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
RE: LED's Lasing
Ed - First and foremost, there must exist a resonant cavity formed inside the semiconductor or in combination of the semiconductor die and its packaging. Then the threshold current (for population inversion of the lasing medium) must be exceeded. Only the latter is related to external faults of any kind. Without the former, you will not get any semiconductor diode to lase. It seems likely that the resonant cavity would be inadvertent or incidental. I suppose it's possible that some diodes that don't meet spec for use as a laser _might_ get recycled as a common LED, so the effort in their creation isn't a total loss, but such is pure speculation. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina.com From: Price, Ed Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:32 AM The discussion about LEDs lasing during a fault condition started me doing some review about LEDs. But first, what is the fault condition here? Is this a condition where a power source or limiting resistor fails, allowing the LED to draw more current than desired (although not enough to destroy the LED), thus creating a very bright LED? Or does something happen to the operation of the LED, causing it to emit coherent radiation and/or change its emission beamwidth? Regards, Ed --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circ uits
31891b757c09184bbfec5275f85d5595fd8...@cceexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net, Lesmeister, Glenn glenn.lesmeis...@compaq.com inimitably wrote: I'd like the 30A working current to come from a single product using an IEC309 type plug (no 13A fuses). Is this possible in the UK? Would I have to run a separate dedicated source to do this? Yes, if, presumably, it is a product intended for use in commercial or industrial premises. Household equipment (like a 7 kW power shower) with such a current rating would be hard-wired to a dedicated branch. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re:
B2CC0E0F2C10D511B86600B0D06898420118528F@localhost.pelco1, Mavis, Robert rma...@pelco.com inimitably wrote: Hello Group, This question is in regards to a CE Marked assembly. The Completed end unit is CE Compliant and Marked. The end unit is disassembled and shipped in 2 shipping containers into the EU. What are the CE Marking requirements for the two shipping containers? Do we place a CE mark on both? We have only tested the unit as a whole and testing the parts separately is not typical installation or use. There is no requirement to mark the containers at all. Mark the product and state on the shipping documents where the CE mark is, so Customs don't have to search for it. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: CE Marking
Good question. Does the shipping packaging/crating even have to have CE marking or is it only the equipment, sales packaging, and accompanying documentation? Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 === Mavis, Robert RMavis@pelco.c To: emc-p...@ieee.org om cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: 06/20/2001 09:31 AM Please respond to Mavis, Robert Hello Group, This question is in regards to a CE Marked assembly. The Completed end unit is CE Compliant and Marked. The end unit is disassembled and shipped in 2 shipping containers into the EU. What are the CE Marking requirements for the two shipping containers? Do we place a CE mark on both? We have only tested the unit as a whole and testing the parts separately is not typical installation or use. 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 - File att1.htm not included with reply --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circ uits
Peter: You wrote... In the US and Canada, general purpose branch circuits relying exclusively on safety certified branch circuit fuses (which IEC127 and other miniature and microfuses are not), respectively, can operate at 100% of the branch circuit rated current... I'm either out of date or I disagree. The continuous (3 hours or more) ampacity of a 15A branch circuit is 12A, and that of a 100A branch is 80A. This infamous 80% rule is in both the CEC and the NEC and applies to all code fuses, breakers, and branch circuits except those where all the bits and pieces are specially Certified and marked for 100% continuous duty, which I've always been told is rare and expensive. Am I overlooking a change or easement somewhere? Thanks, Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Group Leader, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Markets web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:59 AM To: emc Subject: RE: Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circuits I don't have the answer to Glenn's question, but do have a comment on Nick's response. Nick states: The rating of a UL rated fuse is more or less the current at which it blows. The rating of a fuse to IEC 127 (used throughout Europe) is more or less the working current of the fuse and the circuit it protects This may or may not be true. Last I looked, UL Listed miniature fuses (typically 1 X 1-1/4in cartridge size) and branch circuit protection fuses are required to carry 110% of their rated current for a minimum specified time and 100% continuously; Listed microfuses are required to carry 100% of current continuously. For a UL Recognized fuse (including 5 X 20mm cartridge sizes, of which you most likely refer), this is not necessarily the case, though it may be. Thus, the rating of a fuse ... is more or less the working current of the fuse is as true for a UL Listed fuse as it is for an IEC 127 fuse. For Recognized Component fuses, any deviation from the base requirements for Listing is rationale to allow only Recognition. These base requirements include, but are not limited to: physical dimensions, current carrying capacity, calibration or time-to-open characteristics, time delay characteristics for time delay rated fuses, etc. In the US and Canada, general purpose branch circuits relying exclusively on safety certified branch circuit fuses (which IEC127 and other miniature and microfuses are not), respectively, can operate at 100% of the branch circuit rated current. Branch circuits protected exclusively by fuses have become the exception in the US and Canada, where circuit breakers dominate. One is left with the question: are fuses used throughout Europe as an integral part of mains circuit protection? By this I include the power supply cord as an extension of the mains, whether or not it is included by definition or is absolutely correct in everyone's perspective. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Radio controlled cars (toys)
Just remember that the frequencies between 50 and 54 MHz require an amateur radio license in order to use them. They are not for unlicensed use. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: Bailey, Jeff [mailto:jbai...@mysst.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 10:18 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Radio controlled cars (toys) Lothar: There are also several channels allocated in the 75 MHz, 50 MHz and 27MHz region. Jeff Jeff Bailey Compliance Engineering SST - A Division of Woodhead Canada Phone: (519) 725 5136 ext. 363 Fax: (519) 725 1515 Email: mailto:jbai...@mysst.com mailto:jbai...@mysst.com Web: www.sstech.on.ca http://www.sstech.on.ca/ -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 10:19 AM To: 'Lothar Schmidt'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Radio controlled cars (toys) Lothar: There are several channels allocated in the 72 MHz region for the USA. I'm not current on this area, but I believe there are some channels specifically for model aircraft control (possibly only by the modelers' private convention). 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: Lothar Schmidt [mailto:lothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:59 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Radio controlled cars (toys) Hi Group, is there any special frequency range assigned to radio remote control toys? Are there different classes like professional devices to control e.g. planes or helicopters? My customer is looking for a frequency range above 300 MHz. 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
RE: Radio controlled cars (toys)
Lothar: There are also several channels allocated in the 75 MHz, 50 MHz and 27MHz region. Jeff Jeff Bailey Compliance Engineering SST - A Division of Woodhead Canada Phone: (519) 725 5136 ext. 363 Fax: (519) 725 1515 Email: mailto:jbai...@mysst.com mailto:jbai...@mysst.com Web: www.sstech.on.ca http://www.sstech.on.ca/ -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 10:19 AM To: 'Lothar Schmidt'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Radio controlled cars (toys) Lothar: There are several channels allocated in the 72 MHz region for the USA. I'm not current on this area, but I believe there are some channels specifically for model aircraft control (possibly only by the modelers' private convention). 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: Lothar Schmidt [mailto:lothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:59 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Radio controlled cars (toys) Hi Group, is there any special frequency range assigned to radio remote control toys? Are there different classes like professional devices to control e.g. planes or helicopters? My customer is looking for a frequency range above 300 MHz. 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
RE: Cable layout per GR1089
Verizon gives some additional guidance in their NEBS Checklist: http://www.bellatlantic.cg/wholesale/html/word/nebs_inf2.doc Best regards, Dave Lorusso General Bandwidth, Inc. Compliance and Design Verification Manager (512) 681-5480 - direct (512) 681-5481 - fax 12303 Technology Blvd. Austin, TX 78727 dave.loru...@genband.com www.genband.com -Original Message- From: David Heald [mailto:davehe...@mediaone.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 10:08 AM To: Paolo Roncone Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Cable layout per GR1089 Greetings all, I just peeked at GR-63 and it appears that a 9-10' height for cabling trays is normal (Figure 2-4). You are correct that GR-1089 is very vague on the requirement (something like line of sight??). Due to the final installation config, I would go with a 9' cable crossbar height and I have always seen at least a 6' cable crossbar length. Also, I would ensure that your crossbar and supports are nonconductive. 2 - 2.5 PVC Piping works well and is easy to work with. (plus, you can get it at the Home Depot). I have a great collapsible design that I developed at my last job; if anyone is interested, contact me off list and I can describe it to you. Best Regards, Dave Paolo Roncone wrote: Hi, anyone can get me clarifications on the cable layout for radiated immunity and emissions testing per GR1089 with overhead cable trays (ref. fig.3-13 ) ? In fig.3.13 + sections 3.4.6 and 3.5.5 of GR1089 I don't see any specified length of the horizontal section projecting out of the EUT boundaries. Also I don't see any indication thereof in ANSI C63.4 (fig.10), while CISPR22/EN55022 (fig.13) specifies MINIMUM 20 cm of horizontal length. Thanks, Paolo --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - What?
Let's not carried away. Those radiated emission limits protect broadcast radio reception, period. As such, your personal electronics are turned off when aircraft safety requires glitch-free operation of its NAV systems. Hospitals already prohibit INTENTIONAL electromagnetic transmissions which can affect patient safety. -- From: kyle_cr...@dell.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - What? Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2001, 8:28 AM I think the answer is that the FCC allows declared compliant devices to be sold in another unit WITHOUT testing. This has allowed PCs on the market with as much as 30dB over Class B limits. It was my understanding that testing always had to be done for the most common configurations of equipment as it is shipped. If this new PC card is going to be shipped in more than 50% of a given line of products I believe that line needs to pass testing with the PC card. The intent of the standards is to limit testing to configurations within reason. I am guessing that the only reason this PC card has been tested so far is because it is going to be used in a majority of at least one line of products. Based on this the product (a PC I take it) should pass emissions tests with the PC Card, or a different PC Card should be used. I have to say that it is frightening how flippantly some of my colleagues accept that PCs are being released into the market up to 30 dB over the limit. The limits are there for a reason, and it is machines such as these that can interfere with airplanes, hospital equipment and the like. Although it may make your job a little harder some days, I think the next time you are on a plane or having surgery you will be happy that a notebook or a cell phone doesn't cause a failure of those critical systems. Sincerely, Kyle Cross --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Radio controlled cars (toys)
Lothar: I found a couple of links which might help you investigate the matter. Just for toys, though, found nothing in my brief search regarding professional equipment. Looks like your customer is 'way beyond the traditional band... Good luck. Louis. http://www.howstuffworks.com/rc-toy.htm?printable=1 Most RC toys operate at either 27 MHz or 49 MHz. This pair of frequencies has been allocated by the FCC for basic consumer items, such as garage door openers, walkie-talkies and RC toys. Advanced RC models, such as the more sophisticated RC airplanes, use 72-MHz or 75-MHz frequencies. http://rcvehicles.about.com/hobbies/rcvehicles/library/eih/bleih_freq.htm Equipment Info Headquarters: Radio Frequencies Here is a list of all frequencies that are legal to use in the U.S. http://www.aero.ufl.edu/~issmo/mav/fcc.htm (brief technical summary, with links) --- Louis E. Fischer Compliance Engineer Cisco Systems, Inc. 12515 Research Blvd, Bldg 4 Austin, TX 78759 (512) 378-1723 FAX: (512) 378-1251 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Lothar Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 6:59 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Radio controlled cars (toys) Hi Group, is there any special frequency range assigned to radio remote control toys? Are there different classes like professional devices to control e.g. planes or helicopters? My customer is looking for a frequency range above 300 MHz. 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
RE: Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circ uits
I'd like the 30A working current to come from a single product using an IEC309 type plug (no 13A fuses). Is this possible in the UK? Would I have to run a separate dedicated source to do this? Regards, Glenn Lesmeister Product Regulatory Compliance Compaq Computer Corp. Tel: 281-514-5163 20555 SH 249, MS60607 Fax: 281-514-8029 Houston, TX 77070-2698 Pgr: 713-786-4930 glenn.lesmeis...@compaq.com I am empowered to do what makes sense! -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 11:22 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circuits 31891b757c09184bbfec5275f85d5595fd8...@cceexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net, Lesmeister, Glenn glenn.lesmeis...@compaq.com inimitably wrote: Does anyone know if it is common practice or otherwise required to de-rate products in Europe to 80% (or some other %) of the rating of the branch circuit as is done in the US? Some product standards (such as 61000-3-2) apply to products rated up to 16A, so it would appear that products can be rated up to the branch rating. If this is the case, would it be acceptable to exceed the rating by 110% (as allowed by 60950) and still be usable on that branch circuit? UK is different from the Continent. With our ring-main system and 13 A fused plugs, each ring can be loaded to at least 26 A, and the protective device (30 or 32 A working current) doesn't care whether that comes from two high-power products or 200 wall-warts. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - NO However..
Glad to know that the safety brethren are doing something right! Or is it because we're concerned about liability and our reputation (anytime anything goes wrong, the safety guy gets fired!) whereas the FCC merely fines the officer of the company;-- and even then they've not been doing very much of that! Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: chasgra...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:18 PM To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com; croni...@hotmail.com; emc-p...@majordomo..ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - NO However.. I think the answer is that the FCC allows declared compliant devices to be sold in another unit WITHOUT testing. This has allowed PCs on the market with as much as 30dB over Class B limits. Why did the FCC put in place a compliance methodology that guarantees non-compliant products are released? The answer IMHO is simple. Volume. Sheer volume of PC manufacturers and PC related products. Manufacturers of assembled PCs didn't bother with the test anyway so the FCC tried to make some sense out of it. The time had come for the regulatory bodies to face facts. Even with the high number of non-compliant products, stuff seems to be working OK. I would suggest that the regulatory bodies either relieve the emissions spec limit by 20db ( thereby allowing diligent manufacturers to save money) and/or rewite the standards to reflect the process our safety brethern use. That is: component level compliance. Charles Grasso --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: Cable layout per GR1089
Greetings all, I just peeked at GR-63 and it appears that a 9-10' height for cabling trays is normal (Figure 2-4). You are correct that GR-1089 is very vague on the requirement (something like line of sight??). Due to the final installation config, I would go with a 9' cable crossbar height and I have always seen at least a 6' cable crossbar length. Also, I would ensure that your crossbar and supports are nonconductive. 2 - 2.5 PVC Piping works well and is easy to work with. (plus, you can get it at the Home Depot). I have a great collapsible design that I developed at my last job; if anyone is interested, contact me off list and I can describe it to you. Best Regards, Dave Paolo Roncone wrote: Hi, anyone can get me clarifications on the cable layout for radiated immunity and emissions testing per GR1089 with overhead cable trays (ref. fig.3-13 ) ? In fig.3.13 + sections 3.4.6 and 3.5.5 of GR1089 I don't see any specified length of the horizontal section projecting out of the EUT boundaries. Also I don't see any indication thereof in ANSI C63.4 (fig.10), while CISPR22/EN55022 (fig.13) specifies MINIMUM 20 cm of horizontal length. Thanks, Paolo --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
[Fwd: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?]
Forwarded for Dan Irish dan.ir...@sun.com Original Message Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:14:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Irish - Sun BOS Hardware dan.ir...@sun.com Reply-To: Dan Irish - Sun BOS Hardware dan.ir...@sun.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, croni...@hotmail.com John, See 47CFR2.909, Responsible party: The following parties are responsible for compliance of radio frequency equipment with the applicable standards: [snip] (c) In the case of equipment subject to authorization under the Declaration of Conformity procedure: (1) The manufacturer or, if the equipment is assembled from individual component parts and the resulting sustem is subject to authorization under a Declaration of Conformity, the assembler. I just downloaded this section to verify that it hasn't changed. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html#page1 Use the search terms: 47cfr2 and 909 I hope this helps. Regards, Dan X-Originating-IP: [159.134.229.84] From: John Cronin croni...@hotmail.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC + FCC = FCC? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:24:35 - Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2001 22:24:35.0260 (UTC) FILETIME=[9EA13FC0:01C0F90E] X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org Hi Group This is a question regarding a plug in PC card that has been stated as FCC compliant which is inserted in a PC that is also stated to be FCC compliant and the emissions are found to actually exceed the FCC limits. What is the responsibility of the manufacturer who is intending to place this on the market as a functional unit? Are they liable for the overall unit or can they sell on the basis that it comprises FCC compliant sub assemblies, albeit evidently originally tested in different configurations. If they are liable, how can anyone sell any PC/PC card combination considering that the card could have originally been tested in a so called golden PC. Many thanks John Cronin --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circuits
I don't have the answer to Glenn's question, but do have a comment on Nick's response. Nick states: The rating of a UL rated fuse is more or less the current at which it blows. The rating of a fuse to IEC 127 (used throughout Europe) is more or less the working current of the fuse and the circuit it protects This may or may not be true. Last I looked, UL Listed miniature fuses (typically 1 X 1-1/4in cartridge size) and branch circuit protection fuses are required to carry 110% of their rated current for a minimum specified time and 100% continuously; Listed microfuses are required to carry 100% of current continuously. For a UL Recognized fuse (including 5 X 20mm cartridge sizes, of which you most likely refer), this is not necessarily the case, though it may be. Thus, the rating of a fuse ... is more or less the working current of the fuse is as true for a UL Listed fuse as it is for an IEC 127 fuse. For Recognized Component fuses, any deviation from the base requirements for Listing is rationale to allow only Recognition. These base requirements include, but are not limited to: physical dimensions, current carrying capacity, calibration or time-to-open characteristics, time delay characteristics for time delay rated fuses, etc. In the US and Canada, general purpose branch circuits relying exclusively on safety certified branch circuit fuses (which IEC127 and other miniature and microfuses are not), respectively, can operate at 100% of the branch circuit rated current. Branch circuits protected exclusively by fuses have become the exception in the US and Canada, where circuit breakers dominate. One is left with the question: are fuses used throughout Europe as an integral part of mains circuit protection? By this I include the power supply cord as an extension of the mains, whether or not it is included by definition or is absolutely correct in everyone's perspective. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
LED's Lasing
The discussion about LEDs lasing during a fault condition started me doing some review about LEDs. But first, what is the fault condition here? Is this a condition where a power source or limiting resistor fails, allowing the LED to draw more current than desired (although not enough to destroy the LED), thus creating a very bright LED? Or does something happen to the operation of the LED, causing it to emit coherent radiation and/or change its emission beamwidth? Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
[no subject]
Hello Group, This question is in regards to a CE Marked assembly. The Completed end unit is CE Compliant and Marked. The end unit is disassembled and shipped in 2 shipping containers into the EU. What are the CE Marking requirements for the two shipping containers? Do we place a CE mark on both? We have only tested the unit as a whole and testing the parts separately is not typical installation or use. 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: Radio controlled cars (toys)
Lothar: There are several channels allocated in the 72 MHz region for the USA. I'm not current on this area, but I believe there are some channels specifically for model aircraft control (possibly only by the modelers' private convention). 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: Lothar Schmidt [mailto:lothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:59 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Radio controlled cars (toys) Hi Group, is there any special frequency range assigned to radio remote control toys? Are there different classes like professional devices to control e.g. planes or helicopters? My customer is looking for a frequency range above 300 MHz. 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
Re: Halogens
of0aaadc76.aa1cf1bf-onc1256a71.00429...@i-data.com, k...@i-data.com inimitably wrote: This is in the grey zone of what we normally talk about, but can anybody tell me if there are any countries which don't allow the use of Halogens in plastic I don't think there is any blanket ban on halogens, since that would outlaw PVC and PTFE, among others. But halogenated flame-retardant additives are frowned on very severely in Scandinavia, and are likely to be so treated in all of Europe in the foreseeable future, even though there is some evidence that this is not totally justified. (The additives produce dioxins when incinerated, but the plastics without additive do so as well, if the incinerator is not run hot enough, which is often the case, AIUI. It wears out much quicker at 1200 C than at 1000 C.) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - What?
I think the answer is that the FCC allows declared compliant devices to be sold in another unit WITHOUT testing. This has allowed PCs on the market with as much as 30dB over Class B limits. It was my understanding that testing always had to be done for the most common configurations of equipment as it is shipped. If this new PC card is going to be shipped in more than 50% of a given line of products I believe that line needs to pass testing with the PC card. The intent of the standards is to limit testing to configurations within reason. I am guessing that the only reason this PC card has been tested so far is because it is going to be used in a majority of at least one line of products. Based on this the product (a PC I take it) should pass emissions tests with the PC Card, or a different PC Card should be used. I have to say that it is frightening how flippantly some of my colleagues accept that PCs are being released into the market up to 30 dB over the limit. The limits are there for a reason, and it is machines such as these that can interfere with airplanes, hospital equipment and the like. Although it may make your job a little harder some days, I think the next time you are on a plane or having surgery you will be happy that a notebook or a cell phone doesn't cause a failure of those critical systems. Sincerely, Kyle Cross --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Status of Frequency extension of EN 61000-4-3
FYI, IEC 60601-1-2: 2ED, EMC for Medical Electrical Equipment requires 3/10 V/m testing to 2.5 GHz! Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pettit, Ghery Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 11:19 AM To: 'Sandy Mazzola'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Status of Frequency extension of EN 61000-4-3 Sandy, Whether or not IEC (or EN) 61000-4-3 has its applicable frequency range extended, there is no effect on EN 55024:1998 or CISPR 24 until such time as these documents are amended to increase the frequency range for the test. As a member of CISPR SC G WG3, I can tell you that there is no proposal in CISPR to increase the frequency range for this test in CISPR 24 at this time. Of course, we're meeting in Bristol, England next week and anything could happen, but I don't expect this to come up. Given the speed(?) with which changes work their way through the system, it would be 2 or 3 years before CISPR 24 could be amended if we started next week, then a 3 year transition period in the EU, so if a successful effort to increase the frequency range of this test were to start next week, you'd be looking at 5 to 6 years before it became mandatory in Europe. Other countries using CISPR 24 (Korea and Russia, for example) might act faster, but still nothing could happen until CISPR 24 was amended and I would expect that to take 3 years. Bottom line - don't start placing purchase orders for new equipment just yet. Ghery S. Pettit, NCE Intel -Original Message- From: Sandy Mazzola [mailto:mazzo...@symbol.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 8:04 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Status of Frequency extension of EN 61000-4-3 To all, My question pertains to EN 55024:1998, Information Technology Equipment-Immunity Characteristics, flowing down to EN 61000-4-3 :1997, Radiated Immunity. I am looking for the status of a frequency extension to EN 6100-4-3 radiated Immunity. EN 61000-4-3:1997 lists 80 MHz to 1 GHz as the test frequency range. Is anyone aware of the Radiated Immunity requirements being extended to 3 Ghz or higher sometime in the near future. If there are any drafts proposing this can you list the draft number. Finally, if no present plans exist could anyone venture a prediction for when and if the radiated Immunity frequency will be extended. Thx Sandy Mazzola Santo Mazzola Regulatory Engineer Symbol Technologies Inc 1 Symbol Plaza Holtsville, N. Y. 11742-1300 Phone: (631) 738-5373 Fax: (631) 738-3318 E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
FW: EN50104:1998
-- From: Andrew Wood Sent: 20 June 2001 13:44 To: 'Finn, Paul' Subject: RE: EN50104:1998 Paul, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/atex/guide/guide_en.pdf You might find this interesting reading. I think that the answer depends on whether the O2 monitor will be mounted in a potentially explosive atmosphere or not. The ATEX directive would not apply when measuring O2 levels in a typical combustion flue for instance. Best regards Andy. Andrew Wood Engineer (Special Products) Land Instruments International Own opinions only etc -- From: Finn, Paul[SMTP:fi...@pan0.panametrics.com] Reply To: Finn, Paul Sent: 20 June 2001 12:47 To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: EN50104:1998 Would any one be able to confirm the need to evaluate apparatus used for the detection and measurement of oxygen to EN 50104:1998 as part of CE marking? Your comments will be greatly appreciated. Paul Finn Panametrics, Inc Waltham MA This e-mail and its contents may be confidential, privileged and protected by law. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
EN50104:1998
Would any one be able to confirm the need to evaluate apparatus used for the detection and measurement of oxygen to EN 50104:1998 as part of CE marking? Your comments will be greatly appreciated. Paul Finn Panametrics, Inc Waltham MA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
Doug, Have the NRTL call out the rated voltage of the fan only and that it is a Recognized component. Describing the min. CFM for a fan cooling a chip is not so important in this application. The CPU is mounted on a min. 94V-1 flame rated board and I asume an abnormal test by the NRTL was conducted with the fan disconnected with acceptable results. In other applications such as equipment ventilation, calling out the min. CFM becomes important if you would like to use any Recognized Component fan manufacturer having a min. CFM equivalent to the fan mounted in the unit subjected to the tests. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 11:19 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will. Dear all, In bringing a product through safety and having many issues, it might surprise you that after all was said and done, the entire safety approval reduced to a simple cfm rating fan for a chip both on the secondary side of the power supply. For some obvious reasons of which I hope you all understand, I can't provide too many details either here or off-line. Needless to say, the fan and chip companies have non-disclosure agreements them. In trying to obtain a simple cfm rating of the fan, a flurry of call the other guy began to happen. Nothing was resolved. Indeed, I went so far as to offer signing ANY type of non-disclosure agreements with both of them. But that was to no avail. And it remains so. So, the ECO gets cut to remove that part and mfr, plus any other parts by said mfr. An email gets sent to said fan company stating the resultant actions, etc, etc ... I doubt it will be of any concern to them. My reason for posting is that in the 20 or so years of doing EMC/Safety, I've never run into such a thing. Neither have I heard such a thing from associates who have been doing this work for as long or longer than I. This isn't an invitation to a bitch session about the companies. Nor is it a complaint about the NRTLs who are just doing their job. My experience in said matter with the NRTL has been great. I've run into something similar with patents and ink believe it or not. Mfr.'s are not really obligated to spell out exactly everything in something such as a patent, which I found surprising. What surprises me here is in the case of safety, where information is not disclosed. The NRTL didn't do cfm rating of the fan. In fact, there's really little no standard way to do cfm of fans. Thus, the reason why they allow similar fans within a mfr but not from another mfr. in some cases. So, I'm wondering some of the following: 1. Have any you ever run into something like this before? 2. If you have, what did you do about it? On and off line responses both welcome ... Regards, Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circuits
31891b757c09184bbfec5275f85d5595fd8...@cceexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net, Lesmeister, Glenn glenn.lesmeis...@compaq.com inimitably wrote: Does anyone know if it is common practice or otherwise required to de-rate products in Europe to 80% (or some other %) of the rating of the branch circuit as is done in the US? Some product standards (such as 61000-3-2) apply to products rated up to 16A, so it would appear that products can be rated up to the branch rating. If this is the case, would it be acceptable to exceed the rating by 110% (as allowed by 60950) and still be usable on that branch circuit? UK is different from the Continent. With our ring-main system and 13 A fused plugs, each ring can be loaded to at least 26 A, and the protective device (30 or 32 A working current) doesn't care whether that comes from two high-power products or 200 wall-warts. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
002c01c0f914$4b1344b0$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com, Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com inimitably wrote: The fan itself is more of an issue of having a baseline with which to allow alternates to be used. If I can prove by way of fan company documenation that the fan is x cfm, then that's the basis for any other fan being used. You should test for temperature rises with each proposed alternative part. Don't struggle to use cfm data that you can't get. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
002501c0f905$794dabe0$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com, Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com inimitably wrote: 1. Have any you ever run into something like this before? 2. If you have, what did you do about it? I would say that a safety standard that specifies a cfm rating for a fan is a badly-drafted standard. I would press to get the standard changed. What matters for safety is the temperature that parts can reach. If they are OK, under both normal and fault conditions, the equipment should pass. This is an example of a fundamental principle of prescriptive standardization: 1. If possible, specify performance: it's what matters and is usually easy to verify. 2. If it isn't possible/practicable to verify performance (e.g. if long- term durability is involved), specify construction. 3. If it isn't possible/practicable to specify construction (e.g. because many constructions would be satisfactory), specify design. In this case, specifying performance - temperature rises under normal and fault conditions - is the normal practice. Specifying the cfm is specifying design, and there seems no good reason for that. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - NO However..
I think the answer is that the FCC allows declared compliant devices to be sold in another unit WITHOUT testing. This has allowed PCs on the market with as much as 30dB over Class B limits. Why did the FCC put in place a compliance methodology that guarantees non-compliant products are released? The answer IMHO is simple. Volume. Sheer volume of PC manufacturers and PC related products. Manufacturers of assembled PCs didn't bother with the test anyway so the FCC tried to make some sense out of it. The time had come for the regulatory bodies to face facts. Even with the high number of non-compliant products, stuff seems to be working OK. I would suggest that the regulatory bodies either relieve the emissions spec limit by 20db ( thereby allowing diligent manufacturers to save money) and/or rewite the standards to reflect the process our safety brethern use. That is: component level compliance. Charles Grasso --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?
John Cronin wrote: Hi Group This is a question regarding a plug in PC card that has been stated as FCC compliant which is inserted in a PC that is also stated to be FCC compliant and the emissions are found to actually exceed the FCC limits. I work with this type of issue all the time. In fact, if I didn't have to work with this type of issue, half my job would be non-existant ... grin What is the responsibility of the manufacturer who is intending to place this on the market as a functional unit? Are they liable for the overall unit Yes. or can they sell on the basis that it comprises FCC compliant sub assemblies, albeit evidently originally tested in different configurations. No. If they are liable, how can anyone sell any PC/PC card combination considering that the card could have originally been tested in a so called golden PC. Very good question. The counter argument is that variability of constructions in end products in which the cards are used is so large that only some representative construction is used for the original approval. It would be impossible for a mfr of said card to make some blanket statement that said card can in fact be such and such in *any* type of PC construction. - Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: FCC + FCC = FCC?
Talk about ripping the lid off of Pandora's box... -- From: John Cronin croni...@hotmail.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC + FCC = FCC? List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, Jun 19, 2001, 5:24 PM Hi Group This is a question regarding a plug in PC card that has been stated as FCC compliant which is inserted in a PC that is also stated to be FCC compliant and the emissions are found to actually exceed the FCC limits. What is the responsibility of the manufacturer who is intending to place this on the market as a functional unit? Are they liable for the overall unit or can they sell on the basis that it comprises FCC compliant sub assemblies, albeit evidently originally tested in different configurations. If they are liable, how can anyone sell any PC/PC card combination considering that the card could have originally been tested in a so called golden PC. Many thanks John Cronin Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Radio controlled cars (toys)
Hi Group, is there any special frequency range assigned to radio remote control toys? Are there different classes like professional devices to control e.g. planes or helicopters? My customer is looking for a frequency range above 300 MHz. 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 attachment: Lothar_Schmidt.vcf
RE: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
Yeah sort of. It involves Laser's and you have seen me whine about it in the recent past. They feel no need to get UL recognition and UL feels no need to List the product without verification of eye safety (the vendor won't send the CDRH report either). I took the same course you did. The vendor has been dropped from the approved vendor list. They seem to be scrambling around at the moment, but until I see that work done up front I won't even begin a component qualification, I simply pick up the next vendor an go. I just don't have the time or desire to keep chasing them. Gary -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:19 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will. Dear all, In bringing a product through safety and having many issues, it might surprise you that after all was said and done, the entire safety approval reduced to a simple cfm rating fan for a chip both on the secondary side of the power supply. For some obvious reasons of which I hope you all understand, I can't provide too many details either here or off-line. Needless to say, the fan and chip companies have non-disclosure agreements them. In trying to obtain a simple cfm rating of the fan, a flurry of call the other guy began to happen. Nothing was resolved. Indeed, I went so far as to offer signing ANY type of non-disclosure agreements with both of them. But that was to no avail. And it remains so. So, the ECO gets cut to remove that part and mfr, plus any other parts by said mfr. An email gets sent to said fan company stating the resultant actions, etc, etc ... I doubt it will be of any concern to them. My reason for posting is that in the 20 or so years of doing EMC/Safety, I've never run into such a thing. Neither have I heard such a thing from associates who have been doing this work for as long or longer than I. This isn't an invitation to a bitch session about the companies. Nor is it a complaint about the NRTLs who are just doing their job. My experience in said matter with the NRTL has been great. I've run into something similar with patents and ink believe it or not. Mfr.'s are not really obligated to spell out exactly everything in something such as a patent, which I found surprising. What surprises me here is in the case of safety, where information is not disclosed. The NRTL didn't do cfm rating of the fan. In fact, there's really little no standard way to do cfm of fans. Thus, the reason why they allow similar fans within a mfr but not from another mfr. in some cases. So, I'm wondering some of the following: 1. Have any you ever run into something like this before? 2. If you have, what did you do about it? On and off line responses both welcome ... Regards, Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
FW: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
The lack of standardization in CFM test methods makes what you are trying to do very hard. The lack of correlation due to your real life design, with its particular vent aperture area and layout, backpressure, components restricting flow, etc is going to make this even tougher. You may well find that even within a given fan manufacturer's offerings you can't rely on CFM ratings alone. Differences in the number of blades and their design, RPM, direction of rotation, etc, may make one fan more immune to the details of your design than another. We have tested higher CFM rated fans that have our equipment running hotter than the lower CFM one we were hoping to replace. This is, in my opinion, an area where NRTL's allowance of substitutions based on a paper evaluation of ratings is inadequate. We always test. Regards, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Group Leader, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Markets web: www.xantrex.com http://www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will. Rich Nute wrote: Hi Doug: The issue for me is: What is the safety requirement that requires cfm (I presume a minimum cfm)? The issue is a Hazardous Energy ( 240va). The power output that feeds the board is above the limit. The fan itself is more of an issue of having a baseline with which to allow alternates to be used. If I can prove by way of fan company documenation that the fan is x cfm, then that's the basis for any other fan being used. The NRTLs do only construction review and locked rotor testing. Add to that a plastic housing (that's approved), and then add additional heat to the from the chip in case of fan failure and that does becomes a concern. But the issue with the fan is simply a baseline. So, I presume the safety requirement is that of temperature of the PWB. Without the fan, the PWB temperature would rise above the limit value specified in the standard. It's possible. For the purposes of safety, nobody cares whether the fan is effective at cooling the chip, or even if the chip gets so hot as to self-destruct. We are only concerned with the temperature of the PWB. Working with these data, I see a number of ways out of this predicament. 1. Control the fan by manufacturer's name and model number. The cfm is not necessary. We simply know by test that the cooling provided by this specific fan is sufficient to keep the PWB from exceeding the allowable limit. The mfr's p/n is not enough. 2. Control the fan by electrical ratings and physical size. The electrical ratings (power) are proportional to cfm. Good point, but again, it's the cfm as a baseline. Thanks for your input ... Regards, Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circuits
Hello Glenn, Two things complicate this question. One is specific to the U.K. In the UK all domestic and very many commercial and light industrial use a ring main for all socket outlets and therefore we do not have spurs with ratings. UK plugs have fuses in them because the protection on the ring main is much higher than the rating of the plugs. The second applies to all of Europe and conncerns fuses and other circuit protection. The rating of a UL rated fuse is more or less the current at which it blows. The rating of a fuse to IEC 127 (used throughout Europe) is more or less the working current of the fuse and the circuit it protects. Thus circuits are used right up to the full rating of fuse protecting them Nick Rouse - Original Message - From: Lesmeister, Glenn glenn.lesmeis...@compaq.com Subject: Products Electrical Ratings De-rated for Eurpoean Branch Circuits Does anyone know if it is common practice or otherwise required to de-rate products in Europe to 80% (or some other %) of the rating of the branch circuit as is done in the US? Some product standards (such as 61000-3-2) apply to products rated up to 16A, so it would appear that products can be rated up to the branch rating. If this is the case, would it be acceptable to exceed the rating by 110% (as allowed by 60950) and still be usable on that branch circuit? Regards, Glenn Lesmeister --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
Rich Nute wrote: Hi Doug: The issue for me is: What is the safety requirement that requires cfm (I presume a minimum cfm)? The issue is a Hazardous Energy ( 240va). The power output that feeds the board is above the limit. The fan itself is more of an issue of having a baseline with which to allow alternates to be used. If I can prove by way of fan company documenation that the fan is x cfm, then that's the basis for any other fan being used. The NRTLs do only construction review and locked rotor testing. Add to that a plastic housing (that's approved), and then add additional heat to the from the chip in case of fan failure and that does becomes a concern. But the issue with the fan is simply a baseline. So, I presume the safety requirement is that of temperature of the PWB. Without the fan, the PWB temperature would rise above the limit value specified in the standard. It's possible. For the purposes of safety, nobody cares whether the fan is effective at cooling the chip, or even if the chip gets so hot as to self-destruct. We are only concerned with the temperature of the PWB. Working with these data, I see a number of ways out of this predicament. 1. Control the fan by manufacturer's name and model number. The cfm is not necessary. We simply know by test that the cooling provided by this specific fan is sufficient to keep the PWB from exceeding the allowable limit. The mfr's p/n is not enough. 2. Control the fan by electrical ratings and physical size. The electrical ratings (power) are proportional to cfm. Good point, but again, it's the cfm as a baseline. Thanks for your input ... Regards, Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
