Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Someone else on this thread quoted chapter and verse from Title 47 of the US code stating that individuals who built their own ITE were not covered by Part 15 rules. Regardless of that, I find it hard to imagine the FCC going after any individual other than to make him fix an interference or shut off an interference source. This comment specifically aimed at incidental transmissions. it does not apply to the case of an individual intentionally transmitting rf energy at levels greater than allowed by law. -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com To: 'Ken Javor' ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com, 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001, 8:00 AM Ah, I see what you're saying. Point 7 was intended to say that a test should be performed if there was any doubt of a safety problem. I never intended to say that someone should market a product if they know that it will interfere with people's reception of radio or TV. Even I Love Lucy re-runs. I'll restate with a more clear example. Someone could buy a system with an FCC Class B computer, an FCC class B printer, an FCC class B keyboard and an FCC class B mouse only to find out that, by some freak of physics (a resonance condition ...) this system is now radiating at levels higher than class B and it is fouling up a neighbor's TV reception. In this case, the person would be required to fix the emissions, after the fact. I think we can all agree on this. The finer point of what I'm saying is: If this person was ever brought to the attention of the FCC, there would probably be no punitive action against him/her (other than correcting the emissions) because this person should be able to connect FCC approved equipment together, without performing a system level EMI test, with a reasonable assumption of conformity. But, if the person assembling this system had any knowledge beforehand that the emissions could cause a personal or public safety problem; I don't think the FCC would be so nice. It would have been more clear if I had never mentioned Lucy at all. Chris -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 6:08 PM To: Chris Maxwell; 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw I have no trouble with your checklist except #7. Like it or not, the FCC RE limits protect I Love Lucy broadcasts. More basically, the limits protect the broadcasters' market. If excess RE from consumer appliances interfere with reception in fringe areas, the broadcaster's customer base is reduced, which in turn reduces the value of advertising time that he can charge. You are literally putting him out of business, and he has a license to transmit and your appliance does not. -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FW: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2001, 2:59 PM Hi Ken, Come on guys, these flames are burning me :-) I'm just advocating sound engineering judgement. I understand that a user would have to take adequate measures if his/her appliance was messing up the neighbor's I Love Lucy reception. I understand that those adequate measures would include fixing the emissions or turning the unit off. The 120dB safety margin is there. We can't argue whether it is right or wrong. It's a fact.I agree that it would be wrong for anybody to abuse the safety margin and willfully produce a non-compliant product. One 911 that gets slammed by a non-compliant product would be too much. More to the point. I assume that you have a good enough background in EMC to make a sound judgement. (probably more so than I) What would you do with a product that you evaluated using my checklist? Would you have your company write the check for a re-test? Chris -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:21 PM To: Chris Maxwell; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw NO The 120 dB safety margin comment and point number 7 are self-consistent but consistently WRONG! If you screw up I Love Lucy reception, regardless of your subjective assessment of the nuisance value that represents, you are in violation of not only the philosophy of FCC emissions control, but also the verbiage attached to the FCC sticker that says regardless of measured compliance, if it causes interference, fix it or turn it off. I reiterate, the fact that your product could be out not 30 - 40% but 30 - 40 dB has no safety impact to a non-antenna connected receiver. But if it interferes with either I Love Lucy, or a cell phone calling in 911, you are violating the spirit
Re: IP xx
Amund, The answer to your question is somewhat tricky since you mention the product (radio/tele cabinet) and reference EN60950. The standard for audio/video equipment is IEC60065/EN60065. In a nutshell, this standard does not specify openings, but as long as the test probes cannot contact hazardous live parts you should be OK. As an example para 9.1.3 states that a test pin 4mm x 100mm shall not contact hazardous parts when suspended freely from one end as it is inserted into the openings. EN60950 (information technology equipment) states these requirements in para 4.3.14, 4.3.15, and 4.3.16. The general rule is 5mm max. or 1mm in width regardless of length. It is possible to have openings in excess of these limits if you use the 5 degree rule as stated in 4.3.16 only for side openings. As for IP requirements, EN60950 states them in para 1.1.2, and in Annex T, IEC60065/EN60065 states them in Annex A. The paragraphs for EN60950 may be slightly different than stated above since I happen to have an older version of the standard in front of me. Depending on the type of equipment you have either or both of the standards can apply. Refer to the scope of each standard for assistance. Regards, Ed From: am...@westin.org Reply-To: am...@westin.org To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: IP xx Date: 25 Jun 2001 09:25:41 - Hi all, Ventilation holes in a radio/tele cabinet, what are the maximum dimensions? According to EN60950, we cannot see any IP requirements? Any suggestions? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo, Norway -- Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su --- 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, Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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,"
RE: FIPS 140-1
FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS See following page for details... http://www.dice.ucl.ac.be/crypto/standards/fips/fips140-1/fips1401.htm Paul Hare e: ph...@pirus.com Compliance Engineer w: 978.206.9179 Pirus Networks f: 978.206.9199 43 Nagog Park c: 508.450.0376 Acton, MA 01720 i: www.pirus.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:05 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: FIPS 140-1 Dear All, Does anyone know what FIPS140-1 stand for? 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 --- 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: FIPS 140-1
Hi Peter FIPS 140-1 is a crypto standard. FIPS - Federal Information Processing Standard. pub 140-1 is security requirements for cryptographic modules. For more information look at; http://www.iae.nsk.su/pages/CRYPTO/welcome.html best regards, -chris Brearley -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:05 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: FIPS 140-1 Dear All, Does anyone know what FIPS140-1 stand for? 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 --- 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 ?
Its exactly the in-rush current they are worried about. Unfortunately, I don't have the standard for the connectors so I can't tell you what the test scenario is, but I would agree that depending on the reactance of the load the inrush current could vary significantly. If the test is done on the finally sample then it is inserted 50 times and the connectors are inspected, but again I don't know the parameters for a standalone component test. Gary -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 4:58 AM To: 'Tania Grant'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ? I'm curious... How is in-rush current handled for these connectors? Seems like it would be somewhat easy to specify that a connector is good for hot swapping a device that draws X Amps of current. It's the in-rush that would be hard to quantify. One device that draws X Amps of current could draw 2X in-rush current, while another device that draws X Amps of current could draw 50X in-rush current. I have seen instances where large in-rush currents can burn connector contacts or even weld relay contacts together. Are the connectors rated for steady state only? Are they rated for steady state and maximum in-rush? If they are rated for steady state, is a maximum in-rush assumed? Or, alternatively are the power supplies already required to be in-rush limited. I know curiosity killed the cat, but it also improved its quality of life. Chris -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [SMTP:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 1:59 AM To: Gary McInturff; 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ? Gary, and all, In my experience, the only sure way is to request the UL Report and read the Conditions of Acceptability very carefully, as well as the connector rating. I have seen connectors derated by UL and the company never changed their spec sheets or catalog (well, maybe now, after 7 years, they have changed them!).Also, some companies are sloppy with their specifications;-- not every connector or pin is rated for current interruption even while their page seems to imply that the whole series is so rated. Guess what, just a handful are rated for current interruption. My best advise is, if you like what you see, call the manufacturer and pin them down. Then, when they tell you which parts are rated for current interruption, and you still like what you see, then you have them send you the UL report. Absolutely required, or you may be sorry. (You guys don't want to hear another story how I was almost sorry, but because of sheer luck managed to stumble on the fact that the connector that was being designed in was NOT rated for current interruption. I emerged a hero, but I was quacking in my sandals how close I came to blowing the whole thing!) Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com mailto:taniagr...@msn.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,
Ready Made Connecting Devices
What are the chances of ready made connecting devices remaining in the EMCD 2000 as defined (i.e., cables et al)? If testing (CE marking) is required, are there existing standards/test methods that will cover these devices? Or will the TCF route be required? Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 --- 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,
Bluetooth-IEEE802.11 interference potential
The website that contains one opinion on this problem has surfaced at www.wireless-nets.com/whitepaper_interference.htm Other links from there are quite productive. Ralph Cameron EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Elecrtonics (After sale)
Re: FIPS 140-1
Peter, FIPS are (United States) _F_ederal _I_nformation _P_rocessing _S_tandards I found information about 140-1 at http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/140-1.htm There are also test requirements at http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/140-1.htm It appears to deal with Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules Regards, Michael Garretson Compliance Engineering Manager RadiSys Corporation +1 503 615-1227 Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il To: \EMC-PSTC (E-mail)\ Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordom Subject: FIPS 140-1 o.ieee.org 06/25/01 04:04 AM Please respond to Peter Merguerian Dear All, Does anyone know what FIPS140-1 stand for? 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 --- 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? - Outlaw
Ah, I see what you're saying. Point 7 was intended to say that a test should be performed if there was any doubt of a safety problem. I never intended to say that someone should market a product if they know that it will interfere with people's reception of radio or TV. Even I Love Lucy re-runs. I'll restate with a more clear example. Someone could buy a system with an FCC Class B computer, an FCC class B printer, an FCC class B keyboard and an FCC class B mouse only to find out that, by some freak of physics (a resonance condition ...) this system is now radiating at levels higher than class B and it is fouling up a neighbor's TV reception. In this case, the person would be required to fix the emissions, after the fact. I think we can all agree on this. The finer point of what I'm saying is: If this person was ever brought to the attention of the FCC, there would probably be no punitive action against him/her (other than correcting the emissions) because this person should be able to connect FCC approved equipment together, without performing a system level EMI test, with a reasonable assumption of conformity. But, if the person assembling this system had any knowledge beforehand that the emissions could cause a personal or public safety problem; I don't think the FCC would be so nice. It would have been more clear if I had never mentioned Lucy at all. Chris -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 6:08 PM To: Chris Maxwell; 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw I have no trouble with your checklist except #7. Like it or not, the FCC RE limits protect I Love Lucy broadcasts. More basically, the limits protect the broadcasters' market. If excess RE from consumer appliances interfere with reception in fringe areas, the broadcaster's customer base is reduced, which in turn reduces the value of advertising time that he can charge. You are literally putting him out of business, and he has a license to transmit and your appliance does not. -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FW: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2001, 2:59 PM Hi Ken, Come on guys, these flames are burning me :-) I'm just advocating sound engineering judgement. I understand that a user would have to take adequate measures if his/her appliance was messing up the neighbor's I Love Lucy reception. I understand that those adequate measures would include fixing the emissions or turning the unit off. The 120dB safety margin is there. We can't argue whether it is right or wrong. It's a fact.I agree that it would be wrong for anybody to abuse the safety margin and willfully produce a non-compliant product. One 911 that gets slammed by a non-compliant product would be too much. More to the point. I assume that you have a good enough background in EMC to make a sound judgement. (probably more so than I) What would you do with a product that you evaluated using my checklist? Would you have your company write the check for a re-test? Chris -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:21 PM To: Chris Maxwell; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw NO The 120 dB safety margin comment and point number 7 are self-consistent but consistently WRONG! If you screw up I Love Lucy reception, regardless of your subjective assessment of the nuisance value that represents, you are in violation of not only the philosophy of FCC emissions control, but also the verbiage attached to the FCC sticker that says regardless of measured compliance, if it causes interference, fix it or turn it off. I reiterate, the fact that your product could be out not 30 - 40% but 30 - 40 dB has no safety impact to a non-antenna connected receiver. But if it interferes with either I Love Lucy, or a cell phone calling in 911, you are violating the spirit and letter of the law. --- 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
RE: FIPS 140-1
NIST issued FIPS(Federal Information Processing Standard) 140-2 (which supersedes FIPS 140-1); The Title of the subject Standard is Security requirements for Cryptographic Modules; It was issued in 1999. Respectfully yours, Constantin Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng. DIGITAL SECURITY CONTROLS LTD. 3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2 CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA e-mail: bolin...@dscltd.com telephone: 905 760 3000 ext 2568 Visit our web site at www.dscgrp.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:05 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: FIPS 140-1 Dear All, Does anyone know what FIPS140-1 stand for? 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 --- 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: IP xx
20010625092541.11710.qm...@www1.nameplanet.com, am...@westin.org inimitably wrote: Ventilation holes in a radio/tele cabinet, what are the maximum dimensions? According to EN60950, we cannot see any IP requirements? You are applying the wrong standard! Radio and television come under EN60065. If you are making products that a safety standard applies to, you MUST have a copy of the standard. If you do not, it would be obvious to the authorities that you had no idea whether you were making a safe product or not. The requirements are not expressed as an IP rating. -- 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: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ?
I'm curious... How is in-rush current handled for these connectors? Seems like it would be somewhat easy to specify that a connector is good for hot swapping a device that draws X Amps of current. It's the in-rush that would be hard to quantify. One device that draws X Amps of current could draw 2X in-rush current, while another device that draws X Amps of current could draw 50X in-rush current. I have seen instances where large in-rush currents can burn connector contacts or even weld relay contacts together. Are the connectors rated for steady state only? Are they rated for steady state and maximum in-rush? If they are rated for steady state, is a maximum in-rush assumed? Or, alternatively are the power supplies already required to be in-rush limited. I know curiosity killed the cat, but it also improved its quality of life. Chris -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [SMTP:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 1:59 AM To: Gary McInturff; 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ? Gary, and all, In my experience, the only sure way is to request the UL Report and read the Conditions of Acceptability very carefully, as well as the connector rating. I have seen connectors derated by UL and the company never changed their spec sheets or catalog (well, maybe now, after 7 years, they have changed them!).Also, some companies are sloppy with their specifications;-- not every connector or pin is rated for current interruption even while their page seems to imply that the whole series is so rated. Guess what, just a handful are rated for current interruption. My best advise is, if you like what you see, call the manufacturer and pin them down. Then, when they tell you which parts are rated for current interruption, and you still like what you see, then you have them send you the UL report. Absolutely required, or you may be sorry. (You guys don't want to hear another story how I was almost sorry, but because of sheer luck managed to stumble on the fact that the connector that was being designed in was NOT rated for current interruption. I emerged a hero, but I was quacking in my sandals how close I came to blowing the whole thing!) Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com mailto:taniagr...@msn.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,
FIPS 140-1
Dear All, Does anyone know what FIPS140-1 stand for? 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 --- 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,
IP xx
Hi all, Ventilation holes in a radio/tele cabinet, what are the maximum dimensions? According to EN60950, we cannot see any IP requirements? Any suggestions? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo, Norway -- Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su --- 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,
