Re: IATA Regulations
In message 45d087ad.9090...@sun.com, dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Monrad Monsen monrad.mon...@sun.com writes In fact, 49CFR only has the forbidden magnetic levels in the regulations (deviate the compass by 2.0 degrees at a distance of 15 feet). Do modern aircraft still rely on a lodestone, then? (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: EN55014 EN55022/24 test limit similarities?
Clause 4.1.3 of EN 55014-1:2006 covers radiated emissions for toys from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz. This test is restricted to toys otherwise disturbance power is measured on an extended power cord (5.6 m) with an absorbing clamp in the range of 30 MHz to 300 MHz. The test is run now using actual auxiliary loads. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = Bob Richards b...@toprudder.co m To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 02/11/2007 08:33 Re: EN55014 EN55022/24 test PMlimit similarities? Bob, You are right, that is why I said: I believe that if your module passes 55022 class B limits, and also the next higher level in 55024, your module will probably not contribute to a failure in the end product. ;-) I never tested any toys so I am not familiar with that. Is that part of 55014 now (or then)? I do remember there was a section in 55014 covering internal vibrators, and what was to be used as the auxillary load for test purposes. :-O And, no, I never had the chance to test any of those. At the time I was performing tests to 55014, there was a separate standard for immunity, I believe it was 55104. Cheers, Bob Richards, NCT rehel...@mmm.com wrote: There is a radiated emissions test for toys and I would advise doing the test for all products. The radiated test for 55014-1 is a disturbance power test mush as you described but I would not come to the conclusion that passing EN 55022 Class B would be all right. Also EN 55014-1 covers emissions and EN 55014-2 covers immunity. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 === Bob Richards m To Sent by: David Heald emc-p...@ieee.org ieee cc 02/09/2007 11:08 Subject AM Re: EN55014 EN55022/24 test limit similarities? David, It has been a few years since I tested anything to 55014, and I don't have access to 55014 now, so what I say may be dated. IIRC, Unless the product is a power tool, 55014 has similar conducted emissions limits. I believe the average limit is actually higher at 150kHz, but pretty much the same as class B 55022 limits. Power tools have higher limits. In 55014, there is no radiated emissions test. However there is a disturbance power test, which covers 30-300 MHz using an absorber clamp to measure the emissions on any cables exiting the product. This test is what some labs refer to as the track test, since the absorber clamp has wheels, and is moved along some sort of track to maximize the emissions. There is a click test, or discontinuous disturbance test. This is an additional conducted disturbance test for very short duration spikes in the conducted emissions, due to switching transients that may exist in products with relays or contactors. It is basically a relaxation of the normal conducted QP limits for these transients. The amount of relaxation of the limit is based on the click frequency, the fewer clicks the more the limit is relaxed. Conducted immunity covers up to 230 MHz instead of 80 MHz. There is no radiated immunity. I believe EFT and surge tests are similar. I believe that if your module passes 55022 class B limits, and also the next higher level in 55024, your module will probably not contribute to a failure in the end product. I hope this helps. Bob Richards, NCT. - 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
Re: IEC 62321
Does anyone have any idea the reason(s) of rejection? Following is a list of test methods mentioned in the Chinese test standard, SJ/T 11365-2006: XRF: Pb, Hg, Cd, Cr, Br Soxhlet Extraction + GC-MS + Calculation: PBB, PBDE ICP-AES/OES, ICP-MS, AAS: Pb, Cd CVAAS, AFS, ICP-AES/OES, ICP-MS, AAS: Hg Colorimetric Method: Cr(VI) Best Regards, Grace On 2/10/07, Ronald R. Wellman rwell...@wellman.com wrote: From what I hear, 111/54/CDV was rejected by TC 111. However, China has gone ahead and adopted 111/54/CDV as a standard anyways. Ron Wellman From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 6:39 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: IEC 62321 In message 2a93eb060702090550m17bff523ucb2e6939c55e0...@mail.gmail.com , dated Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com writes Can someone share the latest status of IEC 62321? This (more accurate: 111/54/CDV) is the reference standard of Chinese industrial standard SJ/T 11365-2006. I would like to learn/study it, especially terminology used. I did Google search. It seems IEC 62321 doesn't exsist at this time. I only found a similar document in Chinese, which is 111/24/CD. Since it's a CDV, it's not in the public domain. The Chinese National Committee should not have referenced it yet in a national standard. The only way you might have been able to get a copy is by asking your National Committee for a copy so that you can comment on it. But the comment date has passed and the votes are in. (This is from the public part of the IEC web site.) So you can't get a copy that way. The document was also designated as of interest to TC108, so I can tell you that the document appears to have failed its vote. I'm not sure, because there is an anomaly about access rights on the IEC site which I'm going to take up with the Central Office. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. 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 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 - 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: DoCs After July
Hi Bob. You wrote: Article 9(1) states Each apparatus shall be identified in terms of type, batch, serial number, or any other information allowing for the identification of the apparatus. Is this saying that if serial numbers exist, then they must be on the DoC? I hope not. The intention is, of course, to confirm that the device sold and covered by the CofC, is the same as the device tested around which the CofC was generated. I have always put Manufacturer, machine part/model number, revision, and a 'from serial number' entry onto a CofC, that covers the past, but how long is the future? But your points bring up the old question of Evaporation of Compliance. i.e. how long does a C of C remain valid, even without a model revision there are all sorts of changes that may creep in to a design. - Changes to chip suppliers bith the same generic part number. - Technology 'improvements' e.g. faster clock edges, higher slew rates, on the same chip part number. - Change to sub contract manufacturer. - Change to lead free components. - Changes due to obsolescence. - Changes to case materials. All essentially ending up on the same machine with the same model number, but with possibly very different EMC footprints. So.. Assuming no design or component changes, how long should a Cof C remain valid? 1 year. 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Chris Dupres ***Internet Email Confidentiality Footer*** The contents of this e-mail message (including any attachments hereto) are confidential to and are intended to be conveyed for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed only. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender of this immediately and delete the message from your system. Any distribution, reproduction or use of this message by someone other than recipient is not authorized and may be unlawful. - 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Questions on IEC 62305 lightning protection
A couple of questions on lightning protection as per IEC / EN 62305:2006 : - Where to download the risk calculator program shown in IEC 62305-2? Has anyone experience of using the reinforced concrete foundations of extended structures ( e.g. overhead railway line ) for surge protection earth? The traction supply is 650V DC Regards, Bob Edwards, Product Compliance Technical Authority Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd., Chippenham, Wilts, U.K. Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. - 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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
