EN60950-1 Table 5B error?
Referring to the 2nd last column (between independent secondary circuits, working voltage U 42.4Vpk), why would Functional insulation require a 500V test but Basic/Supplemental/Reinforced have no test? Is this table wrong? For components (optocoupler, SMT transformer) crossing a Functional isolation boundary between an SELV circuit and another SELV circuit (an ethernet circuit in this case), do I need to specify electric strength requirements? Thanks, 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. 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. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Digilog design and tesla coils
Hi All, I have posted the first real Doug Unplugged informal podcast on digilog design and a story about my Tesla coil. Looks like I will be posting new shows on Wednesday and on the weekend to start. Maybe daily at some point. The URL for this show is: 4 1/2 minute mp3 file: http://emcesd-podcast.com/unplugged/2006/June/2006-0613up.mp3 same file with .dcs ending in case you can't download an mp3 file: http://emcesd-podcast.com/unplugged/2006/June/2006-0613up.dcs I would like some feedback as to whether my more formal podcasts or these new informal ones are preferred. The Unplugged home is: http://emcesd-podcast.com/unplugged My podcast page home is: http://emcesd-podcast.com Also send me some technical questions you think I might be able to help with and I will try to answer them in a podcast. You can remain anonymous if you like as the source of the question. Doug -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
In message p0623090bc0b4a85899ce@[10.247.58.220], dated Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk writes The last list of machinery standards to be published in the OJ was dated 31 December 2005 and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 12 month gap before the next one. Likewise, the last LVD list was 16 Novermber 2005 and I'd expect a 12 month gap for the next. People are complaining about this, because the standards process is continuous, and an 11 month delay in updating the OJ is causing problems, especially when a standard is amended to correct errors. Who mentioned EN 55022 then? I wouldn't do such a thing. (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
In message ofbcc5ed40.67f57bbb-on8825718c.005ed5ef-8825718c.005f0...@teal.com, dated Tue, 13 Jun 2006, pat.law...@slpower.com writes I need to order the current issue of EN 60204-1 (Safety of machinery – Electrical equipment of machines). When I went to the EUR-Lex website at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/refl ist/machines.html it lists EN 60204-1:1997 as the current edition, with no amendments. So far, so good. But when I look at websites that sell standards, I see listings for 1997, 1998, and 2006. - Should I simply buy the 1997 edition, or are there changes/corrections that forced the 1998 version to be published? The '1998' version is the national implementation of the formal 'publication' by CENELEC of the EN dated 1997, which was probably published in November or December 1997, so the national standards carry the 1998 date. - Is the 2006 version on the verge of announcement in the OJ? If so, it sounds like that should be used to evaluate my product. From the public part of the CENELEC web site, you can get: Standard reference EN 60204-1:200X Reference document IEC 60204-1:2005 (Modified) Technical body CLC/TC 44X IEC technical body IEC/TC 44 Dor 2006-06-01 Dav - Doa 2006-12-01 Dop 2007-06-01 Dow 2009-06-01 The doa (date of adoption) is not till December, so it would be a bit premature to use it as soon as it's published. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: RF Power Amplifiers
In message c0b458a0.3ddd1%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dated Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes A quick calculation will show that if an immunity requirement of 10 V/m is imposed at 105 MHz on a 420 MHz tuned receiver with a sensitivity of 100 dBm, the harmonic content at 420 MHz needs to be on the order of 100 dB down from the carrier. That is quite unrealistic even for a VHF source for which 420 MHz is out-of-band, let alone a broadband amplifier and antenna combination that covers (typically) 80 - 1000 MHz. Of course. You need to use very arcane methods to do that sort of test. A narrow band-pass filter at 105 MHz plus notch filters at harmonic frequencies. Complex and difficult. Even more exotic techniques are known. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: RF Power Amplifiers
That is definitely the way to deal with the issue. The receiver IF filter will definitely reject energy 500 kHz off the tuned frequency in a traditional superheterodyne receiver. I could still see the front end being desensitized, but it will take more harmonic energy to do that. From: Bob Richards b...@toprudder.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:25:50 -0700 (PDT) To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: RF Power Amplifiers I'm not familiar with the specific test requirements for receivers, but the 1000-4-3 spec allows step sizes of 1% of the fundamental. If not required to do otherwise, I would arrange the test frequencies so the subharmonic frequencies are avoided, IOW, instead of testing at 105 MHz, test at 104.5 and 105.5 MHz. I would think the selectivity of most receivers would reject these signals. Bob Richards, NCT. Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote: A quick calculation will show that if an immunity requirement of 10 V/m is imposed at 105 MHz on a 420 MHz tuned receiver with a sensitivity of -100 dBm, the harmonic content at 420 MHz needs to be on the order of 100 dB down from the carrier. That is quite unrealistic even for a VHF source for which 420 MHz is out-of-band, let alone a broadband amplifier and antenna combination that covers (typically) 80 - 1000 MHz. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
Unless the information on the CENELEC web site is out of date, there isn't an EN 60204-1:2006 yet. There _is_ an IEC 60204-1:2005 but the CENELEC site indicates that there will be modifications (differences) between the IEC and EN versions. The 1997/1998 confusion probably arises because the original CENELEC version of the EN was dated 1997 but BSI did not get round to publishing it until 1998, so BS EN 60204-1:1998 is the same as EN 60204-1:1997. The last list of machinery standards to be published in the OJ was dated 31 December 2005 and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 12 month gap before the next one. Likewise, the last LVD list was 16 Novermber 2005 and I'd expect a 12 month gap for the next. If the new version of EN 60204-1 is imminent then it will be published before this and will presumably appear in the next OJ list, but if you have a product which needs evaluation right now, I would not hesitate to use the 1997 version. Nick. At 10:17 am -0700 13/6/06, pat.law...@slpower.com wrote: Hi all: I need to order the current issue of EN 60204-1 (Safety of machinery - Electrical equipment of machines). When I went to the EUR-Lex website at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newappr ach/standardization/harmstds/reflist/machines.html it lists EN 60204-1:1997 as the current edition, with no amendments. So far, so good. But when I look at websites that sell standards, I see listings for 1997, 1998, and 2006. - Should I simply buy the 1997 edition, or are there changes/corrections that forced the 1998 version to be published? - Is the 2006 version on the verge of announcement in the OJ? If so, it sounds like that should be used to evaluate my product. Thanks, Pat Lawler Engineer SL Power Electronics Corp. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: RF Power Amplifiers
I'm not familiar with the specific test requirements for receivers, but the 1000-4-3 spec allows step sizes of 1% of the fundamental. If not required to do otherwise, I would arrange the test frequencies so the subharmonic frequencies are avoided, IOW, instead of testing at 105 MHz, test at 104.5 and 105.5 MHz. I would think the selectivity of most receivers would reject these signals. Bob Richards, NCT. Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote: A quick calculation will show that if an immunity requirement of 10 V/m is imposed at 105 MHz on a 420 MHz tuned receiver with a sensitivity of -100 dBm, the harmonic content at 420 MHz needs to be on the order of 100 dB down from the carrier. That is quite unrealistic even for a VHF source for which 420 MHz is out-of-band, let alone a broadband amplifier and antenna combination that covers (typically) 80 - 1000 MHz. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
EN 60204-1: 1997 vs. 1998 vs. 2006
Hi all: I need to order the current issue of EN 60204-1 (Safety of machinery – Electrical equipment of machines). When I went to the EUR-Lex website at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/reflist/machines.html it lists EN 60204-1:1997 as the current edition, with no amendments. So far, so good. But when I look at websites that sell standards, I see listings for 1997, 1998, and 2006. - Should I simply buy the 1997 edition, or are there changes/corrections that forced the 1998 version to be published? - Is the 2006 version on the verge of announcement in the OJ? If so, it sounds like that should be used to evaluate my product. Thanks, Pat Lawler Engineer SL Power Electronics Corp.
Re: RF Power Amplifiers
A quick calculation will show that if an immunity requirement of 10 V/m is imposed at 105 MHz on a 420 MHz tuned receiver with a sensitivity of -100 dBm, the harmonic content at 420 MHz needs to be on the order of 100 dB down from the carrier. That is quite unrealistic even for a VHF source for which 420 MHz is out-of-band, let alone a broadband amplifier and antenna combination that covers (typically) 80 - 1000 MHz. From: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT) To: Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com, Bob Richards b...@toprudder.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: RF Power Amplifiers The harmonic content mentioned adds quite a bit to the measured field strength. As the harmonics are filtered out (a lower level), the field strength drops, so the drive and/or output power is boosted to get the field strength back up, and the harmonic content rises faster than the fundamental, so more filter is added and more power added, and soon there is one BIG power amp required to get the field strength at the fundamental without the harmonics. ps. If the device being tested has a receiver, the harmonic energy can provide some distracting results at unexpected times. ie. The 420 MHz rcvr fails (cannot receive) at 105 MHz. Immunity test freq. pps. The receiver under test was good for -100 dB signals so the harmonics had to rather low to not swamp out the intended signal. Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, Thank you very much for many members who has replied online and offline. I value your expert comments. So far, I have learned that antenna's VSWR, cable loss (at high frequency), and 80% AM modulation are the factors to count on. The new requirements from the third edition of IEC61000-4-3 are important factors too. Many members suggest to choose an amplifier triple times' power as calculated (i.e. 500W for 80-1000MHz), which I agree with. However, two sales representatives from two amplifier manufacturers suggest a 150W for 80-1000MHz. I get lost. Kindest regards, Grace On 6/10/06, Bob Richards b...@toprudder.com wrote: Mac, Yeah, good point, I forgot to mention that. The the old 15dB requirement may not be enough. At a lab where I used to work, we tested down to 26 MHz regularly. The difference in antenna factors between 26 and 52 MHz were terrible. When calibrating at 26 MHz at only 1/3 the rated power of the amp, the signal level at 52 MHz dominated. This was with a very common 500w amplifier, at 10v/m level. We ended up using an Amplifier Research 2500w amp for the 10v/m test. Way overkill, but it points out the fact that you can't just calculate the power required to generate a desired field strength and use that figure to size your amp. You may need to double or even triple that figure just to meet the harmonics requirement. Bob Richards, NCT. Elliott Mac-FME001 fme...@motorola.com wrote: Grace, I agree that trying a demonstrator before you buy is the best approach. One thing that you want to take into consideration besides the compression points that Bob mentioned is the harmonic / distortion requirements mentioned in section 6 of 61000-4-3. The 2006 version of IEC 61000-4-3 is a bit different than the current version of EN 61000-4-3. IEC 61000-4-3:2006 [expected to be published as EN this year] requires that harmonics in the uniform field area field be at least 6 dB below the fundamental. There is a lot of good info in Annex D about how to accomplish / measure this. The current EN 61000-4-3 requires that the amplifier not produce harmonics 15 dB below carrier. Whichever amp you choose, make sure that you take these considerations into account as well. Good luck! Mac Elliott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules:
Re: RF Power Amplifiers
The harmonic content mentioned adds quite a bit to the measured field strength. As the harmonics are filtered out (a lower level), the field strength drops, so the drive and/or output power is boosted to get the field strength back up, and the harmonic content rises faster than the fundamental, so more filter is added and more power added, and soon there is one BIG power amp required to get the field strength at the fundamental without the harmonics. ps. If the device being tested has a receiver, the harmonic energy can provide some distracting results at unexpected times. ie. The 420 MHz rcvr fails (cannot receive) at 105 MHz. Immunity test freq. pps. The receiver under test was good for -100 dB signals so the harmonics had to rather low to not swamp out the intended signal. Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, Thank you very much for many members who has replied online and offline. I value your expert comments. So far, I have learned that antenna's VSWR, cable loss (at high frequency), and 80% AM modulation are the factors to count on. The new requirements from the third edition of IEC61000-4-3 are important factors too. Many members suggest to choose an amplifier triple times' power as calculated (i.e. 500W for 80-1000MHz), which I agree with. However, two sales representatives from two amplifier manufacturers suggest a 150W for 80-1000MHz. I get lost. Kindest regards, Grace On 6/10/06, Bob Richards b...@toprudder.com wrote: Mac, Yeah, good point, I forgot to mention that. The the old 15dB requirement may not be enough. At a lab where I used to work, we tested down to 26 MHz regularly. The difference in antenna factors between 26 and 52 MHz were terrible. When calibrating at 26 MHz at only 1/3 the rated power of the amp, the signal level at 52 MHz dominated. This was with a very common 500w amplifier, at 10v/m level. We ended up using an Amplifier Research 2500w amp for the 10v/m test. Way overkill, but it points out the fact that you can't just calculate the power required to generate a desired field strength and use that figure to size your amp. You may need to double or even triple that figure just to meet the harmonics requirement. Bob Richards, NCT. Elliott Mac-FME001 fme...@motorola.com wrote: Grace, I agree that trying a demonstrator before you buy is the best approach. One thing that you want to take into consideration besides the compression points that Bob mentioned is the harmonic / distortion requirements mentioned in section 6 of 61000-4-3. The 2006 version of IEC 61000-4-3 is a bit different than the current version of EN 61000-4-3. IEC 61000-4-3:2006 [expected to be published as EN this year] requires that harmonics in the uniform field area field be at least 6 dB below the fundamental. There is a lot of good info in Annex D about how to accomplish / measure this. The current EN 61000-4-3 requires that the amplifier not produce harmonics 15 dB below carrier. Whichever amp you choose, make sure that you take these considerations into account as well. Good luck! Mac Elliott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - --- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions:
FW: IEEE EMC Soc. UKRI Chapter Event Notice - The National Space Centre Leicester , 21st June 2006. - Update - .
Everyone Here is an updated programme for the next meeting of the IEEE UK and Republic of Ireland EMC Chapter. The event is free to all, but please note the requirement to register in advance. The paper by Angela Nothofer will be particularly interesting for those who have been following the test method developments for fully anechoic rooms. Best wishes Brian Brian Jones EMC Consultant IEEE UKRI EMC Chapter Vice-Chairman _ From: ukri...@ieee.org [mailto:ukri...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roy Ediss Sent: 09 June 2006 16:10 To: ukri...@listserv.ieee.org Cc: webmaster-u...@ieee.org; j.newbe...@ieee.org; c.ja...@soton.ac.uk Subject: IEEE EMC Soc. UKRI Chapter Event Notice - The National Space Centre Leicester , 21st June 2006. - Update - . Event Notice. IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Soc. UKRI Chapter. You are invited to attend the forthcoming Special Event at: The National Space Centre, Exploration Drive, Leicester, LE4 5NS http://www.spacecentre.co.uk on Wednesday 21st June 2006. Attendees will be able to explore the site in the afternoon. Presentation session 10:00 – 14:00, on: Space\Aerospace EMC and Some Topical Measurement Subjects. Location: Endeavour Suite. Agenda. 09:30 - 10:00Arrival 10:00 - 10:05Welcome. 10:05 - 10:40EMC testing for space environments. Ken Newman, EMC manager, Intertek 10:40 - 11:15The need for good measurement from EMC testing. Christopher Jones. BAE Systems.Warton. 11:15 - 11:30Break. Coffee/Tea and refreshments. 11:30 - 12:15The use of fully anechoic rooms above 1GHz. Angela Nothofer, George Green Institute for Electromagnetics Research. 12:15 - 13:00Lunch break. 13:00 - 13:30An explanation of the Reference Site Method (RSM) for evaluating the performance of OATS SARs. John Wombwell, EMC Hire. 13:30 - 14:00Is that result real? The hidden dangers of compression. David Mawdsley. Laplace. 14:00End of presentations. Time to explore the Space Centre. Information available on speakers and talks: Ken Newman, EMC manager, Intertek. EMC testing for space environments. EMC testing for space environments involves several stages of test and qualification. First is each individual scientific instrument or sub-assembly on the space vehicle. Second is the space vehicle (payload) compatibility with the launch vehicle. Last but not least, is the EMC phenomena and interoperability of the spacecraft in the space environment. This presentation by Intertek will provide a brief introduction to each of these aspects of qualification, which will include the tests that are likely to be required at each phase. David Mawdsley. Laplace.'Is that result real? The hidden dangers of compression. All pre-ampifiers and analysers, be they spectrum analysers or receivers, have a hidden weakness. They can (and will) distort results, producing false spectra if not set up correctly. The talk will cover examples of this effect, explain the causes, show how to check for its presence and explain how it can be avoided. The need for good measurement from EMC testing. Dr. Christopher Jones. The emphasis in EMC testing is too often on testing and not sufficiently on measurement. This would be understandable for pass/fail, go/no-go testing, but for qualification testing where the measured data is used as part of the equation in a safe use clearance, the quality of the measurement and presentation of data is all important. In this talk Chris Jones will describe the kind of process that has to be applied to the latest electromagnetic hazards clearances, driven by the growing reliance on complex, inter-dependant electrical and electronic systems for safety, specifically in the aircraft industry for safe continued flight and landing. Examples will be drawn from the clearances for lightning, ESD and EMP threats. The event is an open meeting. All welcome. There is no charge for meeting attendance or entrance to the Space Centre. If you plan to attend this event you need to register by informing: Roy Ediss Email;roy.ed...@philips.com For registration you will need to provide: Full name, Company, (if applicable), Contact phone number. Book early to avoid disappointment. Boosters Restaurant is available on the site for attendees to buy lunch if they wish. For an interactive map of the site see: http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/exhibition/interactivemap.htm View the location details and map available at: http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/visitingus/index.htm Or use http://www.multimap.com and enter: LE4 5NS Parking is readily available on-site. NOTE: The carpark is normally pay-and-display but meeting delegates can get a free parking pass from the entrance desk. Travel by rail to Leicester station, for timetable information
Re: DOCOPOCOSS for EN 60065 : 1998
Scott To presume compliance by applying the harmonised standard, the manufacturer need to place the product on the market before the DOCOPOCOSS. Have a look at section 2.3 of Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach (the blue book)http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ne approach/legislation/guide/document/1999_1282_en.pdf regards Charlie A question about the Date of Cessation of Presumption of Conformity of the Superseded Standard. If a product is tested to (and the CB Report indicates) EN 60065 : 1998, when is the last time that product can be sold to a customer? More specifically, if a product is near it's end of life by that date, can we build ahead and ship to the warehouse before that date? We will not be able to sell all to customers by that date, but they would be built and in storage. So is it still legal to sell these pre-built products to customers after the date? I know the date is March 1, 2007. We have some products close to end of life, say EOL by June 2007. Can we build that extra few months of sales and put them in storage in February and then still sell them after March? We're not talking RoHS here, only and specifically safety and the CE Mark. As always, I look forward to your expert replies, and I thank you in advance. Scott Douglas sdoug...@ptcnh.net - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: DOCOPOCOSS for EN 60065 : 1998
In message 448e2655.3000...@ptcnh.net, dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Scott Douglas sdoug...@ptcnh.net writes If a product is tested to (and the CB Report indicates) EN 60065 : 1998, when is the last time that product can be sold to a customer? More specifically, if a product is near it's end of life by that date, can we build ahead and ship to the warehouse before that date? We will not be able to sell all to customers by that date, but they would be built and in storage. So is it still legal to sell these pre-built products to customers after the date? Not if you have retained ownership after the docopocoss. I know the date is March 1, 2007. We have some products close to end of life, say EOL by June 2007. Can we build that extra few months of sales and put them in storage in February and then still sell them after March? We're not talking RoHS here, only and specifically safety and the CE Mark. No, you must 'place [them] on the market' before the cut-off date, by putting them into the distribution chain. Depending on how you market the products, your distributors may agree to take them into stock, but ownership must be transferred from your company to them. You may feel that this is not sensible, but if it were not so, abuse of the docopocoss would be easy. There seem to be no other way of doing it. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: WEEE Labeling of Components vs. Systems
In message offebd41a2.f2c14b39-on6525718c.0017aaf4-6525718c.00184...@scmmicro.co.in , dated Tue, 13 Jun 2006, kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in writes For an expert like John if things are appearing as complete mess, what will be the fate of others. I am not able to sleep peacefully while thinking 1st July 2006. What kind of penalties can be expected, any idea? You should not be too apprehensive. If you can show that you did the best you could under the circumstances, any penalty is likely to be mild, of the nature of an official 'you must improve' instruction to the company concerned. Individuals are rarely pursued, unless they have clearly been dishonest. The best safeguard is to write down at length what you did in order to try to comply, and what you wanted to do but couldn't, due to matters beyond your control. I have been told that while EMC directive was introduced at the beginning lot of vigilance activities went on but subsequently it got reduced, is this correct? Not as far as I know; there was a quiet period before serious enforcement activity started. Consider how many millions of products there are out there, and what would happen if action were taken against a company that HAS actually done its best to cope with the confusing legislation and the non-availability of suitable parts. A good defence lawyer would ensure that all those problems were brought out in court and splashed all over the media. The authorities would look like asses or villains, and I suspect they know that. The real victim might be a small manufacturer who hasn't even tried to comply, perhaps through not knowing what needs to be done, and who can't afford to hire a good lawyer. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
DOCOPOCOSS for EN 60065 : 1998
A question about the Date of Cessation of Presumption of Conformity of the Superseded Standard. If a product is tested to (and the CB Report indicates) EN 60065 : 1998, when is the last time that product can be sold to a customer? More specifically, if a product is near it's end of life by that date, can we build ahead and ship to the warehouse before that date? We will not be able to sell all to customers by that date, but they would be built and in storage. So is it still legal to sell these pre-built products to customers after the date? I know the date is March 1, 2007. We have some products close to end of life, say EOL by June 2007. Can we build that extra few months of sales and put them in storage in February and then still sell them after March? We're not talking RoHS here, only and specifically safety and the CE Mark. As always, I look forward to your expert replies, and I thank you in advance. Scott Douglas sdoug...@ptcnh.net - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: WEEE Labeling of Components vs. Systems
Dear John other experts, For an expert like John if things are appearing as complete mess, what will be the fate of others. I am not able to sleep peacefully while thinking 1st July 2006. What kind of penalties can be expected, any idea? I have been told that while EMC directive was introduced at the beginning lot of vigilance activities went on but subsequently it got reduced, is this correct? Sincerely K.Balasubramanian Project Leader - Hardware. John Woodgate jmw@jmwa.demon.c o.uk To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 06/12/2006 09:01 Re: WEEE Labeling of Components vs. PMSystems In message 20060612151511.73191.qm...@web55512.mail.re4.yahoo.com, dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Andy Garcia arg...@yahoo.com writes It has always been my understanding that WEEE labeling is required on devices, instruments, apparatus, what have you, but not on any of the sub-assemblies or specific components. I am now told that entities in Europe are requiring that items such as detachable power cords also need to be WEEE labeled. The justification is that since these parts can become detached from the presumably labeled instrument, it must also be labeled separately. I cannot see where this is directly addressed in the directive. Has anyone also come accross this issue? Are you labeling systems, as well as specific sub-components of those systems? It's a complete mess. Just do what you are asked to do and soldier on.. (with a lead-free soldier, of course) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
