Re: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)

[Cortland Richmond]

Remember the Swedish auto plant? That didn't have a CRT magnetic field
problem? Just paint particles attracted to CRT's and repelled onto the word
processor operator's faces?

Cortland
KA5S


> [Original Message]
> From: Chris Wells 
> To: Oscar Overton 
> Cc: ; 
> Date: 7/31/2008 9:57:56 PM
> Subject: Re: RF What-if (was:  RE: Another Cancer Scare?)
>
> Oscar - I will take some pot shots at my experience.
> The wire resistors are these large units where the wire coils are in a 
> frame.
> The whole assembly was covered with dust.
> As I dumped 10-20KW into these loads they did heat up and cause some
fumes.
> I do have alergies and so maybe there was somthing to this vapor exposure.
>
> Another issue was my concern about the safety of the loads.
> This was a lab where we tested motor starters till failure.
> If you've experienced enough phase to phase faults at 480 from a stiff 
> utility feed it will make you nervous.
> So another issue was my paranoia of the loads.
>
> But I was typically wrapped up in seeing if my code changes were working.
> I am just pointing out how there are so many variables to this event.
>
> I no longer work at that lab but do have the opportunity to work with 
> engineers that are regulary exposed to large AC magnetic fields.
> I will see if any of them have had similar expriences.
>
> Chris Wells
>
>
>
>
> From: "Oscar Overton" 
> Chris,
>
> I appreciate you comments and also the additional information related to
> your experience.
> The additional data  contributes to your assessment conclusions.
> Also, from your previous comment about the three options:
>
>   1. Self-testing is not comfortable but sometimes necessary.
>
>   2. Not telling others that they are being exposed would be
unethical.
>
>   3. A company with a vested interest will probably not investigate
but
> this too borders on the unethical.
>
> There are two additional alternatives.
>
>   1. Obtain volunteers to do testing that have been informed of the
> previous results and possible risks. However, this might skew the results
> because of psychological factors of knowing. The only other alternative is
> inform the test subjects that they are being tested but do not reveal to
> them what is being tested. This reduces the available test subjects but
> reduces the chance of psychological bias.  A problem with this is then the
> type of people that are willing to accept conditions such as this. Is this
> sample representative of the general population.
>
>   2. An independent lab does the testing. Unfortunately, unless they
> get funding, no one is going to just go out and spend money on this.
> Usually the only funding available for something like this is from a
source
> that has already taken a position and only wants proof of their position.
> Therefore the source of funding often taints the perception of the
results,
> even if not actually tainting the testing protocol or assessment.
>
> There are just too many variables to be able to come to a overwhelmingly
> valid conclusion on just about any thing that effects humans (or for that
> fact animals) in the natural environment. Many studies that seemed to
> conclusively shown some trait or connection have later been shown to be
the
> possible result of other factors that were not addressed in the original
> analysis.
> I don't remember where it was that I read it (not enough time to go back
> and research it now)  but I read about a study that linked high power
> transmission lines to cancer risk.
> The authors of the original study published that they had found a
> conclusive link between these two. The article showed that the data had
> been groomed (probably not intentionally) to the point that the conclusion
> was valid, but only for a very small geographical area. The results were
> attributed to statistical grouping. There was in fact a significant
> concentration of cancer events near a high power transmission line but
> similar conditions in other geographies could not substantiate the
> conclusions of the study. In other words, sample size matters.
> Also, there were possibly other factors that were not investigated as
> possible causes of the cancer concentration.
>
> Sloppy science produces sloppy results (GIGO).
>
> Your case provides a good data point from which to establish a study.
> It may also be that you are particularity sensitive to the conditions to
> which you were exposed. Similar to those with certain chemical
> sensitivities.
> Your experience may not be representative of the population as a whole.
>
> Maybe you can offer your co-workers the opportunity to participate in your
> study. Put the load center in their workspace (with their knowledge of
> course).
> Tell them it is all for the cause of science and the well being of mankind
> as a whole.
>
> Oscar
>
>
>
>  "Chris Wells"
>@comcast.net>  To
>   

Re: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)

[Chris Wells]

Oscar - I will take some pot shots at my experience.
The wire resistors are these large units where the wire coils are in a 
frame.
The whole assembly was covered with dust.
As I dumped 10-20KW into these loads they did heat up and cause some fumes.
I do have alergies and so maybe there was somthing to this vapor exposure.

Another issue was my concern about the safety of the loads.
This was a lab where we tested motor starters till failure.
If you've experienced enough phase to phase faults at 480 from a stiff 
utility feed it will make you nervous.
So another issue was my paranoia of the loads.

But I was typically wrapped up in seeing if my code changes were working.
I am just pointing out how there are so many variables to this event.

I no longer work at that lab but do have the opportunity to work with 
engineers that are regulary exposed to large AC magnetic fields.
I will see if any of them have had similar expriences.

Chris Wells




From: "Oscar Overton" 
Chris,

I appreciate you comments and also the additional information related to
your experience.
The additional data  contributes to your assessment conclusions.
Also, from your previous comment about the three options:

  1. Self-testing is not comfortable but sometimes necessary.

  2. Not telling others that they are being exposed would be unethical.

  3. A company with a vested interest will probably not investigate but
this too borders on the unethical.

There are two additional alternatives.

  1. Obtain volunteers to do testing that have been informed of the
previous results and possible risks. However, this might skew the results
because of psychological factors of knowing. The only other alternative is
inform the test subjects that they are being tested but do not reveal to
them what is being tested. This reduces the available test subjects but
reduces the chance of psychological bias.  A problem with this is then the
type of people that are willing to accept conditions such as this. Is this
sample representative of the general population.

  2. An independent lab does the testing. Unfortunately, unless they
get funding, no one is going to just go out and spend money on this.
Usually the only funding available for something like this is from a source
that has already taken a position and only wants proof of their position.
Therefore the source of funding often taints the perception of the results,
even if not actually tainting the testing protocol or assessment.

There are just too many variables to be able to come to a overwhelmingly
valid conclusion on just about any thing that effects humans (or for that
fact animals) in the natural environment. Many studies that seemed to
conclusively shown some trait or connection have later been shown to be the
possible result of other factors that were not addressed in the original
analysis.
I don't remember where it was that I read it (not enough time to go back
and research it now)  but I read about a study that linked high power
transmission lines to cancer risk.
The authors of the original study published that they had found a
conclusive link between these two. The article showed that the data had
been groomed (probably not intentionally) to the point that the conclusion
was valid, but only for a very small geographical area. The results were
attributed to statistical grouping. There was in fact a significant
concentration of cancer events near a high power transmission line but
similar conditions in other geographies could not substantiate the
conclusions of the study. In other words, sample size matters.
Also, there were possibly other factors that were not investigated as
possible causes of the cancer concentration.

Sloppy science produces sloppy results (GIGO).

Your case provides a good data point from which to establish a study.
It may also be that you are particularity sensitive to the conditions to
which you were exposed. Similar to those with certain chemical
sensitivities.
Your experience may not be representative of the population as a whole.

Maybe you can offer your co-workers the opportunity to participate in your
study. Put the load center in their workspace (with their knowledge of
course).
Tell them it is all for the cause of science and the well being of mankind
as a whole.

Oscar



 "Chris Wells"
   To
   "Oscar Overton"
 07/30/2008 09:25  
 PM cc
   ,
   
   Subject
   Re: RF What-if (was:  RE: Another
   Cancer Scare?)









Oscar - I spend a lot of time debugging systems and separating coincidence
>from cause so I appreciate your skeptic stance.
I wo

RE: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)

[Tang, George]

Chris,

On the topic of RF exposure, I will throw in my two pennies.

Years ago, I was interested in the topic of frequency jamming of radio 
stations.  I thought it would be interesting to build a frequency jamming 
device that would cause home radios to stop working.  I built a random noise 
generator that produced noise in the frequency range of 100Hz to about 1MHz.  I 
used the noise generator to drive a loop antenna (2 ft diameter) with a max 
current of 2.5A.  The device worked very well in stopping AM radios from 
receiving the broadcast when I bring the loop close to any AM radio receiver.  
But as I was waving the loop in the air with my arm, I felt sever dizziness and 
a slight headache whenever the loop came close to my head.  And I felt a 
difficulty in breathing when I placed the loop next to my chest.  These are 
completely unmistakable feelings in the way that as I moved the antenna 3 feet 
away from my body, immediately, the feeling was gone.  The effects were very 
repeatable and the symptoms were immediate (within a few seconds).  I knew
!
  this was not a thermal effect because the frequencies were way too low.  I 
just knew that the fields were causing my organs to "malfunction."  After that, 
I stopped using the device.

I don't think you can attribute this to any coincidence.

George Tang


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Chris Wells
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:26 PM
To: Oscar Overton
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; k...@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)

Oscar - I spend a lot of time debugging systems and separating coincidence
>from cause so I appreciate your skeptic stance.
I would agree that it was not a controlled experiment but it was my
experience that I wanted to share.
My exposure was over a good part of a month and my flu like symptoms
happened at the exposure time and stopped ~ 4hrs+ later after leaving the
area.
I would estimate ~ 15 exposures events over that month and then many months
before and after without any problems.
As  a result of my experience I am being cautious, limiting unnecessary
exposure and since I work with power being observant of other situations.

Chris Wells



From: "Oscar Overton" 
Chris,

Until you can do this repeatedly and the results are the same, you have
only demonstrated a coincidence.

Oscar Overton
Product Safety

-

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: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?

[Don Gies]

Jim,

 

You can order Korean standards from the following website, but the standards
are in Korean.

 

http://www.kssn.net/English/WebStore/C_WebStore_list.asp

 

Many of the standards (e.g., KS C CISPR 22) are IEC standards translated into
Korean.

 

Regards,

 

Don Gies, N.C.E

Senior Product Compliance Engineer

Alcatel-Lucent

Murray Hill, NJ  07974-0636 USA

 

 



From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:30 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?

 

Will someone kindly point me to a source where I can obtain the EMC standards
(KN ) for South Korea?  English is preferable, although I understand that
some standards may not have an official English translation.

Thanks,

Jim

__

James L. Knighten, Ph.D.

EMC Engineer

Teradata Corporation

17095 Via Del Campo

San Diego, CA 92127

858-485-2537 – phone

213-337-5432 – fax

-  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 

Jingling change, ESD, and scope probes video

[Doug Smith]

Hi All,

Just posted my Friday video podcast video.

The link to the page is:

http://emcesd-podcast.com/weekly_podcasts/

Just click on:  This week's show - Jingling Change, ESD, and Scope Probes!

There are three videos posted there. The direct link to this week's 
program is:

http://emcesd-podcast.com/weekly_podcasts/weekly_podcast.mp4

You can also enter dougcsmith into the YouTube.com search box to see a 
listing of my three tech videos.

There is a surprise, funny ending to the video.

Next week I will be traveling on Friday and a separate trip earlier in 
the week so I may have to skip a week.

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: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?

Dear Jim
 
You can see the KN EMC standards list at below URL;
http://approval.rrl.go.kr/join/databoard/law/list.jsp?lw_type=4
 

FYI, Korea RRL do not provide latest official English version yet but you can
see the old English version in the each article.

Thanks,

Michael





Subject: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:30:25 -0400
From: jim.knigh...@teradata.com
To: emc-p...@ieee.org




Will someone kindly point me to a source where I can obtain the EMC standards
(KN ) for South Korea?  English is preferable, although I understand that
some standards may not have an official English translation.

Thanks,

Jim

__

James L. Knighten, Ph.D.

EMC Engineer

Teradata Corporation

17095 Via Del Campo

San Diego, CA 92127

858-485-2537 – phone

213-337-5432 – fax

-  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




eë²— 사귀기, 쪽지 보내기, ê°€ì ¯
즐기기를 통해 ì „ì„¸ê³„
친구들을 만나세요! 나의
글로벌 인맥, Windows Live Space!
 

RE: Class A antenna distance

[Pettit, Ghery]

CISPR 22 has a note that allows 3 meter testing for small class B devices.  It 
does not apply to class A devices, nor large class B devices.  That said, there 
is nothing going on to change this in CISPR 22.  Part of the reason we're not 
working on it is that multiple limits at test distances of 3, 5 and 10 meters 
are being proposed for CISPR 32, the new multimedia equipment emissions 
standard.  The test distances being proposed in CISPR 32 are dependent on the 
maximum dimension of the EUT.  This work is being done in CISPR SC I WG2.  Keep 
in mind that my estimate for the earliest this standard could be published is 
2010.

Ghery S. Pettit



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:59 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Class A antenna distance

In message
<2a93eb060807311215h30f89a09r2c23483501c76...@mail.gmail.com>, dated
Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Grace Lin  writes:


>What is the possibility to have CISPR accept 3m measurement distance,

I don't know. Maybe Ghery could comment?

> unconditionally, for Class B devices?  I feel 3m is more realistic in
>the residential environment.

I agree.

>I argue with (friendly) BSMI (Taiwan's authority).  The BSMI regulator
>tells me if CISPR accepts 3m unconditionally, BSMI will follow.
>
>The current version of CISPR 22 accepts 3m distance only under the
>condition as Ghery pointed out.

Indeed, and it may be that the reason is that the 3 m measured values
are often MORE than 10 dB above the 10 m values, so that it would be
more difficult to pass at 3m if the limits were simply set at 10 dB
above the 10 m limits.

I would be pragmatic and set the 3 m limits at about 12 dB above the 10
m limits. But that is heresy and would not be accepted.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
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: Class A antenna distance

[EMCPSTC]

Hello all,
 
I appreciate everyone's responses on this. Some comments raise another
question.
 
Since there needs to be a ground plane to meet NSA, but an absorber lined
floor is desirable for immunity testing, how is this normally resolved?
 
The only solution I can think of would be to make the absorber material
removable. In the case where ferrite tiles are used, how is this done without
breaking them each time they are moved?
 
Would the ground plane need to be exposed for the complete floor, or just
sections? NSA data would probably tell how much ground plane needs to be
there, but I was wondering if there are any industry standard practices.
 
Thanks,
Tim Pierce
 
In a message dated 7/30/2008 12:24:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bstu...@dlsemc.com writes:

Both answers are correct, but also the term Fully Anechoic Chamber 
raises a
flag.  The FCC does not allow the use of fully anechoic chambers for emissions
testing (30MHz - 1000MHz).  Reference ANSI C63.4(2003) Section 5.
 
CISPR 22 does not allow the use of fully anechoic chambers (Section 
10.4) &
(CISPR 16.1.4) 
 
All test sites must meet vertical and horizontal theoretical Site 
Attenuation.
 

Bill Stumpf





From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pettit, 
Ghery
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:06 PM
To: Rudd, Adam; emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Class A antenna distance



Note that the allowance for shorter measurement distances in CISPR 22 
is for
small devices, too.  And, as noted, is limited to Class B devices.  Plus, some
regulators do not allow this option to be used and insist on 10 meter data.

 

Ghery Pettit

 

 





From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rudd, 
Adam
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM
To: emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Class A antenna distance

 

47CFR 15.31(f)(1) allows measurements at distances other than specified 
and
details the extrapolation factor.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/octqtr/47cfr15.31.htm

 

EN 55022 Section 10.2.1 has a note that specifically makes an allowance 
for
Class B devices to be measured at 3m.  I tend to think the detail of Class B
being included and Class A being omitted from the note has significance.

Best Regards, 

Adam Rudd 
Engineer (EMC) 
NCR Corporation, RHSS 
Duluth, GA 
(770) 495-2825 





From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
emcp...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:26 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: (no subject)

 

Dear members,

 

I have a question on the use of a 3 meter fully anechoic chamber.

 

Can this 3 meter chamber be used to qualify a product for FCC or CISPR 
class
A, since the required test distance is 10 meter?

 

Please provide any reference to paragraphs in the standards. Your 
responses
are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Timothy A. Pierce

Tap Engineering, Inc.

 

 

 

 





Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse 
Fantasy
Football today  .

-  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.ne

Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?

[Knighten, Jim L]

Will someone kindly point me to a source where I can obtain the EMC standards
(KN ) for South Korea?  English is preferable, although I understand that
some standards may not have an official English translation.

Thanks,

Jim

__

James L. Knighten, Ph.D.

EMC Engineer

Teradata Corporation

17095 Via Del Campo

San Diego, CA 92127

858-485-2537 – phone

213-337-5432 – fax

-  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: Class A antenna distance

[John Woodgate]

In message 
<2a93eb060807311215h30f89a09r2c23483501c76...@mail.gmail.com>, dated 
Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Grace Lin  writes:


>What is the possibility to have CISPR accept 3m measurement distance,

I don't know. Maybe Ghery could comment?

> unconditionally, for Class B devices?  I feel 3m is more realistic in 
>the residential environment. 

I agree.

>I argue with (friendly) BSMI (Taiwan's authority).  The BSMI regulator 
>tells me if CISPR accepts 3m unconditionally, BSMI will follow.
> 
>The current version of CISPR 22 accepts 3m distance only under the 
>condition as Ghery pointed out.

Indeed, and it may be that the reason is that the 3 m measured values 
are often MORE than 10 dB above the 10 m values, so that it would be 
more difficult to pass at 3m if the limits were simply set at 10 dB 
above the 10 m limits.

I would be pragmatic and set the 3 m limits at about 12 dB above the 10 
m limits. But that is heresy and would not be accepted.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
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: Class A antenna distance

[Grace Lin]

Greetings John,
 
What is the possibility to have CISPR accept 3m measurement distance,
unconditionally, for Class B devices?  I feel 3m is more realistic in the
residential environment.  I argue with (friendly) BSMI (Taiwan's authority). 
The BSMI regulator tells me if CISPR accepts 3m unconditionally, BSMI will
follow.
 
The current version of CISPR 22 accepts 3m distance only under the condition
as Ghery pointed out.
 
Best regards,
Grace

 
On 7/31/08, John Woodgate  wrote: 

In message , dated Thu, 31 Jul 2008,
pat.law...@slpower.com writes:




Is it practical to get corresponding measurements in a 3m 
semi-anechoic
chamber, let alone a fully-anechoic chamber?



This is an elephant in the EMC room at present, and I think my UK 
colleagues
and I are among the few that can see it yet. We had discussions in UK about
it, and agreed (after MUCH discussion) that a definition of 'corresponding',
or whichever word is used in a similar context, is required.

Some experts are interpreting it as a strict numerical 'n dB for n dB'
equivalence, which is just not realistic, and not even compatible with
physics. A UK committee agreed that what was realistic to require was a
repeatable correlation, e.g. notionally in the form of a look-up table, and
this was submitted to CENELEC and CISPR.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
  and www.isce.org.uk  
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to 
stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You 
choose!
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: Class A antenna distance

[Bill Owsley]

Data from a 3m chamber has been used for over 20 years for FCC Class A
requirements.  It used to meet the NSA with two antennas/masts so 30-200 and
200-1000 MHz could be done at the same time.  I hear that the first 3m chamber
qualified to do that may be for sale by Florida Atlantic University in Boca
Raton, FL.

- Bill
You can say what you want about the South, but you never hear of anyone
retiring and moving North!!!

--- On Thu, 7/31/08, pat.law...@slpower.com  wrote:


From: pat.law...@slpower.com 
Subject: Re: Class A antenna distance
To: emc-p...@ieee.org, emcp...@aol.com
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 12:29 PM



Listmembers, 

The original poster wrote: 
> I have a question on the use of a 3 meter fully anechoic chamber.
>
> Can this 3 meter chamber be used to qualify a product for FCC or CISPR
> class A, since the required test distance is 10 meter?

I thought another clause in FCC Part 15 was important, too.  Clause 
15.31(d)
says: 
(d) Field strength measurements shall be made, to the extent possible, 
on an
open field site.  Test sites other than open field sites may be employed if
they are properly calibrated so that the measurement results correspond to
what would be obtained from an open field site.   
 

Is it practical to get corresponding measurements in a 3m semi-anechoic
chamber, let alone a fully-anechoic chamber? 

Pat Lawler
EMC Engineer
SL Power Electronics Corp.

emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 07/30/2008 02:51:01 PM:
> Since were in the process of buying 5m chamber this thread caught my 
eye.
> 
> I checked with the FCC, and they point to this paragraph in part 
15.31:
> 
> (f) To the extent practicable, the device under test shall be measured
> at the distance specified in
> the appropriate rule section. The distance specified corresponds to 
the
> horizontal distance between the
> measurement antenna and the closest point of the equipment under test,
> support equipment or
> interconnecting cables as determined by the boundary defined by an
> imaginary straight line periphery
> describing a simple geometric configuration enclosing the system
> containing the equipment under test.
> The equipment under test, support equipment and any interconnecting
> cables shall be included within this
> boundary.
> (1) At frequencies at or above 30 MHz, measurements may be performed 
at
> a distance
> other than what is specified provided: measurements are not made in 
the
> near field except where it can be
> shown that near field measurements are appropriate due to the
> characteristics of the device; and it can be
> demonstrated that the signal levels needed to be measured at the
> distance employed can be detected by the
> measurement equipment. Measurements shall not be performed at a 
distance
> greater than 30 meters
> unless it can be further demonstrated that measurements at a distance 
of
> 30 meters or less are impractical.
> When performing measurements at a distance other than that specified,
> the results shall be extrapolated
> to the specified distance using an extrapolation factor of 20 
dB/decade
> (inverse linear-distance for field
> strength measurements; inverse-linear-distance-squared for power 
density
> measurements).

> I would be very concerned if requirements were written that said only 
10
> metre chambers or OATS were acceptable...

> Best regards,

> Derek Walton
> L F Research

> 
> Bill Stumpf wrote:
> > Both answers are correct, but also the term Fully Anechoic Chamber
> > raises a flag.  The FCC does not allow the use of fully anechoic
> > chambers for emissions testing (30MHz - 1000MHz).  Reference ANSI
> > C63.4(2003) Section 5.
> >
> > CISPR 22 does not allow the use of fully anechoic chambers (Section
> > 10.4) & (CISPR 16.1.4)
> >
> > All test sites must meet vertical and horizontal theoretical Site
> > Attenuation.
> >
> > Bill Stumpf
> > 

> > *From:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *Pettit, Ghery
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:06 PM
> > *To:* Rudd, Adam; emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> > *Subject:* RE: Class A antenna distance
> >
> > Note that the allowance for shorter measurement distances in CISPR 
22
> > is for small 

Re: Class A antenna distance

[John Woodgate]

In message 
, 
dated Thu, 31 Jul 2008, pat.law...@slpower.com writes:


>Is it practical to get corresponding measurements in a 3m semi-anechoic 
>chamber, let alone a fully-anechoic chamber?

This is an elephant in the EMC room at present, and I think my UK 
colleagues and I are among the few that can see it yet. We had 
discussions in UK about it, and agreed (after MUCH discussion) that a 
definition of 'corresponding', or whichever word is used in a similar 
context, is required.

Some experts are interpreting it as a strict numerical 'n dB for n dB' 
equivalence, which is just not realistic, and not even compatible with 
physics. A UK committee agreed that what was realistic to require was a 
repeatable correlation, e.g. notionally in the form of a look-up table, 
and this was submitted to CENELEC and CISPR.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
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: Class A antenna distance

[pat.lawler]

Listmembers, 

The original poster wrote: 
> I have a question on the use of a 3 meter fully anechoic chamber.
>
> Can this 3 meter chamber be used to qualify a product for FCC or CISPR
> class A, since the required test distance is 10 meter?

I thought another clause in FCC Part 15 was important, too.  Clause 15.31(d)
says: 
(d) Field strength measurements shall be made, to the extent possible, on an
open field site.  Test sites other than open field sites may be employed if
they are properly calibrated so that the measurement results correspond to
what would be obtained from an open field site.   
 

Is it practical to get corresponding measurements in a 3m semi-anechoic
chamber, let alone a fully-anechoic chamber? 

Pat Lawler
EMC Engineer
SL Power Electronics Corp.

emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 07/30/2008 02:51:01 PM:
> Since were in the process of buying 5m chamber this thread caught my eye.
> 
> I checked with the FCC, and they point to this paragraph in part 15.31:
> 
> (f) To the extent practicable, the device under test shall be measured
> at the distance specified in
> the appropriate rule section. The distance specified corresponds to the
> horizontal distance between the
> measurement antenna and the closest point of the equipment under test,
> support equipment or
> interconnecting cables as determined by the boundary defined by an
> imaginary straight line periphery
> describing a simple geometric configuration enclosing the system
> containing the equipment under test.
> The equipment under test, support equipment and any interconnecting
> cables shall be included within this
> boundary.
> (1) At frequencies at or above 30 MHz, measurements may be performed at
> a distance
> other than what is specified provided: measurements are not made in the
> near field except where it can be
> shown that near field measurements are appropriate due to the
> characteristics of the device; and it can be
> demonstrated that the signal levels needed to be measured at the
> distance employed can be detected by the
> measurement equipment. Measurements shall not be performed at a distance
> greater than 30 meters
> unless it can be further demonstrated that measurements at a distance of
> 30 meters or less are impractical.
> When performing measurements at a distance other than that specified,
> the results shall be extrapolated
> to the specified distance using an extrapolation factor of 20 dB/decade
> (inverse linear-distance for field
> strength measurements; inverse-linear-distance-squared for power density
> measurements).

> I would be very concerned if requirements were written that said only 10
> metre chambers or OATS were acceptable...

> Best regards,

> Derek Walton
> L F Research

> 
> Bill Stumpf wrote:
> > Both answers are correct, but also the term Fully Anechoic Chamber
> > raises a flag.  The FCC does not allow the use of fully anechoic
> > chambers for emissions testing (30MHz - 1000MHz).  Reference ANSI
> > C63.4(2003) Section 5.
> >
> > CISPR 22 does not allow the use of fully anechoic chambers (Section
> > 10.4) & (CISPR 16.1.4)
> >
> > All test sites must meet vertical and horizontal theoretical Site
> > Attenuation.
> >
> > Bill Stumpf
> > 
> > *From:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *Pettit, Ghery
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:06 PM
> > *To:* Rudd, Adam; emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> > *Subject:* RE: Class A antenna distance
> >
> > Note that the allowance for shorter measurement distances in CISPR 22
> > is for small devices, too.  And, as noted, is limited to Class B
> > devices.  Plus, some regulators do not allow this option to be used
> > and insist on 10 meter data.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ghery Pettit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > *From:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *Rudd, Adam
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM
> > *To:* emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> > *Subject:* RE: Class A antenna distance
> >
> >
> >
> > 47CFR 15.31(f)(1) allows measurements at distances other than
> > specified and details the extrapolation factor.
> >
> > http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/octqtr/47cfr15.31.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > EN 55022 Section 10.2.1 has a note that specifically makes an
> > allowance for Class B devices to be measured at 3m.  I tend to think
> > the detail of Class B being included and Class A being omitted from
> > the note has significance.
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Adam Rudd*
> > Engineer (EMC)
> > NCR Corporation, RHSS
> > Duluth, GA
> > (770) 495-2825
> >
> > 
> >
> > *From:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *emcp...@aol.com
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:26 PM
> > *To:* emc-p...@ieee.org
> > *Subject:* (no subject)
> >
> >
> >
> 

RE: automotive safety standards

[Brian O'Connell]

Never an illegal plant, although my wife in particular, and her
employer in general, are authorized collectors of protected stuff
>from the U.S. and Mexico - they go into areas that are about to
be developed and choose specimens for future propagation and/or
for the various botanical parks.

My relatives have killed just about every plant that we have
sent - I suspect that they succumb to Murphy's and Beamish - is
there a Plant-Care Directive in Europe ?

The wife is a plant geek and is one of those dweebs that helped
to write the CITES list for cacti and other succulents. Note to
PSTC denizen - the CITES has the 'ultimate' power for control of
floriculture, and is the plant equivalent of the EMC, LV,
Medical, and RTTE directives combined.

Their last shipment to the EU was held up because of the RFID
tags that were embedded in the flats; this shipment will be held
up for other reasons. If not for the very strong Euro, compliance
requirements would probably cut agricultural exports to the EU by
50%.

Will only be 33 C here today - it feels a bit chilly.

luck,
Brian


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
John
Woodgate
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 7:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: automotive safety standards

In message <000201c8f312$a36a6940$d600a...@tamuracorp.com>, dated
Thu,
31 Jul 2008, Brian O'Connell  writes:

>But I want to know how people in the UK and the nordic areas
manage to
>keep this stuff alive in that bizarre climate.

In the south of UK, some will grow outdoors, but most live
indoors and,
if cared for with insight, thrive. But people do tend to water
them,
which is good for the export trade. I hope yours are cultivated,
even
urbane, not uncouth species from the wild that are on HM Customs
Little
List. I'm not an expert in cacti, but I used to know one. (;-)

Bizarre climate, maybe: more humid than in cactus country
certainly, but
with less extreme temperatures. Only 29.3 C here today.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and
www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be
able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop
it. You choose!
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: automotive safety standards

[John Woodgate]

In message <000201c8f312$a36a6940$d600a...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Thu, 
31 Jul 2008, Brian O'Connell  writes:


>But I want to know how people in the UK and the nordic areas manage to 
>keep this stuff alive in that bizarre climate.

In the south of UK, some will grow outdoors, but most live indoors and, 
if cared for with insight, thrive. But people do tend to water them, 
which is good for the export trade. I hope yours are cultivated, even 
urbane, not uncouth species from the wild that are on HM Customs Little 
List. I'm not an expert in cacti, but I used to know one. (;-)

Bizarre climate, maybe: more humid than in cactus country certainly, but 
with less extreme temperatures. Only 29.3 C here today.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
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: automotive safety standards

[Brian O'Connell]

2007/28/EC is a huge typo - I intended 2007/46/EC

Probably a 'hang-over' from reading the weirdo stuff in
90/642/EEC and 2007/28/EC(helping my wife get a shipment of
cactus across the pond). But I want to know how people in the UK
and the nordic areas manage to keep this stuff alive in that
bizarre climate.

luck,
Brian


From: chrischile...@eaton.com [mailto:chrischile...@eaton.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 1:16 AM
To: neil.bar...@e2v.com; oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Subject: RE: automotive safety standards


Brian,

Is 2007/28/EC a typo? The directive exists but it seems to be
related to
pesticides.

Rgds

- Chris


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Barker,
Neil
Sent: 31 July 2008 07:55
To: 'Brian O'Connell'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: automotive safety standards


Brian

The critical factor for automotive electronics is whether or not
they
are 'immunity related'.
Any equipment that relates to control of the vehicle in any way;
e.g.
engine management, braking system, steering, evn automatic screen
wiper
control, is 'immunity related'. If the equipment that the dc-dc
converter supplies is 'convenience' equipment such as sat-nav,
mobile
phone, DVD player, or similar, then it is not 'immunity related'.

Typically, immunity-related equipment requires a much more
comprehensive
test regime (including immunity tests) and would require 'e'
marking.
Other equipment does not require the radiated immunity tests
(although
should include conducted transient tests)and can just be CE
marked. This
is a change from the original automotive EMC Directive (95/54/EC)
which
required 'e' marking on everything. 2004/104/EC corrected this
nonsense.
CE marking would be to the EMC Directive, 2004/108/EC, not to
2004/104/EC.

The Low Voltage Directive does not apply, as the supply voltage
is
outside the range of that Directive, unless the equipment is
subject to
the R&TTE Directive, which has no lower voltage limitation, but
compliance would be to the R&TTE Directive, which applies the
requirements of the LVD, not to the LVD itself.

Best regards

Neil R. Barker CEng MIET HonFSEE MIEEE
Manager
Quality Engineering
e2v technologies (uk) ltd
106 Waterhouse Lane
Chelmsford
Essex CM1 2QU
UK

Tel: (+44) 1245 453616
Fax: (+44) 1245 453571
Mob: (+44) 7801 723735



From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 30 July 2008 21:56
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: automotive safety standards


Looking for EU directives and standards that would apply to a
custom
DC/DC converter that is plugged into a vehicle's cig lighter, and
'hard-wire' connected to the device.

The directives 2007/28/EC, 2004/104/EC, and 95/28/EC would seem
to
apply. But I am not certain about particular requirements for an
'aftermarket' component, and the required marks ('e' vs 'CE') for
import.

Do the EMC or Low Voltage directives apply ?

Thanks much.

luck,
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: RF What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)

[John Woodgate]

In message 
, 
dated Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Oscar Overton  writes:


>Tell them it is all for the cause of science and the well being of 
>mankind as a whole.
..and will improve their personal relationships. (;-)
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
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 What-if (was: RE: Another Cancer Scare?)

[Oscar Overton]

Chris,

I appreciate you comments and also the additional information related to
your experience.
The additional data  contributes to your assessment conclusions.
Also, from your previous comment about the three options:

  1. Self-testing is not comfortable but sometimes necessary.

  2. Not telling others that they are being exposed would be unethical.

  3. A company with a vested interest will probably not investigate but
this too borders on the unethical.

There are two additional alternatives.

  1. Obtain volunteers to do testing that have been informed of the
previous results and possible risks. However, this might skew the results
because of psychological factors of knowing. The only other alternative is
inform the test subjects that they are being tested but do not reveal to
them what is being tested. This reduces the available test subjects but
reduces the chance of psychological bias.  A problem with this is then the
type of people that are willing to accept conditions such as this. Is this
sample representative of the general population.

  2. An independent lab does the testing. Unfortunately, unless they
get funding, no one is going to just go out and spend money on this.
Usually the only funding available for something like this is from a source
that has already taken a position and only wants proof of their position.
Therefore the source of funding often taints the perception of the results,
even if not actually tainting the testing protocol or assessment.

There are just too many variables to be able to come to a overwhelmingly
valid conclusion on just about any thing that effects humans (or for that
fact animals) in the natural environment. Many studies that seemed to
conclusively shown some trait or connection have later been shown to be the
possible result of other factors that were not addressed in the original
analysis.
I don't remember where it was that I read it (not enough time to go back
and research it now)  but I read about a study that linked high power
transmission lines to cancer risk.
The authors of the original study published that they had found a
conclusive link between these two. The article showed that the data had
been groomed (probably not intentionally) to the point that the conclusion
was valid, but only for a very small geographical area. The results were
attributed to statistical grouping. There was in fact a significant
concentration of cancer events near a high power transmission line but
similar conditions in other geographies could not substantiate the
conclusions of the study. In other words, sample size matters.
Also, there were possibly other factors that were not investigated as
possible causes of the cancer concentration.

Sloppy science produces sloppy results (GIGO).

Your case provides a good data point from which to establish a study.
It may also be that you are particularity sensitive to the conditions to
which you were exposed. Similar to those with certain chemical
sensitivities.
Your experience may not be representative of the population as a whole.

Maybe you can offer your co-workers the opportunity to participate in your
study. Put the load center in their workspace (with their knowledge of
course).
Tell them it is all for the cause of science and the well being of mankind
as a whole.

Oscar


   
 "Chris Wells" 
   To 
   "Oscar Overton" 
 07/30/2008 09:25
 PM cc 
   ,
   
   Subject 
   Re: RF What-if (was:  RE: Another   
   Cancer Scare?)  
   
   
   
   
   
   



Oscar - I spend a lot of time debugging systems and separating coincidence
>from cause so I appreciate your skeptic stance.
I would agree that it was not a controlled experiment but it was my
experience that I wanted to share.
My exposure was over a good part of a month and my flu like symptoms
happened at the exposure time and stopped ~ 4hrs+ later after leaving the
area.
I would estimate ~ 15 exposures events over that month and then m

RE: automotive safety standards

[Barker, Neil]

Brian

The critical factor for automotive electronics is whether or not they are
'immunity related'.
Any equipment that relates to control of the vehicle in any way; e.g. engine
management, braking system, steering, evn automatic screen wiper control, is
'immunity related'. If the equipment that the dc-dc converter supplies is
'convenience' equipment such as sat-nav, mobile phone, DVD player, or
similar, then it is not 'immunity related'.

Typically, immunity-related equipment requires a much more comprehensive
test regime (including immunity tests) and would require 'e' marking. Other
equipment does not require the radiated immunity tests (although should
include conducted transient tests)and can just be CE marked. This is a
change from the original automotive EMC Directive (95/54/EC) which required
'e' marking on everything. 2004/104/EC corrected this nonsense. CE marking
would be to the EMC Directive, 2004/108/EC, not to 2004/104/EC.

The Low Voltage Directive does not apply, as the supply voltage is outside
the range of that Directive, unless the equipment is subject to the R&TTE
Directive, which has no lower voltage limitation, but compliance would be to
the R&TTE Directive, which applies the requirements of the LVD, not to the
LVD itself.

Best regards 

Neil R. Barker CEng MIET HonFSEE MIEEE 
Manager 
Quality Engineering 
e2v technologies (uk) ltd 
106 Waterhouse Lane 
Chelmsford 
Essex CM1 2QU 
UK 

Tel: (+44) 1245 453616 
Fax: (+44) 1245 453571 
Mob: (+44) 7801 723735 



From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 30 July 2008 21:56
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: automotive safety standards


Looking for EU directives and standards that would apply to a
custom DC/DC converter that is plugged into a vehicle's cig
lighter, and 'hard-wire' connected to the device.

The directives 2007/28/EC, 2004/104/EC, and 95/28/EC would seem
to apply. But I am not certain about particular requirements for
an 'aftermarket' component, and the required marks ('e' vs 'CE')
for import.

Do the EMC or Low Voltage directives apply ?

Thanks much.

luck,
Brian

Sent by E2V TECHNOLOGIES PLC or a member of the E2V group of companies. A
company registered in England and Wales. 
Company number; 04439718. 
Registered address; 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, UK.

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.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