Portable Battery Standard Development Announcement
Folks, With the indulgence of the list-server administrators (many thanks) and a bit beyond the usual safety/emc (and Friday humor) subject matter, please be advised of a standard development effort recently kicked off by the IEEE, sponsored by Stationary Batteries Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society. The standard underway, IEEE P1625, Standard for Rechargeable Batteries for Portable Computers, will help guide how battery systems are developed to support mobile computing applications and will focus on system management and control, battery pack communications, energy density and reliability. The standard anticipates smarter battery system designs, including self-monitored charge, discharge and environmental conditions. It will also address redundant protections needed to assure system reliability. More information is available at the IEEE link below. http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/p1625lapbat.html Interested parties with portable battery expertise are invited to inquire and to join in this effort. Inquiries should be placed as directed within the press release (see the link above) or alternatively inquiries can be sent directly to myself at kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com without reply to the emc-pstc list server. Many Thanks, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Sr. Regulatory Engineer Dell Computer Corporation Tel. 512-725-3703 Fax 512-728-5278 Pager 877-345-7679 Send a Text Page via e-mail: 8773457...@archwireless.net Send a text page via Web: http://www.mobilecomm.net/cgi-bin/wwwpreproc.exe?PIN=8773457679 --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: A call for help /or recommendation/s
Hello Naftali, You might be able to find this type of outdoor transformer under the category of 'Swimming pool and spa transformers'. The primary rating is 120 volts and the maximum secondary ratings are 15 volts RMS and 1 KVA. The transformers are provided with integral overcurrent protection. They are provided with a power supply cord or have provisions for conduit connection to the branch circuit supply. Transformers not provided with a power supply cord are provided with leads or with studs or terminal pads to which listed pressure wire connectors can be factory or field installed to accommodate field wiring. Wire binding screws or studs with cupped washers are to be used for copper wire 10 awg max. ACME ELECTRIC CORP POWER DISTRIBUTION PRODUCTS DIV AQUADYNE MFG CO GENLYTE GROUP INC Guide Information INTERMATIC INC JEFFERSON ELECTRIC INC MDL CORP QTRAN INC TYCO ELECTRONICS/AREA LIGHTING RESEARCH INC -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:37 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: A call for help /or recommendation/s List members, For one of our applications, we have a need for an off-the-shelf an AC transformer (input: 120 Volts, 60 Hz, NEMA 5-15 plug, may consider NEMA 1-15. Output: 6 - 30 Volts, screw-on terminals, may consider flying leads) that can operate over industrial temperature ranges (-40 to +85 Centigrade) for weather protected, outdoor use. Commercial temperature (0 to +70 Centigrade) units that are cheap and readily available do the job (we tested a few), but are not safety rated over our required temperature range. Question: are you aware of anyone, anywhere, making such a wall-wart to the industrial temperature range? If yes, please share with us. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com http://www.catena.com ) 307 Legget Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 613.599.6430/866.2CATENA (X.8277); C 295.7042; F 599.0445 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com mailto:nsh...@catena.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Value of Using Non-NRTL Engineering Firms?
Hi Chris: OSHA rules apply to employers. OSHA electrical rules require employers (1) to use only electrical products that have been certified by an NRTL, or (2) in the case of custom products, to test the product in place. If you sell a non-NRTL-certified custom product to an employer who is subject to OSHA rules, then that employer must test the product in place, and file a suitable record of the testing. Few employers choose the test-in-place alternative. A listing by a non-NRTL is useless to an employer subject to OSHA rules. He can't use it for proof that the product meets OSHA rules. At the employer's discretion, you may be able to convince the employer (your customer) that your listing test report will provide a suitable record of testing to OSHA requirements. See OSHA rules, Sub-part S for complete treatment on OSHA electrical rules. See especially 1910.303(a) Approval and the respective definitions. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_level=1p_part_number=1910p_text_version=FALSE Statement: Non-NRTL laboratories can provide Listings and publish the customers (thus Listing) however, based OSHA law, NEC requirements, Retailer specification, and other MOU/MRA with Canada/EU, it would not seem to be a significant accomplishment if not an NRTL. Except for NEC, I would agree with this statement. Best regards, Rich --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: VSWR FROM ATTACHED DATA
I read in !emc-pstc that Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com wrote (in b78135310217d511907c0090273f5190d0b...@curly.ds.cubic.com) about 'VSWR FROM ATTACHED DATA' on Tue, 29 Oct 2002: Ohms (output port shorted or open). Now, I'll assume that the driving RF generator had a source impedance of 50 Ohms. First, you can find the reflection coefficient, r, from: r = [(Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo)] Where the source impedance, Zo, is 50 Ohms, and the load impedance (the CDN reported data) is 130 Ohms, then: r = 0. Then, you can find the VSWR from: VSWR = [(1 + r)/(1 - r)] So, the VSWR at 150 kHz is 2.6! All that should be explained in your lab's #2108 Test Procedure. Well, it may be, but I hope that it might adopt a simpler approach. Your two equations appear to lead, after a small amount of algebra, to VSWR = Z1/Zo, and that is consistent with your numerical result. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry
Hi Paul, Take a look at ISO 7637-1 for 12V systems and -2 for 24V vehicles. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Denomme, Paul S. Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:16 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry Hi All, Can someone please inform me of the standards RFI/EMI standards that are required in the automitive industry. This would be for a microprocessor controlled item that is part of the vehicle. My customer stated that EMI/RFI specifications are Standard Automotive. What I am trying to figure out is what is Standard Automotive EMI/RFI requirements. Thank you for your help. Paul Denomme Viasystems --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
I presented a long paper related to this subject about field-to-wire coupling in the commercial and military arenas, which really translates into building vs. vehicle installation, which in turn means electrically how close and how well-defined is the ground plane. Here is the reference: On Field-To-Wire Coupling Versus Conducted Injection Techniques,1997 IEEE EMC Symposium Record. Austin, Texas -- From: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, m.bushn...@ieee.org, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 9:40 AM Thanks Ken, Yes, 25 dBuV/m not 25 uV/m. I also found the test set up rather strange. Certainly not consistent with CISPR but then the aircraft environment is entirely different than most other equipment installations. I agree, this makes it hard to compare to CISPR testing. We may have over simplified the requirements for aircraft installations. I will take another look at this. Any other information would be very helpful to the IEC working group. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:16 AM To: Jim Conrad; m.bushn...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad Subject: Re: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I think you mean 25 dBuV/m, but regardless of the number, it is not a direct comparison to CISPR because a) the DO-160 EUT-antenna separation is 1 meter, not 3 or 10 meters, and b) the test is performed without an antenna height search, and c) the EUT is fastened to a metallic ground plane, and EUT-attached cables are mounted directly above the ground plane, which reduces emissions relative to a CISPR test set up. -- From: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net To: m.bushn...@ieee.org, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 6:48 AM I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process of amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft environment. We have based our requirements on the environment specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE are higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you find anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of m.bushn...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From:
A call for help /or recommendation/s
List members, For one of our applications, we have a need for an off-the-shelf an AC transformer (input: 120 Volts, 60 Hz, NEMA 5-15 plug, may consider NEMA 1-15. Output: 6 - 30 Volts, screw-on terminals, may consider flying leads) that can operate over industrial temperature ranges (-40 to +85 Centigrade) for weather protected, outdoor use. Commercial temperature (0 to +70 Centigrade) units that are cheap and readily available do the job (we tested a few), but are not safety rated over our required temperature range. Question: are you aware of anyone, anywhere, making such a wall-wart to the industrial temperature range? If yes, please share with us. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com http://www.catena.com ) 307 Legget Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 613.599.6430/866.2CATENA (X.8277); C 295.7042; F 599.0445 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com mailto:nsh...@catena.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry
I believe your customer is referring to SAE-J551. -- From: Denomme, Paul S. paul.deno...@viasystems.com To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 8:15 AM Hi All, Can someone please inform me of the standards RFI/EMI standards that are required in the automitive industry. This would be for a microprocessor controlled item that is part of the vehicle. My customer stated that EMI/RFI specifications are Standard Automotive. What I am trying to figure out is what is Standard Automotive EMI/RFI requirements. Thank you for your help. Paul Denomme Viasystems --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: VSWR FROM ATTACHED DATA
-Original Message- From: Gordon,Ian [mailto:ian.gor...@edwards.boc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:25 AM To: 'IEEE EMC SAFETY PSTC' Subject: VSWR FROM ATTACHED DATA People You may remember that you helped me a few weeks ago with VRC/VSWR assessments. As part of the same work I am attempting to assign a VRC/VSWR for a coupling de-coupling device (CDN) but have not been able to get a typical value from the manufacturer of the device. However, I have been sent the attached data. Are you able to help again by telling me how to calculate the VSWR or VRC from this data? Thanks Ian Gordon Ian: You could calculate the VSWR in two step from the data you have. For instance, at 150 kHz, the reported input impedance of the CDN was about 130 Ohms (output port shorted or open). Now, I'll assume that the driving RF generator had a source impedance of 50 Ohms. First, you can find the reflection coefficient, r, from: r = [(Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo)] Where the source impedance, Zo, is 50 Ohms, and the load impedance (the CDN reported data) is 130 Ohms, then: r = 0. Then, you can find the VSWR from: VSWR = [(1 + r)/(1 - r)] So, the VSWR at 150 kHz is 2.6! All that should be explained in your lab's #2108 Test Procedure. 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 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
Thanks Ken, Yes, 25 dBuV/m not 25 uV/m. I also found the test set up rather strange. Certainly not consistent with CISPR but then the aircraft environment is entirely different than most other equipment installations. I agree, this makes it hard to compare to CISPR testing. We may have over simplified the requirements for aircraft installations. I will take another look at this. Any other information would be very helpful to the IEC working group. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:16 AM To: Jim Conrad; m.bushn...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad Subject: Re: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I think you mean 25 dBuV/m, but regardless of the number, it is not a direct comparison to CISPR because a) the DO-160 EUT-antenna separation is 1 meter, not 3 or 10 meters, and b) the test is performed without an antenna height search, and c) the EUT is fastened to a metallic ground plane, and EUT-attached cables are mounted directly above the ground plane, which reduces emissions relative to a CISPR test set up. -- From: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net To: m.bushn...@ieee.org, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 6:48 AM I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process of amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft environment. We have based our requirements on the environment specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE are higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you find anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of m.bushn...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] Reply To: Ron Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM To: EMC Subject:RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard. Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this document contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the same specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our
What's the latest with Ni-Cad Batteries?
Greetings all, One of our Engineering Teams wants to use a NiCad battery pack in an upcoming product (laboratory instrument). I'm suppose to become an expert on Worldwide Environmental Impact of NiCad batteries in 24 hours so I can give a report in a meeting (haven't we all been there before?). We have never used NiCad batteries in the past so we know very little. Searching the Internet I can tell there is a lot of debate in Europe over banning of NiCads. Would some knowledgeable battery expert out there be able to give me the current and near future situation regarding the use of rechargeable batteries, NiCads and other, for Europe and North America? Things that come to mind are construction, ease of removal, recycling, safety, labeling, documentation, shipping restrictions, disposal, etc.. Thanks to all, Brian Kunde LECO Corp. --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Standards for LED Color/Wavelength
I am on a search for a standard or standards which describe LED Color versus Wavelength (i.e. X color Red = X wavelength). Does anyone know of any standards that describe LED Color versus Wavelength or where I should look? Thanks, Don MacArthur --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry
-Original Message- From: Denomme, Paul S. [mailto:paul.deno...@viasystems.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 6:16 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry Hi All, Can someone please inform me of the standards RFI/EMI standards that are required in the automitive industry. This would be for a microprocessor controlled item that is part of the vehicle. My customer stated that EMI/RFI specifications are Standard Automotive. What I am trying to figure out is what is Standard Automotive EMI/RFI requirements. Thank you for your help. Paul Denomme Viasystems Paul: I'm often confused by these types of problems. I usually ask my customer what the specific standards are, and, if I never heard of documents, can they give me a copy. It gets really strange when my customer has to admit that they don't know either, and will get back to me after they ask THEIR customer. I like to think that it helps to build a better relationship with my customer if I admit right away that I don't know what the heck he's asking for. 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 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry
Hi All, Can someone please inform me of the standards RFI/EMI standards that are required in the automitive industry. This would be for a microprocessor controlled item that is part of the vehicle. My customer stated that EMI/RFI specifications are Standard Automotive. What I am trying to figure out is what is Standard Automotive EMI/RFI requirements. Thank you for your help. Paul Denomme Viasystems --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Layered Reinforced Insulation
Richard, From UL's database, the CL3P cable is a Power Limited Cable - Indicates cable intended for use in Class 2 or Class 3 circuits within buildings in ducts or plenums or other spaces used for environmental air in accordance with Section 725.61(A) of the NEC. This cable exhibits a maximum peak optical density of 0.5 a maximum average optical density of 0.15, and a maximum flame spread distance of 5 ft, when tested per NFPA 262, Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air-Handling Spaces. If the use of this cable is for Class 2 and Class 3 circuits, then per the NEC maximum allowed voltage is 150 V. Assuming your circuit was Limited Current (see 2.4 of 60950), there is no need for the reinforced insulation requirements since the hazardous circuit becomes a Limited Current Circuit. All the Best, This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. 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 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 7:48 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Layered Reinforced Insulation OK, I'll get more specific. I have an external interconnecting cable that contains hazardous voltages. Because of the application, in the USA I must use UL Listed CL3P cable which is rated for use in risers and air handling spaces (smoke requirements of the National Electrical Code). The insulation system of a standard CL3P cable consists of the wire insulation and external jacket, and the sum thickness is 0.4 mm. It is not clear that the insulation parts are constructed of the same material. I must determine if the cable complies with the reinforced insulation requirements of UL60950/EN60950, or if I need to have a special cable constructed. Someone mentioned that the two insulations must be the same material in order for the system to be classified as reinforced. I cannot find that requirement in the standard. Nor can I find any statement that says that a two part insulation system must consider one part to be basic insulation and the other part to be supplementary insulation. Frankly, I can find nothing in the standard that indicates why the particular construction of this cable is not allowed to be considered as reinforced insulation. The only issue at hand, it appears, is that it must be shown that the insulation is mechanically durable in the intended application. That is where I rely upon the the UL Listing - they seem to believe that it is perfectly acceptable for a 300V interconnection application - at least the kind that my equipment will employ. Your comments would be appreciated. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Layered Reinforced Insulation
I too have had some struggles with this concept. I now tend to think of Basic, Reinforced and Double more in terms of an insulation strength as opposed to an actual material. For instance, Double insulation can be provided by a properly set and maintained distance through air, i.e no material at all. You could also call this a Reinforced insulation, since it is made up of one layer of air reinforced by more air. Of course, there are certain rules that the standards apply if you do use an actual insulator to provide Basic, Reinforced and/or Double insulation. These rules mostly dictate that: a. The insulation be strong enough to provide the required insulation strength. b. The insulation can withstand the temperatures to be expected in the product. c. The insulation is thick enough or constructed with enough layers to prevent an accidental breach from either a pinhole or a void. d. The insulation won't change its properties in the presence of humidity. (No plywood insulation!!! :-) ) e. The insulation won't wear off, crack, peel or abrade under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. What I'm saying is...call the insulation whatever you want. Just make sure that it works. Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process of amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft environment. We have based our requirements on the environment specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE are higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you find anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of m.bushn...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] Reply To: Ron Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM To: EMC Subject:RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard. Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this document contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the same specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
VSWR FROM ATTACHED DATA
People You may remember that you helped me a few weeks ago with VRC/VSWR assessments. As part of the same work I am attempting to assign a VRC/VSWR for a coupling de-coupling device (CDN) but have not been able to get a typical value from the manufacturer of the device. However, I have been sent the attached data. Are you able to help again by telling me how to calculate the VSWR or VRC from this data? Thanks Ian Gordon _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.com CDNM525.doc Description: MS-Word document
Re: Battery compartment ventilation rates.
Garry, When I did a similar test some time ago, also with helium, I used a non- electrochemical oxygen sensor (details on request) to monitor the amount of air that had re-entered the battery enclosure rather than the helium left. The setup worked well if I remember correctly. Best regards Ian D Unwin This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Battery compartment ventilation rates.
Just back from vacation (damn it) and need to look into measuring the hydrogen ventilation capability of a battery compartment. Seems pretty straightforward, and Helium can be used in place of hydrogen. Anybody have a source for sensors. I'm kind of hoping I can find something that would have an output compatible with some of the current data loggers. In other words generate a known voltage from a sensed level of Helium. Thanks Gary --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
