Re: Zinc passivation vs. Stainless Steel hardware selection

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

True, spelling is important, but I got about 5 times more hits Googling for
'alodine' than 'alodyne'. 

I seem to remember our mechanical engineers also using the phrase 'chromate
conversion' for a conductive coating. 
Google gave me a lot of hits on that term, including many pages comparing
anodize & chromate conversion. 

I also saw a reference to a U.S. military standard describing it -
MIL-DTL-5541.  Here's a link: 
 
If that link doesn't work, go to ,
and search for Document Number '5541'. 

Pat Lawler
EMC Engineer
SL Power Electronics Corp.

Fred Townsend  wrote on 01/14/2008 03:30:35 PM:
> I'm not an anodize or Alodyne expert but I will offer a few notes: 
> 
> You will get more hits when looking up Alodyne if you spell it 
> correctly.  See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alodyne 
> Both processes are clear. Some sort of dye is added for coloring. 
> Yellow is popular for Alodyne and black for anodize. 
> Anodize is an oxide forming process. Aluminum oxide (and most 
> oxides) are insulators. 
> Alodyne is a different process, i.e. not a type of Anodize and is
conductive. 
> 
> Fred Townsend 
> DC to Light Inc. 
> 
> Tarver, Peter wrote: 
> 
> From: Curt McNamara 
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:33 PM 
> 
> In my experience almost all anodize is non- 
> conductive. The only conductive one that I recall is black zinc. 
> 
> 
> I don't know if the process to which you refer is the form of 
> anodizing I've come across called 'Alodine' (also black), but I've 
> seen Alodine used in earthing paths with several mating interfaces 
> with success. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Peter L. Tarver, peptar...@ieee.org CONFIDENTIALITY 
> This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only 
> for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally 
> privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the 
> intended recipient of this e-mail message, you are hereby notified 
> that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail 
> message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.  If 
> you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately 
> notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copies
> of this email and any prints thereof. 
> ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL
> IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING.  Notwithstanding the 
> Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any 
> other law of similar substance and effect, absent an express 
> statement to the contrary hereinabove, this e-mail message its 
> contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent 
> an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not 
> otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or 
> any of its subsidiaries), or any other person or entity. 
> 
> - 
>  
> 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.htmlList rules: 
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlFor help, send mail to the 
> list administrators: 
> 
>  Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net 
>  Mike Cantwell   mcantwell@ieee.orgFor policy questions,
> send mail to: 
> 
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 
>  David Heald:emc-pstc@daveheald.comAll emc-pstc 
> postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> 
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
> -
- 
> Text inserted by Platinum 2007: 
> 
>  This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited 
> mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http:
> //127.0.0.1:6083/Panda?ID=pav_236500&SPAM=true
> -
- 
> 
>   -  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: Zinc passivation vs. Stainless Steel hardware selection

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

I'm not an anodize or Alodyne expert but I will offer a few notes:


1.  You will get more hits when looking up Alodyne if you spell it 
correctly. 
See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alodyne

2.  Both processes are clear. Some sort of dye is added for coloring. 
Yellow is
popular for Alodyne and black for anodize.

3.  Anodize is an oxide forming process. Aluminum oxide (and most oxides) 
are
insulators.
4.  Alodyne is a different process, i.e. not a type of Anodize and is
conductive.

Fred Townsend
DC to Light Inc.


Tarver, Peter wrote: 

From: Curt McNamara

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:33 PM



In my experience almost all anodize is non- 

conductive. The only conductive one that I recall is black zinc.





I don't know if the process to which you refer is the form of anodizing I've
come across called 'Alodine' (also black), but I've seen Alodine used in
earthing paths with several mating interfaces with success.





Regards,



Peter L. Tarver, PE

ptar...@ieee.org 



CONFIDENTIALITY

This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any
copies of this email and any prints thereof.

ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT
INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING.  Notwithstanding the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar
substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove,
this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended
to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not
otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its
subsidiaries), or any other person or entity.



-



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






Text inserted by Platinum 2007:



 This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail
(spam), click on the following link to reclassify it:
http://127.0.0.1:6083/Panda?ID=pav_236500
 &SPAM=true








  


-  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 

Northeast Product Safety Society Meeting on Wednesday, January 23rd

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

All,

NOTE - The NORTHEAST PRODUCT SAFETY SOCIETY has a new web address –
WWW.NEPSS.NET.  Please make sure you change your shortcuts and links or
you will miss out on all we have to offer!

There will be a Northeast Product Safety Society / CNEC Product Safety
Engineering Society meeting on Wednesday, January 23rd, at The Holiday
Inn, Boxborough MA.   A social hour with light refreshments will begin
at 7:00 PM and the technical meeting will start at 7:30 PM.  The January
meeting of the Northeast Product Safety Society will be an open
forum/discussion for whatever you would like to talk about concerning
product safety, compliance, regulatory, and related environmental
issues.  We’re sure that there will be enough expert advice available to
keep you headed in the right direction.  The AdCom will also lead a
discussion on the future of the NPSS, the IEEE/PSES and several related
topics.  This is your organization and we need to revitalize it not as
the AdCom wants, but as you our membership want.  We are here to provide
the venue and meeting topics that you want to hear about but we need
your assistance.  If you will be in the area, please feel free to join
us as advanced notice or membership in NPSS or IEEE PSES is not
required.

If you or anyone you know would like to give a product safety technical
presentation, please contact Paul Smith, our meeting scheduler, by email
at paul...@yahoo.com.  A technical presentation should be 45 to 60
minutes in duration and be related to product safety.  Although the
presentation may reference your company and it’s services, the
presentation must not be simply company advertising.  We would also
appreciate any slides or handout materials be made available for posting
on the NPSS web site.  Releasing presentation materials for posting is
desired but not a requirement to make a presentation.

The 2008 NPSS meeting schedule is available on the NPSS website at
http://www.nepss.net/Calendar.html.

Further information about the Northeast Product Safety Society and how
to become a member is available at http://www.nepss.net.  You can also
contact one of the NPSS officers via links on the NPSS web site.

Directions:
>From Route 495 North or South, take Exit 28 to Route 111 East
Turn right onto Adams Place (approximately 500 feet from Route 495
North)
The Holiday Inn is the last building on the left.

Regards,

Matt Campanella
NPSS Secretary

Compliance Engineer
Motorola, Inc.
Broadband Communications Sector
111 Locke Drive
Marlborough, MA 01752

(508) 786-7629   Direct
(508) 786-7500   Main
(508) 480-6332   Fax

matthew.campane...@motorola.com  email

-

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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

John,

Although that sounds fine on the surface and assuming that space is not
a consideration, you are still doubling the parasitic resistance and
inductance of the filtering path. In fact since the larger value
capacitance device often requires even larger packages, the parasitics
may be more than double.

These parasitics degrade the decoupling characteristics of the capacitor
(or the coupling characteristics if you are looking at the issue
differently).

If you can visualize the impedance vs. frequency curve for a capacitor
(a "V" shape), increased resistance will raise the entire curve up and
the increased inductance will move the minimum impedance down in
frequency. Neither effect is generally considered beneficial for EMI.

...Marko


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 2:05 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Y1 cap info

In message 
<64c85c187de0f944bb7b79f01af019a034e...@mail-01.stratalight.com>, dated 
Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Marko Radojicic  writes:

>Two Y-caps in series = lower capacitance, twice the parasitics, less 
>filtering, and thus more conducted EMI.
>
>There is no free lunch: "Bomb-proof" Y cap design = reduced EMI 
>performance, unfortunately.

If I needed a 33 nF Y-cap, I might well use two 68 nF in series. No 
reduced EMC.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
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

Re: Zinc passivation vs. Stainless Steel hardware selection

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
<5f5a140eb5cb094bb4d2c477c8c4ad99922...@sjc1amfpew04.am.sanm.corp>, 
dated Mon, 14 Jan 2008, "Tarver, Peter"  
writes:

>You seem certain about this.  I'm unconvinced.

I suggest you talk to a tame electro-chemist.

> Do you have a reference?  I've been looking into the origins of the 
>table in Annex J for years (off and on) and have not found a continuous 
>lineage within the IEC, let alone its root.

I agree: I couldn't find where it came from, but, as far as it goes, the 
latest version (with the typos corrected) is true. The point is that it 
doesn't apply in the real world, where sulfate and, especially, chloride 
ions, and others, are present. For example, copper corrodes in the 
presence of chloride ions, which you wouldn't expect from the table.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
<64c85c187de0f944bb7b79f01af019a034e...@mail-01.stratalight.com>, dated 
Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Marko Radojicic  writes:

>Two Y-caps in series = lower capacitance, twice the parasitics, less 
>filtering, and thus more conducted EMI.
>
>There is no free lunch: "Bomb-proof" Y cap design = reduced EMI 
>performance, unfortunately.

If I needed a 33 nF Y-cap, I might well use two 68 nF in series. No 
reduced EMC.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Yeah, I know. Several weeks ago, the design engineers suggested that I do
something physically impossible, when I requested two caps in series... 

And you would not believe some of the things that we have done to get the
'last few microamps" out of some of our last custom medical unit. Nothing
to be 'humbled' about, we just kept banging away at the noisy stuff until
the requirement for y-caps was mitigated.

luck,
Brian 

 > -Original Message-
 > From: Marko Radojicic [mailto:mradoji...@stratalight.com]
 > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:45 PM
 > To: rn...@san.rr.com; Brian O'Connell
 > Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
 > Subject: RE: Y1 cap info
 > 
 > 
 > Important EMI consideration:
 > 
 > Two Y-caps in series = lower capacitance, twice the parasitics, less
 > filtering, and thus more conducted EMI. 
 > 
 > There is no free lunch: "Bomb-proof" Y cap design = reduced EMI
 > performance, unfortunately.
 > 
 > 
 > I agree with the statements that Y caps are exceedingly reliable and
 > that the need to put them is series is slim.
 > 
 > The only applications that I am aware of that *don't* use Y-caps are
 > those that have extremely high requirements for leakage 
 > current such as
 > some classes of medical devices. (I am humbled by the ability of our
 > medical device compliance colleagues to meet all the regulatory
 > requirements without these Y-caps.)
 > 
 > 
 > ...Marko

-

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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Important EMI consideration:

Two Y-caps in series = lower capacitance, twice the parasitics, less
filtering, and thus more conducted EMI. 

There is no free lunch: "Bomb-proof" Y cap design = reduced EMI
performance, unfortunately.


I agree with the statements that Y caps are exceedingly reliable and
that the need to put them is series is slim.

The only applications that I am aware of that *don't* use Y-caps are
those that have extremely high requirements for leakage current such as
some classes of medical devices. (I am humbled by the ability of our
medical device compliance colleagues to meet all the regulatory
requirements without these Y-caps.)


...Marko


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
rn...@san.rr.com
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:18 PM
To: 'Brian O'Connell'
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Y1 cap info

Hi Brian:


> While our design technically conforms to the requirements of 
> 60950-1, I do
> not feel 'right' about a single component bridging either
> primary/secondary, or primary/floating metal in a Class II 
> unit until I
> can learn more about Y1 cap reliability and typical failure 
> modes, so I
> have no information for a case-by-case basis.

Stress and reliability requirements for Y-capacitors are
specified in IEC 60384-14 and UL 1414.  If the capacitors 
are certified, these standards are quite good at getting 
reliable parts.  Study the standards, and you may feel 
better about using a single Y1 cap.

Y1 capacitors are rated for reinforced insulation, and can
be used in Class II equipment between mains and accessible
parts, including SELV.  I've had no hesitation in using 
certified Y1 caps in such applications.  And, I've had no
failures of certified Y1 or Y2 caps.

Since EMC requirements came into effect, virtually every
product has employed certified Y1 or Y2 caps.  This is a
very good base for judging reliability.  I'm not aware of
any Y-cap field failure problems.

For typical failure modes, contact your Y-cap manufacturer.
Failure modes are likely unique to each manufacturer.

If you are still concerned about reliability, and if cost
is not an issue, use two Y caps in series.  Y2 caps are 
rated for basic or supplementary insulation.  Or, to be 
super-conservative, use two Y1 caps in series.   


Best regards,
Rich

-

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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message <002901c856f2$e128c900$c600a8c0@PC323541548743>, dated Mon, 
14 Jan 2008, rn...@san.rr.com writes:

>For typical failure modes, contact your Y-cap manufacturer. Failure 
>modes are likely unique to each manufacturer.

But the fundamental point is that if the insulation is punctured, e.g. 
by a high-voltage spike, the metal film vaporizes around the puncture. 
Now this applies when the cap is line-to-earth, if it's 
line-to-accessible part, there MAY, in theory, not be enough current 
when the spike occurs to clear the fault in that way. Whether any such 
case has actually occurred is another matter.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
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: Zinc passivation vs. Stainless Steel hardware selection

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

> From: John Woodgate
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:02 PM
> 
> Ted Eckert writes:
> 
> >IEC 60950-1 Annex J.
> 
> So it does, but the relation between these potentials and 
> corrosion is only determined under laboratory conditions.

You seem certain about this.  I'm unconvinced.  Do you have a reference?  I've
been looking into the origins of the table in Annex J for years (off and on)
and have not found a continuous lineage within the IEC, let alone its root.

> >austenitic stainless or chromium stainless.
> 
> Isn't there chromium in all?

In all the forms I know of.  The difference is primarily the amount of
chromium and in the remaining elements in the alloy.

> I noticed that the aluminium is anodized. Presumably this is 
> a type of anodizing known not to form an electrically 
> insulating layer, as it usually does. I agree that 
> introducing third and fourth metals (steel screws with zinc 
> coating) is unwise. If there is no chance of intermetallic 
> reaction between the aluminium and gold ('purple plague'), 
> stainless steel screws may be advisable.

CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any
copies of this email and any prints thereof.
ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT
INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING.  Notwithstanding the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar
substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove,
this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended
to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not
otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its
subsidiaries), or any other person or entity.

-

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: Zinc passivation vs. Stainless Steel hardware selection

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

> From: Curt McNamara
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:33 PM
> 
> In my experience almost all anodize is non- 
> conductive. The only conductive one that I recall is black zinc.

I don't know if the process to which you refer is the form of anodizing I've
come across called 'Alodine' (also black), but I've seen Alodine used in
earthing paths with several mating interfaces with success.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org 

CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any
copies of this email and any prints thereof.
ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT
INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING.  Notwithstanding the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar
substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove,
this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended
to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not
otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its
subsidiaries), or any other person or entity.

-

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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Brian:


> While our design technically conforms to the requirements of 
> 60950-1, I do
> not feel 'right' about a single component bridging either
> primary/secondary, or primary/floating metal in a Class II 
> unit until I
> can learn more about Y1 cap reliability and typical failure 
> modes, so I
> have no information for a case-by-case basis.

Stress and reliability requirements for Y-capacitors are
specified in IEC 60384-14 and UL 1414.  If the capacitors 
are certified, these standards are quite good at getting 
reliable parts.  Study the standards, and you may feel 
better about using a single Y1 cap.

Y1 capacitors are rated for reinforced insulation, and can
be used in Class II equipment between mains and accessible
parts, including SELV.  I've had no hesitation in using 
certified Y1 caps in such applications.  And, I've had no
failures of certified Y1 or Y2 caps.

Since EMC requirements came into effect, virtually every
product has employed certified Y1 or Y2 caps.  This is a
very good base for judging reliability.  I'm not aware of
any Y-cap field failure problems.

For typical failure modes, contact your Y-cap manufacturer.
Failure modes are likely unique to each manufacturer.

If you are still concerned about reliability, and if cost
is not an issue, use two Y caps in series.  Y2 caps are 
rated for basic or supplementary insulation.  Or, to be 
super-conservative, use two Y1 caps in series.   


Best regards,
Rich

-

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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message <002d01c856ee$fcd3c000$d600a...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Mon, 
14 Jan 2008, Brian O'Connell  writes:

>A question on this std - why do Y1 caps not have to meet the active 
>flammability test, but Y2-rated caps must ?

I don't know. Do we have any IEC TC40 people here?
>
>
>While our design technically conforms to the requirements of 60950-1, I 
>do not feel 'right' about a single component bridging either 
>primary/secondary, or primary/floating metal in a Class II unit until I 
>can learn more about Y1 cap reliability and typical failure modes, so I 
>have no information for a case-by-case basis.

I mean you need to evaluate each new design, with a risk analysis if 
possible. Meanwhile, people use two Y-caps in series.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

On 1/14/2008, Brian O'Connell wrote:



While our design technically conforms to the requirements of 60950-1, I do
not feel 'right' about a single component bridging either
primary/secondary, or primary/floating metal in a Class II unit until I
can learn more about Y1 cap reliability and typical failure modes, so I
have no information for a case-by-case basis. 



Hi Brian:

A single Y1 cap is generally acceptable under 60950-1, but if you are uneasy
with that for your particular application, you can put two in series.  That
construction would come pretty close to being "bullet-proof."




Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.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: 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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

 =*=*packet mod warning=*=*

 > -Original Message-
 > From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John
 > Woodgate
 > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:27 PM
 > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
 > Subject: Re: Y1 cap info
 >
 > In message <002701c856e5$23d4fe80$d600a...@tamuracorp.com>,
 > dated Mon,
 > 14 Jan 2008, Brian O'Connell  writes:
 >
 > >I have not been able to find fundamental construction
 > information for
 > >Y1-rated capacitors.
 >
 > Obviously, details may be commercially-confidential. But in
 > principle,
 > they consist of a metal film/dielectric sandwich, so
 > designed that if
 > the dielectric is punctured, the surrounding film evaporates
 > during the
 > discharge, thus isolating the puncture and preserving the insulation
 > resistance minimally degraded.

thanks, very interesting.

 > >I am also looking for failure mode and reliability info.
 >
 > They have to meet the relevant requirements of IEC 60384-14.

A question on this std - why do Y1 caps not have to meet the active
flammability test, but Y2-rated caps must ?

 > >
 > >What I can find, makes me feel neither warm nor fuzzy for
 > use in Class
 > >II construction.
 >
 > Y-capacitors are basically intended for connection
 > line-to-earth. Since
 > Class II products don't have an earth connection,
 > Y-capacitors are not
 > used for that purpose in them. So, if you want to connect a
 > capacitor
 > from the mains side of a Class II product to the accessible
 > side, you
 > have to make sure that the reliability etc. are adequate on a
 > case-by-case basis. You also need to ensure that touch-current
 > requirements are met, which severely restricts the maximum value of
 > capacitance.

While our design technically conforms to the requirements of 60950-1, I do
not feel 'right' about a single component bridging either
primary/secondary, or primary/floating metal in a Class II unit until I
can learn more about Y1 cap reliability and typical failure modes, so I
have no information for a case-by-case basis.

Thanks much,
Brian

-

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: Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message <002701c856e5$23d4fe80$d600a...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Mon, 
14 Jan 2008, Brian O'Connell  writes:

>I have not been able to find fundamental construction information for 
>Y1-rated capacitors.

Obviously, details may be commercially-confidential. But in principle, 
they consist of a metal film/dielectric sandwich, so designed that if 
the dielectric is punctured, the surrounding film evaporates during the 
discharge, thus isolating the puncture and preserving the insulation 
resistance minimally degraded.

>I am also looking for failure mode and reliability info.

They have to meet the relevant requirements of IEC 60384-14.

>
>What I can find, makes me feel neither warm nor fuzzy for use in Class 
>II construction.

Y-capacitors are basically intended for connection line-to-earth. Since 
Class II products don't have an earth connection, Y-capacitors are not 
used for that purpose in them. So, if you want to connect a capacitor 
>from the mains side of a Class II product to the accessible side, you 
have to make sure that the reliability etc. are adequate on a 
case-by-case basis. You also need to ensure that touch-current 
requirements are met, which severely restricts the maximum value of 
capacitance.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
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

Y1 cap info

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Good People,

I have not been able to find fundamental construction information for
Y1-rated capacitors. I am also looking for failure mode and reliability
info.

What I can find, makes me feel neither warm nor fuzzy for use in Class II
construction.

thanks much,
Brian

-

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

Human Exposure in China and India

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Does anyone know if China and India follow the ICNIRP recommendation for human
exposure, or do they have their own national regulation for human exposure?  I
am interested especially in the frequency range below 100 kHz.

Don Umbdenstock
Manager Compliance Engineering

Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic
6600 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA
Phone: 561.912.6440
  djumbdenst...@tycoint.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: 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: ANSI C63.5: Determination of EdMax; Radio Frequency Principles and Applications

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Richard/all,

Table 2 shows horizontal Edmax for receive heights of 1 to 4 meters, not
just at 4 meters. Up to about 100-200 MHz the receive height for horizontal
Edmax should be at 4m or higher, so the value at 4m would be valid. For
higher frequencies the height for horizontal Edmax will be lower. You will
need to compute for multiple receive heights and find the max values.

I hope this helps,
Dennis Camell   
National Institute of Standards and Technology 
325 Broadway,  MS 818.02
Boulder, CO 80305   USA


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Georgerian
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:29 AM
To: IEEE emc-pstc
Subject: ANSI C63.5: Determination of EdMax; Radio Frequency Principles and
Applications

Greetings All,

I've been reading Albert A. Smith's book, Radio Frequency Principles and
Applications, and ANSI C63.5 trying to work out the formula of the
determination of
maximum received field, EdMax. In Smith's book, the one of the formula's I
am trying
to work out is on page 51, equation (3.21) and in ANSI C63.5, similar
formulas are in
Annex A, equation (A.1).

I am getting the same EdMax values up to 100MHz in Table 2 of ANSI 63.5, but
for
whatever reason, for frequencies greater than 100MHz, EdMax's are completely
different. I am not sure what is happening to get such erroneous results.

For my own edification, I've been attempting to work through the equations
to see if
I can get the same values as in ANSI C63.5 Table 2, with little success.
Hopefully,
someone with a little more math experience can help me. For those who don't
have the
book or ANSI C63.5 the equations are as follows. I have used the Greek
variable names
instead of their symbols, to reduce the chance of them not being formatted
correctly
in different browsers.

For the horizontal plane -

EdhMax = ((49.2)^0.5 * {(d2^2 + d1^2*|rho,h|^2 + 2*d1*d2|rho,h|*cos[(phi) -
(beta)*(d2-d1)]}^0.5)/(d1*d2)

d1 = [R^2 + (h1 - h2)^2]^0.5
d2 = [R^2 + (h1 + h2)^2]^0.5

h1 is the height of the transmit antenna, h1 = 2 meters
h2 is the height of the receiving antenna, h4 = 4 meters
R is the antenna distance between the transmit and receive antenna, R = 10
meters


rho,h = {sin(gamma) - [( K - j60*(lambda)*(sigma) -
(cos(gamma))^2)]^0.5}/{sin(gamma)
+ [( K - j60*(lambda)*(sigma) - (cos(gamma))^2)]^0.5} = |rho,h|*(exp)^j(phi)

|rho,h| is the magnitude

K is the relative dielectric constant of the ground plane. K =1 for perfect
conductor
sigma is the conductivity of the ground plane, siemens per meter (S/m).
sigma =
infinity for perfect conductor
gamma is the grazing angle. gamma = arccos[(h1 + h2)/R]
phi is the phase angle of reflection coefficient
beta = 2*pi/(lambda)
lambda is the wavelength, meters.


Many thanks in-advance,

Richard
 
=
Richard Georgerian
Compliance Engineer
email: richa...@ieee.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

-

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: Definition of system integrator

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Thank you.

Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications Corp.
Tel: 303-706-5467
Fax: 303-799-6222
Cell: 303-204-2974
Pager/Short Message: 3032042...@vtext.com
Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:14 AM
To: Grasso, Charles
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; monrad.mon...@sun.com
Subject: Re: Definition of system integrator

In message 
, 
dated Sun, 13 Jan 2008, "Grasso, Charles"  
writes:

>Thank you John and Monrad. I wonder though how this clinical definition
>applies in the PC marketplace?
>
>Who is the "manufacturer" when an external USB drive is purchased
>(by a consumer) and then attached to -  say - a laptop BTW
>in this case we have two CE marked devices!

The EMC Directive doesn't apply to collections of equipment set up by a 
private individual. Any interference that results is controlled, in 
Europe,  by the vestiges of national legislation that preceded the 
implementation of the Directive, or new legislation with the same 
effect.
>
>How does the "manufacturer" of the laptop prove that his product
>complies with the EMC Directive with the plethora of peripherals
>available to the everyday consumer?

He doesn't have to, only with the real or simulated peripherals 
described in the relevant EMC standards.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
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: Definition of system integrator

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
, 
dated Sun, 13 Jan 2008, "Grasso, Charles"  
writes:

>Thank you John and Monrad. I wonder though how this clinical definition
>applies in the PC marketplace?
>
>Who is the "manufacturer" when an external USB drive is purchased
>(by a consumer) and then attached to -  say - a laptop BTW
>in this case we have two CE marked devices!

The EMC Directive doesn't apply to collections of equipment set up by a 
private individual. Any interference that results is controlled, in 
Europe,  by the vestiges of national legislation that preceded the 
implementation of the Directive, or new legislation with the same 
effect.
>
>How does the "manufacturer" of the laptop prove that his product
>complies with the EMC Directive with the plethora of peripherals
>available to the everyday consumer?

He doesn't have to, only with the real or simulated peripherals 
described in the relevant EMC standards.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
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