RE: Self Oscillating Flyback Converters

[boconnell]

Look at websites for companies that make SMPS controller ICs; e.g. Cherry,
TI/Unitrode, etc.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Fred Waechter [mailto:w...@skybest.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:28 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Self Oscillating Flyback Converters




Hi All,

Does anyone out there know of a good source for theory of operation and
design of self-oscillating flyback converters? Particularly the variable
"on" time, "off" time, variable frequency types, also referred to as RCC
circuits.

Thanks,

Fred Waechter
SMPS Consulting

Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089

[Ted Rook]

I'm not an expert on GR1089 but I think that your interpretation should include 
careful consideration of what constitutes damage.

The operation of a fuse or a circuit breaker is not damage.
That is normal operation.
What the specification is seeking to eliminate is overheating, explosion, loss 
of insulating properties, improper sizing of conductors and improper sizing of 
connections, all of which may give rise to damage under short circuit 
conditions.
If the fuse blows and the fuseholder bursts into flames then that is a problem.
If the fuse blows and everything fails safe, and normal operation can be 
restored by replacement of a fuse then no hazardous condition has been created.

Does this help?

Best Regards

Ted Rook, Console Engineering, ext 4659

Please note our new location and phone numbers:

Crest Audio Inc, 16-00 Pollitt Drive
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 USA

201 475 4600 telephone receptionist, 8.30 - 5 pm EST.
201 475 4659 direct line w/voice mail, 24 hrs.
201 475 4677 fax, 24 hrs.



---
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"

Product Safety Engineer Position

[Cereceres, David]

Hello Group,
My company Pelco a leading CCTV manufacturer located in California's Central
San Joaquin Valley is in search of a Product Safety Engineer. This
individual should be familiar with IEC 60950 and IEC 60065 and their UL
counterparts. Any interested parties please contact me offline for further
discussion. 

Thank you,
David Cereceres
Product Safety Engineer
Pelco
800-289-9100 ext. 3493
mailto:dcerece...@pelco.com  
http://www.pelco.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: Ferrite clamps

[Gert Gremmen]

Ghery,

You are right. The parameters for S11 and ferrite are widely
varying and probably that is why no specifications were made up.
However, most ferrites do behave in the area around 75-300 ohms
so a 100 % tolerance (SWR < 1:2) may be achieved.
This needs investigations of course. I think that using
current transformer techniques in the early stage of
the clamp and suitable load resistors the S11 may be controlled, however.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen
ce-test, qualified testing
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

http://www.ce-test.nl

-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: maandag 25 november 2002 22:33
To: 'Gert Gremmen'; Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gert,

A flat 150 ohms from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz is not realistic.  Have you measured
S11 for a clamp over that range?  We did such measurements several years ago
while A1:2000 was still under discussion and found a far higher value for
typically available clamps down near 30 MHz.  I agree with the idea of
adding a specification for S11, however.  It would improve repeatability
between different clamps.

Ghery Pettit, NCE


-Original Message-
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:00 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; 'Pettit, Ghery'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


The test requirements for these ferrite clamps are part of
an amendment for CISPR16-1. The amendment is in
the stage of committee draft (CD) so very early. (CISPR/A/424/CD)
Basically the troughput losses are measured.
I have suggested the NL committee to add input CM-impedance
(S11) (150 ohm +/- xxx %) as a requirement for the calibration of these
devices.

The current proposition requires more then 15 dB of loss between
30 Mhz and 1000 Mhz.


Regards,

Gert Gremmen
ce-test, qualified testing
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

http://www.ce-test.nl

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Conway, Patrick R
Sent: maandag 25 november 2002 17:44
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Gherry-
Thanks for the response.  I was very interested in knowing what the
responses were at the committee level to those basic questions.  From your
report it seems the basics of "non-interference" were brought up but other
factors weighed heavier in the argument.


If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I
think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000.  But since I work for
neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get
non-interfering product to market.


But, as you say- these points are no longer important.  The DOW
approaches.  So- now I have to go buy some clamps.



Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps?
Anyone started using these in their testing yet?


Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Patrick,

You make a number of valid points.  They are, however, mute.  A1:2000 to
CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the world.
As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform
radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a substantial
cost impact on the ITE industry.

The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between labs.
The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the
discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect.  We're stuck with them, for
better or worse.  We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate testing.
The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the
clamps will cause.  I have personally pointed that out to them in meetings.
We'll see what happens.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the "noise" generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have bee

Re: Ferrite clamps

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Walter Anderson  wrote (in
) about 'Ferrite clamps' on Mon, 25 Nov 2002:
>Fisher Custom Communications
>P/N F-201-DCN-xxmm
>BW: 30 - 1000MHz
> 
> 
> 
>Walter J. Anderson
>EMC Regulatory Engineer
>Symbol Technologies
>One Symbol Plaza
>Technical Services  MS:B4
>Holtsville, NY 11742
>631 738 4492

You posted 15 K of text and HTML just for those few lines!
-- 
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: Ferrite clamps

[Pettit, Ghery]

Gert,

A flat 150 ohms from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz is not realistic.  Have you measured
S11 for a clamp over that range?  We did such measurements several years ago
while A1:2000 was still under discussion and found a far higher value for
typically available clamps down near 30 MHz.  I agree with the idea of
adding a specification for S11, however.  It would improve repeatability
between different clamps.

Ghery Pettit, NCE


-Original Message-
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:00 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; 'Pettit, Ghery'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


The test requirements for these ferrite clamps are part of
an amendment for CISPR16-1. The amendment is in
the stage of committee draft (CD) so very early. (CISPR/A/424/CD)
Basically the troughput losses are measured.
I have suggested the NL committee to add input CM-impedance
(S11) (150 ohm +/- xxx %) as a requirement for the calibration of these
devices.

The current proposition requires more then 15 dB of loss between
30 Mhz and 1000 Mhz.


Regards,

Gert Gremmen
ce-test, qualified testing
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

http://www.ce-test.nl

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Conway, Patrick R
Sent: maandag 25 november 2002 17:44
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Gherry-
Thanks for the response.  I was very interested in knowing what the
responses were at the committee level to those basic questions.  From your
report it seems the basics of "non-interference" were brought up but other
factors weighed heavier in the argument.


If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I
think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000.  But since I work for
neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get
non-interfering product to market.


But, as you say- these points are no longer important.  The DOW
approaches.  So- now I have to go buy some clamps.



Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps?
Anyone started using these in their testing yet?


Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Patrick,

You make a number of valid points.  They are, however, mute.  A1:2000 to
CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the world.
As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform
radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a substantial
cost impact on the ITE industry.

The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between labs.
The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the
discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect.  We're stuck with them, for
better or worse.  We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate testing.
The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the
clamps will cause.  I have personally pointed that out to them in meetings.
We'll see what happens.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the "noise" generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking:
"if it isn't broke, why fix it" (my words, not theirs!!).


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agr

LISN specifications update

[Gert Gremmen]

As a result of a cyclic maintenance report for CISPR 16-1,
CISPR/A has proposed that in order to
estimate measurement inaccuracies of conducted emissions
the specification of LISNS need modification.

Until now only the absolute impedance value of
the EUT input was to be maintained at 50 Ohms/50 uH.

In order to limit measurement errors due to phase shifts
a measurement uncertainty circle around the wanted impedance curve
(complex ) has been defined. To facilitate measurements
this has been translated into a phase deviation only of
+/- 11.54 degrees from the theoretical LISN impedance
curve.( and +/- 20% of magnitude)

A well designed LISN should comply to this (if it was build
using 50 Ohms and 50 uH), but as the required absolute impedance
curve may be constructed using C's also, there is no certainty
about the phase shift of such an unknown LISN.

Additonal parameters to be measured are:

- Specify attenuation from mains supply to EUT port (40 dB 40 KHz - 30 Mhz)

And to improve accuracy while measuring:

- add an attenuator at your receiver input to bring load impedance closer to
50 ohms
(this is relevant only at the highest sensitivity position i.g. 0 dB
attenuation)

Currently this is a proposition only (CISPR A 413 CD), but chances are not
too
bad that it will be accepted.

The estimation of measurement errors (and the control of them) is a
consequence
of quality demands by laboratory recognition authorities esp. due to the
new standard for Laboratories ISO 17025 (i believe).


Regards,

Gert Gremmen
ce-test, qualified testing
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

http://www.ce-test.nl



---
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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089

[JEFF WHITMIRE]

Joe,

I was going to suggest that you look into Issue 3 of GR-1089, but you have been 
given the basics.  I would suggest anyone who has to live with this standard, 
get the new issue and spend a day or so to really look it over in detail.  
There was a great deal of work put into clarifying intent of these
requirements, as well as many others.  It should be available from Telcordia 
now.

Jeff Whitmire

usual disclaimers - comments are mine but may not be my employers





---
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"

Self Oscillating Flyback Converters

[Fred Waechter]

Hi All,

Does anyone out there know of a good source for theory of operation and
design of self-oscillating flyback converters? Particularly the variable
"on" time, "off" time, variable frequency types, also referred to as RCC
circuits.

Thanks,

Fred Waechter
SMPS Consulting



---
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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089

[Jon Curtis]

This was resolved a couple of NEBS conferences ago.  All the main RBOCs 
were present and they agreed that a fuse was a special case.  The fuse 
is designed to open, therefore operation of the fuse is normal and allowed.


This may be a semantic strech, but that's where the current NEBS 
interpretation lies.


All other parts of the board must remain "undamaged".  The "no fire 
hazard" is a significant weakening of the general interpretation and 
probably represents aggressive engineering judgement.


Jon.

j...@aol.com wrote:


Hello All:

I am hoping that some of you can help clarify the intent of requirement R9-20 
in Telcordia GR-1089.  Taken literally, the requirement says that there shall 
be no damage to equipment, conductors, or components when the DC power supply 
is shorted at the load.  This could even be interpreted to preclude the use 
of a fuse that has to be replaced.


One test lab has told me that as long as no fire hazard is created from this 
test, it is considered to have been passed.  Needless to say, this differs a 
bit from the literal interpretation.


I guess it would help if I had a better feel for the overall goal of the 
short circuit testing.  Any insight on this would be most appreciated.



Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848
http://www.randolph-telecom.com


 

RE: Ferrite clamps

[Gert Gremmen]

The test requirements for these ferrite clamps are part of
an amendment for CISPR16-1. The amendment is in
the stage of committee draft (CD) so very early. (CISPR/A/424/CD)
Basically the troughput losses are measured.
I have suggested the NL committee to add input CM-impedance
(S11) (150 ohm +/- xxx %) as a requirement for the calibration of these
devices.

The current proposition requires more then 15 dB of loss between
30 Mhz and 1000 Mhz.


Regards,

Gert Gremmen
ce-test, qualified testing
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

http://www.ce-test.nl

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Conway, Patrick R
Sent: maandag 25 november 2002 17:44
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Gherry-
Thanks for the response.  I was very interested in knowing what the
responses were at the committee level to those basic questions.  From your
report it seems the basics of "non-interference" were brought up but other
factors weighed heavier in the argument.


If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I
think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000.  But since I work for
neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get
non-interfering product to market.


But, as you say- these points are no longer important.  The DOW
approaches.  So- now I have to go buy some clamps.



Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps?
Anyone started using these in their testing yet?


Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Patrick,

You make a number of valid points.  They are, however, mute.  A1:2000 to
CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the world.
As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform
radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a substantial
cost impact on the ITE industry.

The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between labs.
The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the
discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect.  We're stuck with them, for
better or worse.  We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate testing.
The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the
clamps will cause.  I have personally pointed that out to them in meetings.
We'll see what happens.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the "noise" generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking:
"if it isn't broke, why fix it" (my words, not theirs!!).


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agreeable measurements with another lab.  It's good business for him to say
he can agree with any one else.  However- if the foundation for the rules is
to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community)
a little off-base on this one ?


Maybe I'm missing some important details here.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong...



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE

EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Su

Re: DC Input Power Conducted Emissions

[Ron Pickard]

Bob,

Also to what Leslie has stated, if your equipment is considered to be 
"Telecommunications Network
Equipment", then ETSI's EN300386 would apply, which requires a conducted 
emissions test, according
to EN55022, of the DC input power port (see clause 6.2) if the input wiring is 
greater than 3m.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com





  
  owner-emc-pstc@majordo
  
  mo.ieee.org   To:   rehel...@mmm.com, 
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org   
cc: 
  
  11/25/02 01:07 PM Subject:  Re: DC Input 
Power Conducted Emissions  
  Please respond to 
  
  leslie_bai
  

  

  




Bob,


EN55022 is applicable to ITE equipment, there is no conducted emissions on DC 
port.


However, EN55022 excludes "any equipment (or part of the ITE equipment) which 
has a primary function
of radio transmission and/or reception according to the ITU Radio Regulations" 
(excerpt from
EN55022:1998, Clause 3.1).


For "excluded" equipement, Conducted emission testing on DC port may be 
required. Here is an
example.


For Short Range Device (SRD), EN 301 489-3 both DC and AC ports are required 
Conducted Emissions
testing, refer to Clause 7.1 (Emissions) at Page 14 of EN 301 489-3 (2000-08).


If your PC is just another personal computer mainly for data processing rather 
than data
transmission, Conducted emission testing on the DC port is not applicable.


Hope this helps.


Leslie





 rehel...@mmm.com wrote:

 Is it a requirement to measure conducted emissions on a DC input power port
 under CISPR 22 or EN55022? The equipment is a PC that runs off a DC power
 bus?

 Thanks,
 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:
 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-ps! tc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
 Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"



Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now








---
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: Ferrite clamps

[Pettit, Ghery]

Patrick,

I'm not certain that the labs "won" on this one.  They now get to go out and
buy more test equipment (ferrites).  On the other hand, I guess they do win
while some regulators accept the clamps and other don't.  The lab gets to
run the radiated emissions test twice (more money).

Fischer Custom Communications has developed a small clamp that meets the
CISPR 22 requirements while costing significantly less money than an IEC
61000-4-6 isolation clamp.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:44 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
Thanks for the response.  I was very interested in knowing what the
responses were at the committee level to those basic questions.  From your
report it seems the basics of "non-interference" were brought up but other
factors weighed heavier in the argument.


If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I
think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000.  But since I work for
neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get
non-interfering product to market.


But, as you say- these points are no longer important.  The DOW
approaches.  So- now I have to go buy some clamps.



Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps?
Anyone started using these in their testing yet?


Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Patrick,

You make a number of valid points.  They are, however, mute.  A1:2000 to
CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the world.
As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform
radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a substantial
cost impact on the ITE industry.

The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between labs.
The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the
discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect.  We're stuck with them, for
better or worse.  We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate testing.
The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the
clamps will cause.  I have personally pointed that out to them in meetings.
We'll see what happens.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.  

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the "noise" generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking:
"if it isn't broke, why fix it" (my words, not theirs!!).  


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agreeable measurements with another lab.  It's good business for him to say
he can agree with any one else.  However- if the foundation for the rules is
to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community)
a little off-base on this one ?


Maybe I'm missing some important details here.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong...



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE

EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Patrick,

The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve repeatabilit

RE: Ferrite clamps

[Walter Anderson]

Fisher Custom Communications
P/N F-201-DCN-xxmm
BW: 30 - 1000MHz



Walter J. Anderson
EMC Regulatory Engineer
Symbol Technologies
One Symbol Plaza
Technical Services  MS:B4
Holtsville, NY 11742
631 738 4492


>>> "Conway, Patrick R"  11/25/02
11:43AM >>>

Gherry-
Thanks for the response.  I was very interested in knowing what the
responses were at the committee level to those basic questions.  From
your
report it seems the basics of "non-interference" were brought up but
other
factors weighed heavier in the argument.


If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I
think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000.  But since I work for
neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get
non-interfering product to market.


But, as you say- these points are no longer important.  The DOW
approaches.  So- now I have to go buy some clamps.



Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps?
Anyone started using these in their testing yet?


Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Patrick,

You make a number of valid points.  They are, however, mute.  A1:2000 to
CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the
world.
As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform
radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a
substantial
cost impact on the ITE industry.

The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between
labs.
The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the
discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect.  We're stuck with them,
for
better or worse.  We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate
testing.
The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the
clamps will cause.  I have personally pointed that out to them in
meetings.
We'll see what happens.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to
the
original intent of the laws.  

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators
from
the "noise" generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been
updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier
email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be
asking:
"if it isn't broke, why fix it" (my words, not theirs!!).  


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into
the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but
this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How
does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agreeable measurements with another lab.  It's good business for him to
say
he can agree with any one else.  However- if the foundation for the
rules is
to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance
community)
a little off-base on this one ?


Maybe I'm missing some important details here.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong...



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE

EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Patrick,

The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve
repeatability
between labs.  I agree with your concern about it causing double testing
for
radiated emissions from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz until all regulatory bodies
accept the ferrite clamps.  Not a good thing.  I am working through an
industry association (ITI) to get the FCC to accept them.  I've been
working
on this for 2 years.  Nothing so far, other than some work in ANSI C63
that
might result in the clamps being added to C63.4, maybe in 2004.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Messag

RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089

[Jean . Servais]

Joe,

Short-Circuit Tests
NOTE: The short-circuit tests that follow are intended to be performed only on 
out-of-service equipment.
NOTE: Discrete equipment assemblies that have been listed by an NRTL to UL 
60950[31] generally need not be subjected to the short circuit tests in Section 
9.10.1 and Section 9.10.2 and are considered compliant with this section. 
However, if the EUT has a DC or AC power source rated at >20 VA which would not 
be required to be tested as part of the NRTL listing program, it shall be 
tested as described in Section 9.10.1 and Section 9.10.2 as appropriate.
9.10.1 DC Power Sources
R9-27 [92] Except as noted below, at least one short-circuit test shall be 
performed on each type of dc power source having a rated power rating of 
greater than twenty (20) VA associated with the network equipment. Typical 
types of dc supplies are rectifiers, rectifiers and associated battery, and 
dc-to-dc converters.  The short circuit test need not be applied for a source 
consisting of a battery or a string of batteries that is not equipped with an 
overcurrent protective device. If the output of a rectifier or similar source 
is normally connected in parallel with batteries, the batteries shall be 
disconnected during the fault current tests on this source.
The short-circuit tests need not be applied for a source that solely provides 
power to a single telecommunications port if an equivalent short-circuit would 
be performed in accordance with Section 4.6.5.
These tests shall verify that the fault-current path will safely conduct the 
fault current resulting from the short circuit, and in the case of power 
supplies required to be grounded (R9-9 [79]), shall verify that the supplies 
are solidly grounded. For ungrounded power supplies, the short circuit shall be 
initiated between the positive and negative output terminals. The short circuit 
shall first be initiated at the power supply output terminals, and repeated at 
the load if the load is remote from the power supply output terminals. For 
grounded power supplies, short circuits shall be initiated between the 
ungrounded side of the source and the return conductor, and between the 
ungrounded side of the source and the metalwork of the enclosure.
Suggested points to initiate the short circuits are at points on the output 
circuit that are farthest from the source and downstream from over-current 
devices intended to protect equipment and wiring.
Short-circuit tests shall be applied to embedded dc power supplies that are 
mounted on (on-board) and intended to power individual circuit packs, as well 
as to supplies intended to power a complete shelf or rack of circuit packs. For 
onboard power supplies, the short circuit shall first be applied at the power 
supply output terminals, and repeated downstream (within the circuit pack) from 
the power supply output to ensure that printed wiring paths and components will 
not be damaged or become a fire hazard. A representative sample of test points 
shall be chosen to cover variations in wiring path lengths and affected 
components.
Where the architecture includes a separate power supply for an entire shelf or 
rack of circuit packs, the short shall first be applied at the output terminals 
of the power supply, and repeated at a point within the individual circuit 
pack(s) being powered.
If there are a number of circuit pack types or configurations, then a 
representative sample of each type or configuration shall be tested.
For both grounded and ungrounded power supplies, conformance to this 
requirement shall be demonstrated by the following conditions.
• The EUT shall not become a fire, fragmentation, or electrical safety hazard 
as described in Section 4.
• There shall be no damage to any component of the fault current path.
• The circuit pack, module, or sub-assembly where the short-circuit is applied, 
including any power supplies within the unit assembly, need not be in full 
working order after the short-circuit is removed. Damage to other circuit 
cards, modules, and subassemblies within the unit assembly shall not occur. 
Damage to other equipment or wiring shall not occur. Fuse replacement is 
permitted.
• A power supply that supplies multiple units shall be restorable by operator 
intervention (e.g. fuse replacement) after the removal of the short-circuit, 
except where the short is applied upstream of the protective circuit for the 
power supply.
Each short circuit shall be applied for one minute. When the supply ceases 
delivering current (e.g., overcurrent protection operates) the short circuit 
can be removed. If, after one minute, the supply continues to deliver 
non-negligible (>1A) current into the short circuit, the short circuit shall be 
maintained until the current ceases or for 15 minutes, whichever occurs first.
If the circuit is interrupted by opening of a component other than a NRTL 
listed or recognized fuse, the test shall be repeated twice using new 
components a

Re: DC Input Power Conducted Emissions

[Leslie Bai]

Bob,
EN55022 is applicable to ITE equipment, there is no conducted emissions on DC 
port.
However, EN55022 excludes "any equipment (or part of the ITE equipment) which 
has a primary function of radio transmission and/or reception according to the 
ITU Radio Regulations" (excerpt from EN55022:1998, Clause 3.1).
For "excluded" equipement, Conducted emission testing on DC port may be 
required. Here is an example.
For Short Range Device (SRD), EN 301 489-3 both DC and AC ports are required 
Conducted Emissions testing, refer to Clause 7.1 (Emissions) at Page 14 of EN 
301 489-3 (2000-08).
If your PC is just another personal computer mainly for data processing rather 
than data transmission, Conducted emission testing on the DC port is not 
applicable.
Hope this helps.
Leslie
 
 rehel...@mmm.com wrote:
Is it a requirement to measure conducted emissions on a DC input power port
under CISPR 22 or EN55022? The equipment is a PC that runs off a DC power
bus?

Thanks,
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:
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"


-
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

RE: test requirements of MIL-STD -461 vs EN61326-1.

[Darrell Locke]

Other than they are both EMC test requirements, the difference is night and
day.  The MIL-STD-461 tests are:

Much more severe/sensitive
Cover much wider frequency bands
Are typically done with different equipment.  The MIL Radiated Immunity
tests use 8 different antennas, EN61326-1 uses 1.

The best thing to do is look at the applicable test requirements table in
the MIL-STD and compare to EN61326-1.  Products designed to the MIL-STD with
look very much different than one that just meets the EN.

Darrell Locke
Advanced Input Devices

-Original Message-
From: paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com [mailto:paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:23 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: test requirements of MIL-STD -461 vs EN61326-1.






  Folks,

  We have received an inquiry, concerning on the key differences
  between the test requirements of
  MIL-STD -461 and EN61326-1.

  Can someone familiar with these two stds provide some details on
  these different test requirements.

  Your input would be most appreciated .

 Best Regards,Paul J Smith
Teradyne, Inc.,  Boston


---
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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089

[Marko Radojicic]

Oops - wrong short circuit test - just realized. Sorry about that. My mind
is occupied by that one currently...

The on-board short-circuit test is to simulate a short occurring for
whatever reason (manufacturing defect, design defect, operational fault).
Since something bad happened, in my opinion the card is allowed to fail as
long as it fails safe. Opening a fuse is certainly an acceptable method to
remove the electrical safety hazard.

...Marko

-Original Message-
From: Marko Radojicic 
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:14 AM
To: 'j...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
Subject: RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089


Joe,

The short-circuit test is to simulate the most prevalent source of telecom
disruption: the back-hoe.

When a buried cable is inadvertently cut, the pairs could short together or
to the cable sheath. I really can't see how a test lab can misinterpret the
requirement (R4-6 for telecom ports). It clearly states that replacing fuses
is not an allowable situation.

"The EUT shall not be damaged, shall not require manual intervention (such
as to reset circuit breaker or replace fuses) to restore service, and shall
not become a fire, fragmentation, or electrical safety hazard as a result of
the application of a short circuit ..."

I'm quite sure that whomever you spoke with at the test lab is in error and
will probably reconsider their position if they read the standard a little
more carefully.

Cheers,
Marko

Marko Radojicic
Manager, Compliance and Reliability
Turnstone Networks, inc.
2220 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA
95050

mar...@turnstone.com
408/907-1739



-Original Message-
From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:25 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com
Subject: Short circuit tests in GR-1089


Hello All:

I am hoping that some of you can help clarify the intent of requirement
R9-20 
in Telcordia GR-1089.  Taken literally, the requirement says that there
shall 
be no damage to equipment, conductors, or components when the DC power
supply 
is shorted at the load.  This could even be interpreted to preclude the use 
of a fuse that has to be replaced.

One test lab has told me that as long as no fire hazard is created from this

test, it is considered to have been passed.  Needless to say, this differs a

bit from the literal interpretation.

I guess it would help if I had a better feel for the overall goal of the 
short circuit testing.  Any insight on this would be most appreciated.


Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848
http://www.randolph-telecom.com

Re: Revised EMCD

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian  wrote
(in ) about 'Revised EMCD' on Mon, 25 Nov 2002:
>Does anybody know how long it may be before the new directive might be
>implemented?

It depends on whether the remaining mistakes are corrected or not. If
not, I expect industry to ask for at least a 10 year transition period.
It will take that long to rewrite all the product standards to conform
to the Directive's new requirements. Every standard will have to have
requirements from DC to 400 GHz, otherwise it can't be used to
demonstrate compliance, as the new Directive is worded at present.
-- 
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"

DC Input Power Conducted Emissions

[reheller]

Is it a requirement to measure conducted emissions on a DC input power port
under CISPR 22 or EN55022? The equipment is a PC that runs off a DC power
bus?

Thanks,
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:
 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"

Short circuit tests in GR-1089

[JPR3]

Hello All:

I am hoping that some of you can help clarify the intent of requirement R9-20 
in Telcordia GR-1089.  Taken literally, the requirement says that there shall 
be no damage to equipment, conductors, or components when the DC power supply 
is shorted at the load.  This could even be interpreted to preclude the use 
of a fuse that has to be replaced.

One test lab has told me that as long as no fire hazard is created from this 
test, it is considered to have been passed.  Needless to say, this differs a 
bit from the literal interpretation.

I guess it would help if I had a better feel for the overall goal of the 
short circuit testing.  Any insight on this would be most appreciated.


Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848
http://www.randolph-telecom.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: Ferrite clamps

[Conway, Patrick R]

Gherry-
Thanks for the response.  I was very interested in knowing what the
responses were at the committee level to those basic questions.  From your
report it seems the basics of "non-interference" were brought up but other
factors weighed heavier in the argument.


If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I
think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000.  But since I work for
neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get
non-interfering product to market.


But, as you say- these points are no longer important.  The DOW
approaches.  So- now I have to go buy some clamps.



Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps?
Anyone started using these in their testing yet?


Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Patrick,

You make a number of valid points.  They are, however, mute.  A1:2000 to
CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the world.
As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform
radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a substantial
cost impact on the ITE industry.

The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between labs.
The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the
discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect.  We're stuck with them, for
better or worse.  We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate testing.
The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the
clamps will cause.  I have personally pointed that out to them in meetings.
We'll see what happens.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.  

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the "noise" generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking:
"if it isn't broke, why fix it" (my words, not theirs!!).  


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agreeable measurements with another lab.  It's good business for him to say
he can agree with any one else.  However- if the foundation for the rules is
to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community)
a little off-base on this one ?


Maybe I'm missing some important details here.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong...



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE

EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Patrick,

The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve repeatability
between labs.  I agree with your concern about it causing double testing for
radiated emissions from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz until all regulatory bodies
accept the ferrite clamps.  Not a good thing.  I am working through an
industry association (ITI) to get the FCC to accept them.  I've been working
on this for 2 years.  Nothing so far, other than some work in ANSI C63 that
might result in the clamps being added to C63.4, maybe in 2004.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:42 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: 


Hello Ghery-

Th

RE: test requirements of MIL-STD -461 vs EN61326-1.

[paul . j . smith]

  Folks,

  We have received an inquiry, concerning on the key differences
  between the test requirements of
  MIL-STD -461 and EN61326-1.

  Can someone familiar with these two stds provide some details on
  these different test requirements.

  Your input would be most appreciated .

 Best Regards,Paul J Smith
Teradyne, Inc.,  Boston


---
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: Domestic or International stds for noise or sound pressure level requirements

[paul . j . smith]

Folks,

In addition to the many IEC 1010 test and measurement equipment related
stds and SEMI S2 requirements,  what are the sound pressure level
requirements stated in any other domestic or international stds?

Your input would be appreciated.


Best Regards,Paul J Smith
   Teradyne, Inc., Boston


---
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: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India

[Roger Magnuson]

Kim/David,

I can confirm that only the reduced 2.418 to 2.457 GHz band is available in
Israel for SRD devices complying with EN 300 328 and EN 300 440. Maximum
EIRP is 100 mW.

Contact me offline for info about the other countries.

Best Regards,
Roger Magnuson
Managing Director
TGC Communication AB
Industrivagen 5, 171 48 Solna
SWEDEN
TEL: +46 856250053 (direct)
FAX: +46 856250055
mobile: +46 707770594
mailto:ro...@tgc.se
internet: http://www.tgc.se


-Original Message-
From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On
Behalf Of Novarex Enterprises Ltd.
Sent: den 25 november 2002 15:36
To: Kim Boll Jensen; EMC-PSTC; treg
Subject: RE: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India


Dear Kim,

I do not work with Bluetooth myself, but I have just spoken with a colleague
on your behalf. To my surprise, he states that Bluetooth has not yet been
approved for use in Israel due to a clash with frequencies used by the
military. However, the Ministry of Communications is working on this
together with the army, so that Bluetooth can be used in this country. My
colleague also states that many Bluetooth applications are already being
used unofficially in Israel.

You might be able to access first-hand information regarding dates and
tentative requirements documents by applying directly to the Israeli
Ministry of Communications.

If I can be of further help, please do not hesitate to ask.

Best regards,

David Drori

Novarex Enterprises Ltd.,
PO Box 45178,
Room 204, 2nd Floor, Park Center,
Hamarpe 1,
Har Hotsvim Industrial Area,
Jerusalem 91450,
Israel.
Tel: +972 2 540 0168
Fax: +972 2 540 0169
GSM Cellular: +972 54 828011
E-mail: da...@novarex.com

-Original Message-
From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On
Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC; treg
Subject: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India

Hi all

Sorry to bring this matter up again.
I have now a list of 21 countries requirements for BlueTooth products
national type approvals, and still need 4 more which I can't find. Can
some one help with national requirements for SRD and BlueTooth for;

Israel
Brazil
Argentina
India

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Kim Boll Jensen
Bolls Raadgivning
Denmark

RE: EMC E&H close field probes / Mindcruiser

[Paolo Roncone (proncone)]

I fully agree with Ken. I have many times used house-made "sniffer" probes to 
locate sources (and also coupling paths and/or antennas) of radiated emissions. 
They helped me identify and fix a number of compliance issues by pointing to 
the critical elements. 
That is the real plus of these tools. On the other end, there is no point 
trying to correlate near and far-field readings.  

Regards,
Paolo


-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:24 AM
To: Jim Bacher; Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
Cc: 'tkrze...@genius.org.br'
Subject: Re: EMC E&H close field probes / Mindcruiser



My opinion only, curious to see what others say.  The relationship between
what is measured very close to a source and what is measured at three or ten
meters depends very strongly on the efficiency of the radiating element.
For example, if a chip by itself were radiating intensely close-in, you
would get a very different 3 or 10 m signal than if the chip were connected
to a long path on a PCB, and it would radiate still more if that path had a
discontinuity in the ground plane beneath it (assuming a high enough
frequency) and ground bounce then drove an externally connected cable.  So
my opinion, for what it's worth, is that trying to correlate measured
amplitudes close-in with 3 or 10 m signals is not practical in the general
case of troubleshooting a test item.  The probe is useful for locating the
source of an emission.

--
>From: Jim Bacher 
>To: "Emc-Pstc (E-mail)" 
>Cc: "'tkrze...@genius.org.br'" 
>Subject: FW: EMC E&H close field probes / Mindcruiser
>Date: Thu, Nov 21, 2002, 3:46 PM
>

>
> Forwarding for Thomas Krzesaj, please copy Thomas when you respond.
>
> --
> EMC E&H close field probes Message ID: 538546
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get more informations about close field probes and the
> measurement methods.
> What close field value can we consider as critical ?
> How to interpret the result from the probe ?
> We actually bought Agilent  11941A & 11940a probes and FischerCC E&H close
> field probes.
>
>
> My idea is to get an EMC-scanner like the DetectusAB one
> (http://www.detectus.se/) to get more repeatibility. Can I get some advices?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas Krzesaj
>
> Genius Instituto de Tecnología
> Av. Açaí, 875 Bloco E
> 69075-904 Distrito Industrial
> Manaus - Amazonas
> Brasil
>
> Tel: +55 92 614-6578 / Fax: +55 92 613-3144
> mailto:tkrze...@genius.org.br
> http://www.thomask.fr.st
> http://www.genius.org.br
>Posted on Nov 20,2002 at 07:15am
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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"

---
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"

New EMCD Implementation

[Alan E Hutley]

Re below, I have in the back of my mind 2005 but I cannot lay my hands on the 
piece of paper containing the information.
will keep looking
Cheers
Alan E Hutley
www.compliance-club.com


Gert et al
Does anybody know how long it may be before the new directive might be
implemented?

Thanks
Ian Gordon

RE: When CE doesn't pass

[Tyra, John]

For large systems which cannot logistically either fit into chambers or
would cost a small fortune to ship to a lab I believe you can have a
notified body do modified EMC on site. I know TUV Rheinland in Newtown CT
has a very nice Mobile EMC lab where they will come to your facility and do
testing and issue you a TCF certificate. Of course this cannot be done  if
your system can be tested in a chamber.. Certainly it cost more to have this
on site testing done but in the long run it saves a ton of money in shipping
alone!!.Go to TUV.com for more details..
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Leslie Bai [mailto:leslie_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: RE: When CE doesn't pass



It was about five years ago, I did an EMC job to meet the CE mark
requirement for a Semiconductor equipment manufacturer by the approach of
TCF (Technical Construction File). The whole system was real giant and there
was no way to bring the system to the lab fitting in the chamber. 


Many sub-systems were OEM parts and most of them had been CE marked.
However, during the site testing at customer's premises, a walky-talky made
the system shut-down. 


It was quite straight-forward to find the cause of the failure and that was
the CE marked UPS system. 


When we looked at the detail information of the CE Marked UPS system, it was
truely CE marked, however the test report shows that this UPS system is a
Class B device and that manufacturer declared CE compliance at Class B. 


Nobody was wrong, but the Semiconductor system must meet Class A
environment. The advice to the semicondutor equipment manufacturer was to
either fix the UPS immunity problem or change another UPS system. 


So CE marked - what does that mean? It is a manufacturer's self declaration.
As a result of this when you shop around for CE marked sub-systems or OEM
parts, make sure that CE mark is what you want. 


Regards, 


Leslie 



 




  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail  
Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
 now

---
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: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India

[Novarex Enterprises Ltd.]

Dear Kim,

I do not work with Bluetooth myself, but I have just spoken with a colleague
on your behalf. To my surprise, he states that Bluetooth has not yet been
approved for use in Israel due to a clash with frequencies used by the
military. However, the Ministry of Communications is working on this
together with the army, so that Bluetooth can be used in this country. My
colleague also states that many Bluetooth applications are already being
used unofficially in Israel.

You might be able to access first-hand information regarding dates and
tentative requirements documents by applying directly to the Israeli
Ministry of Communications.

If I can be of further help, please do not hesitate to ask.

Best regards,

David Drori

Novarex Enterprises Ltd.,
PO Box 45178,
Room 204, 2nd Floor, Park Center,
Hamarpe 1,
Har Hotsvim Industrial Area,
Jerusalem 91450,
Israel.
Tel: +972 2 540 0168
Fax: +972 2 540 0169
GSM Cellular: +972 54 828011
E-mail: da...@novarex.com

-Original Message-
From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On
Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC; treg
Subject: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India

Hi all

Sorry to bring this matter up again.
I have now a list of 21 countries requirements for BlueTooth products
national type approvals, and still need 4 more which I can't find. Can
some one help with national requirements for SRD and BlueTooth for;

Israel
Brazil
Argentina
India

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Kim Boll Jensen
Bolls Raadgivning
Denmark

RE: ReIssue: When CE doesn't pass

[reheller]

You would certainly violate any warranties such as service and
manufacturing.

Bob Heller
3M Product Safety, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel:  651- 778-6336
=



   
  lisa_cef...@mksinst.co
   
  mTo:   "Chris K. Poore" 
 
  Sent by: cc:   "EMC-PSTC" 
  
  owner-emc-pstc@majordo 
owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org   
  
  mo.ieee.org  Subject:  RE: ReIssue: When 
CE doesn't pass 

   

   
  11/25/2002 07:06 AM   
   
  Please respond to 
   
  Lisa_Cefalo   
   

   

   





I would be a bit concerned with altering another's product.  Two things
could happen, you could violate some other aspect of CE, so you would need
to re-test everything, or, you could violate something in the design
itself, and how would you explain a field problem?  The liability would
rest on you either way.   "Passing" CE is such a relative term, as we all
know, and depends on many things including standards tested to, and
pass/fail criteria.

What to do?  A nasty dilemma.  My suggestion would be, if you want to make
the investment, would be to find out the source of the problem and perhaps
approach the OEM with a proposal for your purchasing a "special" unit that
has "hardened" RF immunity (or emissions, whichever is the problem)  That
way, your not accusing them of lying, just stating that your requirements
in the environment used are a bit more stringent.  Worth a try.

Good luck

Lisa


Lisa A. Cefalo, CRE
Manager, Reliability and Design Services
MKS Instruments
6 Shattuck Road
Andover, MA 01810
(978)-975-2350  X 5669
lisa_cef...@mksinst.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: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India

[Lfresearch]

In a message dated 11/25/2002 7:52:58 AM Central Standard Time, 
kimb...@post7.tele.dk writes:

> 
> Hi all
> 
> Sorry to bring this matter up again.
> I have now a list of 21 countries requirements for BlueTooth products
> national type approvals, and still need 4 more which I can't find. Can
> some one help with national requirements for SRD and BlueTooth for;
> 
> Israel
> Brazil
> Argentina
> India
> 

Hi there,

for any issue with Bluetooth, I'd talk to Kurt Fischer at Hypercorp...

kurt.fisc...@hyperinterop.com

He is a US industy guru, and I'm sure he can help.

Cheers,

Derek Walton

Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India

[Kim Boll Jensen]

Hi all

Sorry to bring this matter up again.
I have now a list of 21 countries requirements for BlueTooth products
national type approvals, and still need 4 more which I can't find. Can
some one help with national requirements for SRD and BlueTooth for;

Israel
Brazil
Argentina
India

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Kim Boll Jensen
Bolls Raadgivning
Denmark
<>

RE: ReIssue: When CE doesn't pass

[Lisa_Cefalo]

I would be a bit concerned with altering another's product.  Two things
could happen, you could violate some other aspect of CE, so you would need
to re-test everything, or, you could violate something in the design
itself, and how would you explain a field problem?  The liability would
rest on you either way.   "Passing" CE is such a relative term, as we all
know, and depends on many things including standards tested to, and
pass/fail criteria.

What to do?  A nasty dilemma.  My suggestion would be, if you want to make
the investment, would be to find out the source of the problem and perhaps
approach the OEM with a proposal for your purchasing a "special" unit that
has "hardened" RF immunity (or emissions, whichever is the problem)  That
way, your not accusing them of lying, just stating that your requirements
in the environment used are a bit more stringent.  Worth a try.

Good luck

Lisa


Lisa A. Cefalo, CRE
Manager, Reliability and Design Services
MKS Instruments
6 Shattuck Road
Andover, MA 01810
(978)-975-2350  X 5669
lisa_cef...@mksinst.com




  "Chris K. Poore"  

To:   "EMC-PSTC" 
  
  Sent by:  cc: 

  owner-emc-pstc@majordoSubject:  RE: ReIssue: When 
CE doesn't pass 
  mo.ieee.org   





  11/22/2002 03:31 PM   

  Please respond to 

  "Chris K. Poore"  










Brian,

Fix it.  I said this before, and you expressed some concern about safety. I
wouldn't be afraid about attempting to make changes to see what it might
take to fix the product - you won't know until you try. I personally HATE
having to fix an OEM's problems. Each change would have to evaluated and
documented as to how this affects safety.  A ferrite clamped on an internal
cable will "most likely" not affect safety provided it is secured in place.
A line filter could be a problem, but even that can be justified by a few
simple tests and some documentation.

In one case, I found that the conducted emissions on an OEM component were
reduced by REMOVING the line filter.  All other tests were also positive.
In
this case, the OEM was more than happy to cut cost from their product by
removing the filter.

(I still wonder if someone out there who was using the same OEM was
suddenly
baffled as to why they were suddenly failing EMC when they had once passed?
SORRY!)

"it passes when we test it" If you are an OEM and you say this to me...
aaa I won't go there.


Chris




---
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...

RE: Revised EMCD

[Gordon,Ian]

Gert et al
Does anybody know how long it may be before the new directive might be
implemented?

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

---
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"