Copy of UL 2075 Draft for Public Comment request

[Brewster, Alan]

Good Friends of the Forum,
Can anyone send me a copy of the UL 2075 "Gas Detectors and Sensors" draft
for public comment? I plan to buy a full version but as yet it is not
available from UL.

Regards,

Alan Brewster, MIEE
Senior Systems Safety Engineer
Novellus Systems, Tualatin, OR




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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Russian Translation for Battery Disposal Marking

[peter merguerian]

Forum,
 
Can anyone translate the following into Russian? Thanks
 
 
Warning There is the danger of explosion if the battery is replaced
incorrectly. Replace the battery only with the same or equivalent type
recommended by the manufacturer. Dispose of used batteries according to the
manufacturer's instructions.


  _  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder   - Free, easy-to-use web site
design software

RE: NARTE safety engineer certification

[Arthur Michael]

Hello Peter,

I believe the plan is to make the official announcement of the NARTE
Product Safety Engineer Cert'n program at the IEEE EMC Symposium
(Boston-August).

Patience, Little Grasshoppre, Patience.

I do agree that the earlier announcement may have been a bit premature
(and perhaps NARTE was overwhelmed by the response).

Best regards, Art Michael


  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
 |http://www.safetylink.com   |
 ||
 |  The Safety Link is the most comprehensive collection  |
 |of product safety and standards links on the WEB|
 ||
 |  Int'l Product Safety News |
 |(It's our 15th Anniversary  1988-2003   |
 | P.O.Box 1561 - WWW |
 |Middletown CT 06457-8061 U.S.A. |
 | Phone: (860) 344-1651 Fax: (860) 346-9066  |
 |  email: i...@safetylink.com|
  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --



[
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Peter L. Tarver wrote:

>
> I received what amounts to a courtesy response from NARTE
> this morning.  It only took four weeks and as many weekly
> pleas for a response, including boosting the importance of
> the last e-mail.
>
> My confidence in the value of NARTE's program is uninspired.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter L. Tarver, PE
> Product Safety Manager
> Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
> San Jose, CA
> peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
>
>
> > From: Peter L. Tarver
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:03 AM
> >
> > Out of curiosity, I wrote NARTE directly regarding the
> > below, to see what benefit they believe NARTE
> > certification
> > would offer someone who already has experience in product
> > safety and a PE Registration.  It's been a week and they
> > have not responded.  Perhaps that's their answer.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Peter L. Tarver, PE
> > Product Safety Manager
> > Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
> > San Jose, CA
> > peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
> >
> > > From: gr...@test4safety.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:48 PM
> > >
> > > It’s also worth noting that NARTE will begin the
> > Grandfathering
> > > phase for their Certified Product Safety
> > Engineer/Technician
> > > award: you can get more information by
> > registering on the
> > > 501(c)(iii)  (Charity) site of www.eGlobalEd.Org
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Gregg
> >
>
>
> ---
> 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:   emc_p...@symbol.com
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>






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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

AC Power variation standard

[marko.radoji...@nokia.com]

Hello,

A little off-topic perhaps but ...

I am currently writing an internal Hardware Quality Assurance standard and
would like to find a reference standard which details AC line voltage
variation.

For operating ranges, we are currently using:

- 90 to 125VAC on 100/120VAC nominal
- 190 to 260VAC on 220/235VAC nominal

And for Brown-out, we are using:

- 80VAC for 100/120VAC nominal
- 160VAC for 220/235VAC nominal

I have no little idea why these numbers were chosen and would love to refer to
some national or, preferably, international specification. For once, Google
has left me high and dry.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Marko


Marko Radojicic

Nokia Internet Communications
313 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, CA
94043-2215

marko.radoji...@nokia.com
(650) 625-2624 (desk)
(650) 796-1131 (cell)




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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: NARTE safety engineer certification

[Peter L. Tarver]

I received what amounts to a courtesy response from NARTE
this morning.  It only took four weeks and as many weekly
pleas for a response, including boosting the importance of
the last e-mail.

My confidence in the value of NARTE's program is uninspired.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


> From: Peter L. Tarver
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:03 AM
>
> Out of curiosity, I wrote NARTE directly regarding the
> below, to see what benefit they believe NARTE
> certification
> would offer someone who already has experience in product
> safety and a PE Registration.  It's been a week and they
> have not responded.  Perhaps that's their answer.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter L. Tarver, PE
> Product Safety Manager
> Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
> San Jose, CA
> peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
>
> > From: gr...@test4safety.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:48 PM
> >
> > It’s also worth noting that NARTE will begin the
> Grandfathering
> > phase for their Certified Product Safety
> Engineer/Technician
> > award: you can get more information by
> registering on the
> > 501(c)(iii)  (Charity) site of www.eGlobalEd.Org
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Gregg
>



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: e-mark labeling

[Jim Eichner]

There are no standards under the Automotive EMC Directive:  it contains its
own requirements.  All you should list is the Directive number itself.

Jim Eichner, P.Eng. 
Compliance Engineering Manager  
Xantrex Technology Inc. 
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com 
web: www.xantrex.com 

Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists.
Honest.  No really.

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.





From: Binnom, Cyril A [mailto:binno...@ems-t.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:35 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: e-mark labeling 



Forum:

I have an aftermarket product that has been approved under 95/54/EC. For
specification literature purposes, (product or user's manual) I am not sure
what compliance standards should be listed for reference.

I do have a Type Approval # and a e-mark # required for the product.

An example would be 89/336/EEC. I currently list EN55022:1998 and
EN55024:1998 as the ITE product specific standards under the directive on
the DoC and any literature.

For 95/54/EC is there a standard that falls under the directive that I
should list. As I am not familiar with the directive, I am not sure. 

Regards,

Cyril A. Binnom Jr.
EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240
(770) 447-6928 Fax
binno...@lxe.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Generic industrial EMC standards

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Nick Williams 
wrote (in ) about 'Generic
industrial EMC standards' on Wed, 23 Jul 2003:
>Could someone please explain the relationship between EN 50081-2 and EN 
>50082-2, and the newer standards EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4?
>
>In particular, how is it that the OJ listing published on 26 of March of 
>this year (and the one before) lists EN 50081-2:1993 and gives no 
>details of a superseding standard,


Well, that what is technically known as a 'mistake'.

> yet the same list also contains EN 
>61000-6-4 against which EN 50081-2:1993 is listed as the superseded 
>standard with a DOCOPOCOSS of 1.7.2004.

That is so.
>
>For practical purposes, are the any differences between these standards, 

Yes: immunity requirements are introduced above 1 GHz. 


-- 
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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Email contact for Italian Ministry of telecommunications

[john.radom...@modicon.com]

Charles,

Try the following:

http://www.ero.dk/

point at "CEPT Administrations" and click on "national contacts".

John Radomski
Principal Engineer
Schneider Electric



  
 
"Charles Blackham"
 
To: "emc-pstc"
  
Sent by:  cc: 
 
owner-emc-pstc@majordom   Subject: Email contact
for Italian Ministry of telecommunications 
o.ieee.org
 
  
 
  
 
07/23/2003 08:58 AM   
 
Please respond to 
 
"Charles Blackham"
 
  
 
  
 




Dear Group


I'm sending around notifications under article 6.4 of the R&TTE directive
for equipment using non-harmonised frequency bands.


I cannot find contact details on http://www.comunicazioni.it and the ones
on http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/spectr.htm are out of date.


Does any one have an up-to-date email before I resort to snail mail.


thanks
Charlie Blackham
Approvals Manager
Airspan Communications Ltd.









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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

e-mark labeling

[Binnom, Cyril A]

Forum:

I have an aftermarket product that has been approved under 95/54/EC. For
specification literature purposes, (product or user's manual) I am not sure
what compliance standards should be listed for reference.

I do have a Type Approval # and a e-mark # required for the product.

An example would be 89/336/EEC. I currently list EN55022:1998 and
EN55024:1998 as the ITE product specific standards under the directive on
the DoC and any literature.

For 95/54/EC is there a standard that falls under the directive that I
should list. As I am not familiar with the directive, I am not sure. 

Regards,

Cyril A. Binnom Jr.
EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240
(770) 447-6928 Fax
binno...@lxe.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Additivity of Conducted Emission

[drcuthb...@micron.com]

The worse case could be 20LOG(N), where N is the number of power supplies. It
depends on the impedance of the source driving the 50 ohm LISN impedance. If
the source impedance is high (like >500 ohms) the voltages can add linearly.
If the source impedances are low (like <25 ohms) then voltage will not
increase with additional power supplies. What will decrease the source
impedance? Output capacitors will. If the LISN is being driven off inductors
the output Z will be high.

  Dave Cuthbert
  Micron Technology


From: francesco.campede...@transport.alstom.com
[mailto:francesco.campede...@transport.alstom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:01 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Additivity of Conducted Emission




Hi all.

Forgive me for the following (perhaps) silly question, but I'm not an
expert in these topics.

I need to perform conducted emission test (220Vac port) according to
EN55011,
on an industrial power driver (25 kHz Switch Mode Inverter).
Depending upon the application, one to ten drivers can be paralelled on the
same 220V line.
Each driver is indipendent from the other (i.e. no sync is provided),
output power and waveform
can be equal or different.
The switching frequency is obtained via a high frequency clock (20MHz),
thus it will be very similar
for all the drivers.
Emission will be both Common and Differential Mode.
If I measure the emission for one driver, would it be possible to derive
the  emission level
when two or more drivers are present (at least a worst case)?
If yes, how to do it?
Does the noise add up linearly (so that I have to add 6 dB for two driver,
20 dB for ten
in the worst case - the noise from each driver has the same frequency and
phase) ?

Thanks in advance

Francesco

ing. Francesco Campedelli
R&D - HW Design
ALSTOM FERROVIARIA s.p.a.
via di Corticella, 75
40128 Bologna - ITALY





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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Generic industrial EMC standards

[Nick Williams]

Could someone please explain the relationship between EN 50081-2 and 
EN 50082-2, and the newer standards EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4?

In particular, how is it that the OJ listing published on 26 of March 
of this year (and the one before) lists EN 50081-2:1993 and gives no 
details of a superseding standard, yet the same list also contains EN 
61000-6-4 against which EN 50081-2:1993 is listed as the superseded 
standard with a DOCOPOCOSS of 1.7.2004.

For practical purposes, are the any differences between these 
standards, or is this primarily a re-badging exercise to suite the 
tidy mind of someone in CENELEC?

Regards

Nick.


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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Email contact for Italian Ministry of telecommunications

[Charles Blackham]

Dear Group 

I'm sending around notifications under article 6.4 of the R&TTE directive for
equipment using non-harmonised frequency bands.

I cannot find contact details on http://www.comunicazioni.it and the ones on
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/spectr.htm are out of date.

Does any one have an up-to-date email before I resort to snail mail. 

thanks 
Charlie Blackham 
Approvals Manager 
Airspan Communications Ltd. 

Re: Additivity of Conducted Emission

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that francesco.campede...@transport.alstom.com wrote
(in )
about 'Additivity of Conducted Emission' on Wed, 23 Jul 2003:

>If I measure the 
>emission for one driver, would it be possible to derive the  emission 
>level when two or more drivers are present (at least a worst case)? If 
>yes, how to do it? Does the noise add up linearly (so that I have to add 
>6 dB for two driver, 20 dB for ten in the worst case - the noise from 
>each driver has the same frequency and phase) ? 

Yes, the worst case is probably arithmetic addition. 'Probably', because
there might be some subtle effect that gives a better or worse result.
But the *expected* situation is probably root-sum-square addition, i.e.
10 dB for ten units.

Of course, if these units are self-contained and marketed as individual
items of commerce, with each being CE marked, there is no requirement to
add up the emissions for regulatory purposes.
-- 
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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: NEW EMC Standards

[Luke Turnbull]

Ian,

To find the version history of a standard, and the latest issue, you could
look at the BSI Online website (for the BS EN), or the IEC website (for the
IEC version).

Luke Turnbull

>>> "Gordon,Ian"  07/23/03 08:24am >>>

Alan et al
I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest versions
of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the 61000-4-x
EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere?

Ian Gordon

From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] 
Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42
To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group
Subject: NEW EMC Standards


Hi Group

New list of EMC Standards in OJ.
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf 

Cheers
Alan E Hutley
EMC & Compliance journal
www.compliance-club.com 




_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com 

_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com 

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org 
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc




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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: NEW EMC Standards

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Hi group,
For people interested in the RTTE Directive, a new list is published on July
18th. 
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf
Major change is the Date of Cessation of Presumption of Conformity of
EN55022:1994. This standard can now be used till August 1rst, 2005 to show
compliance to Art 3.1b of the RTTE Directive 1999/05. Previously it was Aug.
1rst, 2003.

Vriendelijke Groeten, Best regards, Meilleures salutations,

Kristiaan Carpentier
Regulatory and Approval Engineer
Thomson multimedia Broadband Belgium N.V., S.A.
Prins Boudewijnlaan 47, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium
Tel: +32 3 443 6407 - Fax: +32 3 443 6632
e-mail: kristiaan.carpent...@thomson.net
www.speedtouch.com



From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com]
Sent: woensdag 23 juli 2003 10:02
To: Gordon,Ian; Emc-Pstc Discussion Group
Subject: Re: NEW EMC Standards



Hi Ian

Try here http://www.iec.ch/news_centre/release/nr2000/nr0800.htm
Cheers
Alan
- Original Message - 
From: "Gordon,Ian" 
To: "'Alan E Hutley'" ; "Emc-Pstc Discussion
Group" 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: NEW EMC Standards


> Alan et al
> I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest
versions
> of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the
61000-4-x
> EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere?
>
> Ian Gordon
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com]
> Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42
> To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group
> Subject: NEW EMC Standards
>
>
> Hi Group
>
> New list of EMC Standards in OJ.
> http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf
>
> Cheers
> Alan E Hutley
> EMC & Compliance journal
> www.compliance-club.com
>
>
>
>
> _
> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed
Scanning
> Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
> http://www.mci.com
>
> _
> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed
Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: NEW EMC Standards

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian  wrote
(in ) about 'NEW EMC
Standards' on Wed, 23 Jul 2003:
>I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest 
>versions of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include 
>the 61000-4-x EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere? 

They are not 'notified' under the EMC Directive, because they are only
about methods of measurement, and compliance with the Directive does NOT
require that you have to use those methods, despite what some people
will tell you. All that is required for the 'standards route' is that
the limits in the standards that set limits are met. In addition, for
either route, the practical requirements of Article 4 of the Directive
must be met.
-- 
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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Additivity of Conducted Emission

[francesco.campede...@transport.alstom.com]

Hi all.

Forgive me for the following (perhaps) silly question, but I'm not an
expert in these topics.

I need to perform conducted emission test (220Vac port) according to
EN55011,
on an industrial power driver (25 kHz Switch Mode Inverter).
Depending upon the application, one to ten drivers can be paralelled on the
same 220V line.
Each driver is indipendent from the other (i.e. no sync is provided),
output power and waveform
can be equal or different.
The switching frequency is obtained via a high frequency clock (20MHz),
thus it will be very similar
for all the drivers.
Emission will be both Common and Differential Mode.
If I measure the emission for one driver, would it be possible to derive
the  emission level
when two or more drivers are present (at least a worst case)?
If yes, how to do it?
Does the noise add up linearly (so that I have to add 6 dB for two driver,
20 dB for ten
in the worst case - the noise from each driver has the same frequency and
phase) ?

Thanks in advance

Francesco

ing. Francesco Campedelli
R&D - HW Design
ALSTOM FERROVIARIA s.p.a.
via di Corticella, 75
40128 Bologna - ITALY





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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: NEW EMC Standards

[John Allen]

Ian

You won't find the 61000-4-X standards on the OJ list because they are
"only" methods with (typically) a range of test levels and pass criteria,
>from which the actual product requirements are then intended to be
specifically chosen and referenced in teh product-specific standards.

Regards

John Allen, 
Technical Consultant
EMC and Safety Engineering
ERA Technology Ltd.
Cleeve Road
Leatherhead 
Surrey KT22 7SA
UK

Tel: +44-1372-367025 (Direct)
   +44-1372-367000 (Switchboard)
Fax: +44-1372-367102


From: Gordon,Ian [mailto:ian.gor...@bocedwards.com]
Sent: 23 July 2003 08:24
To: 'Alan E Hutley'; Emc-Pstc Discussion Group
Subject: RE: NEW EMC Standards



Alan et al
I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest versions
of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the 61000-4-x
EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere?

Ian Gordon

From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com]
Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42
To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group
Subject: NEW EMC Standards


Hi Group

New list of EMC Standards in OJ.
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf

Cheers
Alan E Hutley
EMC & Compliance journal
www.compliance-club.com




_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com

_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com


*
Copyright ERA Technology Ltd. 2003. (www.era.co.uk). All rights reserved. 
The information supplied in this Commercial Communication should be treated
in confidence.
No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss or damage 
suffered as a result of accessing this message or any attachments.

_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: NEW EMC Standards

[Gordon,Ian]

Alan et al
I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest versions
of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the 61000-4-x
EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere?

Ian Gordon

From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com]
Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42
To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group
Subject: NEW EMC Standards


Hi Group

New list of EMC Standards in OJ.
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf

Cheers
Alan E Hutley
EMC & Compliance journal
www.compliance-club.com




_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com

_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: NEW EMC Standards

[Alan E Hutley]

Hi Ian

Try here http://www.iec.ch/news_centre/release/nr2000/nr0800.htm
Cheers
Alan
- Original Message - 
From: "Gordon,Ian" 
To: "'Alan E Hutley'" ; "Emc-Pstc Discussion
Group" 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: NEW EMC Standards


> Alan et al
> I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest
versions
> of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the
61000-4-x
> EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere?
>
> Ian Gordon
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com]
> Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42
> To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group
> Subject: NEW EMC Standards
>
>
> Hi Group
>
> New list of EMC Standards in OJ.
> http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf
>
> Cheers
> Alan E Hutley
> EMC & Compliance journal
> www.compliance-club.com
>
>
>
>
> _
> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed
Scanning
> Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
> http://www.mci.com
>
> _
> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed
Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity

[Ken Javor]

Apparently I didn't express myself clearly.  Let me try again.  If instead
of leveling on the x^2+y^2+z^2 output of the field sensor(s) when you
calibrate the quiet zone you instead verify that the desired field intensity
appears in the one desired polarization/orientation at each point in the 1.5
meter square, then you are absolutely guaranteeing the establishment of a
plane wave.  Further, the coupling to a wire of any specific orientation is
fully determined which nails down the threshold of susceptibility, if one
exists at the field intensity established.

The EN61000-4-3 antenna-quiet zone separation of 3 meters was determined for
a lower frequency of 80 MHz.  At that frequency, a 3 meter separation is
greater than a half wavelength, which for a dipole radiator such as a
biconical is sufficient to approach far field conditions.  If you push the
lower frequency to 27 MHz, two bad things happen, NEITHER OF WHICH IS TEST
CHAMBER RELATED.  The far field separation criteria is now greater than the
antenna-quiet zone separation, although this is likely mitigated by the fact
that the radiator has not increased in physical length as would a tuned
dipole. Instead, the biconical has become electrically shorter, which means
it appears to be a high impedance load on the rf power source and therefore
not much current flows.  The biconical at 27 MHz will radiate a near field
that, relative to a plane wave has a higher electric and lower magnetic
field intensity.  This can and will have a dramatic effect on coupling to
cables, especially shielded ones.

Another effect is room-related, and that is that the absorber tile-lining is
reaching its performance limit at 20 MHz, and it is not as absorbent at 27
MHz as at 80 MHz.  But this has nothing to do with chamber dimensions
either.

All the above is classical electromagnetics, I don't think any of it will
generate controversy.

But this might.  I can't see any justification for pushing the lower 80 MHz
limit to 27 MHz, except when the test sample is physically large.  Then you
have an analogous situation to a large test sample on an OATS, which
requires a 10 m site to get accurate readings.  So if your company builds
and/or tests large floor standing racks of equipment, and needs to test at
27 MHz, then you bite the bullet and build the larger chamber and buy the
more powerful amps.



> From: neve...@comcast.net
> Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:01:05 +
> To: 
> Subject: Re: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity
> 
> 
> Thanks Ken.
> 
> I would expect that 300+ MHz isn't much of a problem. I know that lower
> frequencies are a problem, especially if you start at ~27 MHz in a small
> chamber. I am not sure how much the small chamber loads the antenna, and how
> it 
> affects the distribution of BOTH (i.e., E and H) EM field components in the
> intermediate range, about 80-150 MHz.
> 
> My concern is that the difference in the entire field distribution (E and H
> and 
> their relation) between a small chamber and a large chamber is probably
> substantial up to some frequency, which depends in the first place on the
> characteristics of the chamber and the absorbers. Thus, the interfering EM
> field may be quite different in the two chambers, even though the E-field
> component is identical (within the E-field uniformity requirement). Knowing
> only the E-field seems not to be enough in case of non-plane non-uniform
> propagation. Ultimately, I believe that it may result in very different
> susceptibility thresholds in different chambers, when measured relative to
the
> E-field only.
> 
> It seems that there isn't much, if any, data published and available.
> 
> Neven
>> 
>> I made some measurements once in a 3 meter anechoic chamber built for
>> EN61000-4-3.  I was interested in the disturbance a wire causes in a field
>> due to picking up the field, the resultant currents flowing in such a way as
>> to cancel the field that caused them, etc.  In order to assess the effect, I
>> needed to monitor the undisturbed field.  While EN61000-4-3 allows a x-y-z
>> field sensor total output to represent the field intensity, I needed to
>> measure the relative vector components.  I found that in this tile-lined
>> chamber, that the only vector of any magnitude was that parallel to the
>> radiating antenna.  I would say that given this kind of performance, a plane
>> wave has been established.
>> 
>> But I was working at 300 MHz.  I am suggesting that this simple test could
>> be performed at all frequencies of interest to assess the anechoic
>> properties of the room.
>> 
>>> From: neve...@comcast.net
>>> Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net
>>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:35:08 +
>>> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>> Cc: npis...@broadcom.com
>>> Subject: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Has anyone investigated the difference in performance of different chamber
>>> sizes when performing the radiated immunity (-3) test at low fre

Re: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity

[neve...@comcast.net]

Thanks Ken.

I would expect that 300+ MHz isn't much of a problem. I know that lower 
frequencies are a problem, especially if you start at ~27 MHz in a small 
chamber. I am not sure how much the small chamber loads the antenna, and how
it 
affects the distribution of BOTH (i.e., E and H) EM field components in the 
intermediate range, about 80-150 MHz.

My concern is that the difference in the entire field distribution (E and H
and 
their relation) between a small chamber and a large chamber is probably 
substantial up to some frequency, which depends in the first place on the 
characteristics of the chamber and the absorbers. Thus, the interfering EM 
field may be quite different in the two chambers, even though the E-field 
component is identical (within the E-field uniformity requirement). Knowing 
only the E-field seems not to be enough in case of non-plane non-uniform 
propagation. Ultimately, I believe that it may result in very different 
susceptibility thresholds in different chambers, when measured relative to the 
E-field only.

It seems that there isn't much, if any, data published and available.

Neven
> 
> I made some measurements once in a 3 meter anechoic chamber built for
> EN61000-4-3.  I was interested in the disturbance a wire causes in a field
> due to picking up the field, the resultant currents flowing in such a way as
> to cancel the field that caused them, etc.  In order to assess the effect, I
> needed to monitor the undisturbed field.  While EN61000-4-3 allows a x-y-z
> field sensor total output to represent the field intensity, I needed to
> measure the relative vector components.  I found that in this tile-lined
> chamber, that the only vector of any magnitude was that parallel to the
> radiating antenna.  I would say that given this kind of performance, a plane
> wave has been established.
> 
> But I was working at 300 MHz.  I am suggesting that this simple test could
> be performed at all frequencies of interest to assess the anechoic
> properties of the room.
> 
> > From: neve...@comcast.net
> > Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net
> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:35:08 +
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Cc: npis...@broadcom.com
> > Subject: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity
> > 
> > 
> > Has anyone investigated the difference in performance of different chamber
> > sizes when performing the radiated immunity (-3) test at low frequencies
> > (e.g., 
> > between 80 MHz and 100-150 MHz)? The field uniformity is calibrated in
> > E-field, 
> > but I would expect the total EM field (E and H components) to have
different
> > distribution as a function of different chamber sizes. Specifically,
keeping
> > the distance between the antenna and the DUT constant at 3 m, I still
expect
> > different performances due to size (chamber loading the antenna and
> > reflections/near field). Consequently, it seems that the interfering signal
> > can 
> > be quite different in a small chamber vs. large chamber, with possibly
large
> > variations in the H-field components, even though they are both calibrated
for
> > the E-field uniformity, and both tests performed at the antenna distance of
> > 3m.
> > 
> > I know of a case in which testing in a smaller (3m) chamber makes product
> > consistently fail at significantly lower level than in a larger, 10 m
chamber
> > (6 V/m vs. nearly 10 v/m). Fixing a product to pass the 10 V/m level
(required
> > by the customer) in the large chamber seems to be relatively easy and
> > inexpensive, while fixing it to pass the same level in a small chamber may
be
> > very costly and time consuming.
> > 
> > Is there any precedence like in case of the radiated emission, where 10m
> > results prevail in case of a dispute? Any papers to support or dismiss my
> > expectation from above?
> > 
> > Thanks, Neven
> > 
> > ---
> > 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:   emc_p...@symbol.com
> > 
> > For policy questions, send mail to:
> > Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> > 
> > Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
> > 
> 
> 
> ---
> 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 lin