RE: EMC Eduction and Training

[Cortland Richmond]

I see this as having deep roots.  Many young people start College without the
background to appreciate our discipline.These students have never listened
to radio; they've only turned on a box or a compact player/stereo and stuck
headphones in their ears. They will learn, if they take up engineering
(Engineering?  Yeah, they make lots of money; put me down for engineering.) 
about Faraday, Ohm, Volta , Hertz, Lenz and Maxwell, (MAYBE, about Farnsworth
and Zworykin) but what they learn will not have reality to them beyond the
mathematics necessary to describe certain physical phenomena they never expect
to encounter.  
 
That may exaggerate -- a little. 
 
Well and all, they are more educated than I, even so.   But I've been doing
this work 25 years, and when in 1983, I walked into an EMC facility at Wang
Labs in Massachusetts, I was able to do and understand the tests they needed
done, never having done them before.It is amazing how little one need
know, to know more than others.
 
Maybe the schools need to hand out crystal sets.  Or is it too late to awaken
imaginations by then? Are these people going to school simply to make money?   
 
We are a distinct minority among the engineering  staff where we work.  We are
a cost center, not a profit center, and often reminded of that.  We're not
romantic, We're not even attractive nerds.  And schools must make money. 
Given that the marketplace doesn't make us look like a good bet,  the
institutions you found may be all the market will bear. 
 
 
 
Cortland, KA5S
 

- Original Message - 
From: Alan E Hutley   
To: EMC-PSTC  
Sent: 12/15/2008 10:19:16 AM 
Subject: EMC Eduction and Training


Hello All
 
I recently posted a request for information on Universities that offer 
EMC
Educational activities. I thank those that responded but was very surprised by
the very small number of Universities involved. I would like therefore to
widen the debate.
 
EMC Education and Training
Behind EMC lays the Technology and Science of Electromagnetism, Signal
Integrity and RF Engineering... EMC is a by-product of these disciplines. Over
the past dozen or so years EMC has been largely, if not entirely, driven by
Directives and Regulations. Around this scenario has evolved a specialised
product industry together with consultants and soothsayers.
Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not 
have been
on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Could this be the reason why
formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace
or magnitude?
 Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education 
due to
the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect
to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons.
Invariably, or at least in many cases, Engineers seem to have ended up
becoming EMC Engineers by default, not design. Does anyone actually set out
with the sole purpose of becoming an EMC Engineer?  Did you?
I am interested in the views of others and finding out what resources 
are
currently available, plus I would like to hear from Trainers, Educators,
Course Presenters, EMC Engineers, Consultants and anyone else that can
contribute to the debate by expressing their opinions.
Thank you.
 
Alan E Hutley
The EMC Journal
www.theemcjournal.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: EMC Eduction and Training

[John Woodgate]

In message <4946d305.3020...@sbcglobal.net>, dated Mon, 15 Dec 2008, 
Fred Townsend  writes:

>The academic view is strange.


I don't think that 'strange' is the right word.

>I will never forget an advanced amplifier design class where I was 
>supposed to calculate the proper value of a bypass capacitor. The 
>'correct' answer was 87.5 microfarads. Never mind you can't buy an 87.5 
>uF cap and therefore the design is unrealizable until proper 
>tolerancing is applied.

Academics, even teaching engineering, mostly do science rather than 
engineering. They don't bother with practical details, and in many 
cases, don't even know about what standard component values are 
available. I've met two 'engineering graduates (one English, one French) 
who calculated resistor values to 1 part in 10^4 or so, and made the 
values up from series-parallel combinations of standard parts. They had 
never even HEARD of tolerances, let alone preferred values.

Science says '87.5 uF'; engineering says 'Maybe a 100 uF will do, even 
at -20% tolerance. Let's try it.'

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
All these closing-downs have been caused by dozing clowns
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: EMC Eduction and Training

[Fred Townsend]

I agree on the relevance of RF, SI, and EM to EMC since I do all three. I
marvel that academia hasn't figured it out. I don't know of any schools that
really tie them together.  Perhaps it is because of the ways we address them.
RF is tends toward frequency domain while SI tends to be time domain. Industry
addresses both from the standpoint that they are needed to make the circuit
work. On the other hand EMC is what is needed to sell the product. Except for
the military, the industry attitude is not to prevent the problem (EMC) unless
someone is complaining about the stink. 

The academic view is strange. I will never forget an advanced amplifier design
class where I was supposed to calculate the proper value of a bypass
capacitor. The 'correct' answer was 87.5 microfarads. Never mind you can't buy
an 87.5 uF cap and therefore the design is unrealizable until proper
tolerancing is applied. In terms of EMC the student is really sold down the
river. For instance, switching regulators will be taught from the standpoint
that either a capacitor or an inductor may be used to store energy. I have
never seen a curriculum that tells the student inductors are much more likely
to cause EMC problems than a capacitor.

Fred Townsend
DC to Light

Alan E Hutley wrote: 

Hello All
 
I recently posted a request for information on Universities that offer 
EMC
Educational activities. I thank those that responded but was very surprised by
the very small number of Universities involved. I would like therefore to
widen the debate.
 
EMC Education and Training
Behind EMC lays the Technology and Science of Electromagnetism, Signal
Integrity and RF Engineering... EMC is a by-product of these disciplines. Over
the past dozen or so years EMC has been largely, if not entirely, driven by
Directives and Regulations. Around this scenario has evolved a specialised
product industry together with consultants and soothsayers.
Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not 
have been
on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Could this be the reason why
formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace
or magnitude?
 Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education 
due to
the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect
to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons.
Invariably, or at least in many cases, Engineers seem to have ended up
becoming EMC Engineers by default, not design. Does anyone actually set out
with the sole purpose of becoming an EMC Engineer?  Did you?
I am interested in the views of others and finding out what resources 
are
currently available, plus I would like to hear from Trainers, Educators,
Course Presenters, EMC Engineers, Consultants and anyone else that can
contribute to the debate by expressing their opinions.
Thank you.
 
Alan E Hutley
The EMC Journal
www.theemcjournal.com
 
 
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to 
that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: EMC Eduction and Training

[Knighten, Jim L]

Alan,

 

In the US the best-known university programs in EMC may be The Missouri School
of Science & Technology (formerly U. of Missouri- Rolla) and Clemson, but
there are other schools with programs or classes in one or more aspects of
EMC.  From my vantage point, these programs offer from among following topics:
(1) printed circuit board noise mechanisms (power bus, etc.); automotive EMC;
and (3) other (shielding, cables, ESD, etc.).  

 

A lot of emphasis in academia (worldwide) is in the arena of modeling.  A lot
of graduate students that are pursuing advanced degrees are modeling various
EMC or EM issues with various methods and tools.  This is an arena in which
academia has a lot to offer and they find it attractive.  Signal integrity
studies go hand in hand with printed circuit board noise suppression topics
and modeling.  A number of schools will offer modeling to graduate students
even if they don’t have a full curriculum in EMC topics.  

 

A few schools are offering automotive EMC programs since there has been a need
and funding sources to support this topic.  Academic programs that extend
beyond a few classes in an overall electrical engineering curriculum require
outside funding, either from industry or the government.  

 

Successful programs, such as the Missouri case, have been driven by (1)
technology, i.e., high-speed signaling; (2) requirements (more so by basic
emissions requirements rather than by the EU’s immunity requirements); (3)
by industry needs that are driven by requirements (need to fix a vexing
problem for the future, but industry does not have manpower/time to study it
themselves); and usually later in time by (4) government wanting to fund the
dissemination of this knowledge to other educational channels.

 

The successful academic program is one that is timely in offering this
expertise to industry (some luck in being at the right place at the right
time), able so solve knotty problems in detail so as to offer help in future
designs (provide a benefit to industry), able to attract a steady influx of
good students to do the work, and successfully market the program by
publishing papers and presenting at conferences.  Government interest or
understanding of the need for this sort of education is usually late to the
table.

 

Jim

 

__ 

James L. Knighten, Ph.D. 
EMC Engineer 
Teradata Corporation 
17095 Via Del Campo 
San Diego, CA 92127 

858-485-2537 – phone 
858-485-3788 – fax (unattended) 







From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Alan E Hutley
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: EMC Eduction and Training

 

Hello All

 

I recently posted a request for information on Universities that offer EMC
Educational activities. I thank those that responded but was very surprised by
the very small number of Universities involved. I would like therefore to
widen the debate.

 

EMC Education and Training

Behind EMC lays the Technology and Science of Electromagnetism, Signal
Integrity and RF Engineering... EMC is a by-product of these disciplines. Over
the past dozen or so years EMC has been largely, if not entirely, driven by
Directives and Regulations. Around this scenario has evolved a specialised
product industry together with consultants and soothsayers.

Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not have been
on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Could this be the reason why
formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace
or magnitude?

 Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education due to
the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect
to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons.

Invariably, or at least in many cases, Engineers seem to have ended up
becoming EMC Engineers by default, not design. Does anyone actually set out
with the sole purpose of becoming an EMC Engineer?  Did you?

I am interested in the views of others and finding out what resources are
currently available, plus I would like to hear from Trainers, Educators,
Course Presenters, EMC Engineers, Consultants and anyone else that can
contribute to the debate by expressing their opinions.

Thank you.

 

Alan E Hutley

The EMC Journal

www.theemcjournal.com

 

 

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bache

Re: EMC Eduction and Training

[John Woodgate]

In message <2008121515197.344647@Alan-PC>, dated Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Alan 
E Hutley  writes:

>Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not 
>have been on the RADAR to the extent that it has been.

Agreed; the 1989 Directive widened greatly the range of products subject 
to emission and immunity control. Before then, only a few people knew, 
or needed to know, about EMC, in countries other than Germany and 
Austria. They were different because of the restrictions placed on their 
AM broadcasting post-1945, which prompted a drive to lower the EM noise 
floor.

>Could this be the reason why formal qualifications and academic 
>training has not evolved at the same pace or magnitude?

Probably not a major factor. Academics have to pursue funding, because 
that's how the system is set up. But it appears that few did pursue 
funding for EMC, and I suspect that is because it's a bit too much 
'engineering' rather than 'science', which is not attractive to many 
academics. One could say, 'EMC? It's Maxwell's Equations. The rest is 
just arithmetic!'.

A lot of the science of EMC has been pursued in Germany, Switzerland and 
Poland, not in the countries around the North Sea.

> Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education 
>due to the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding 
>with respect to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other 
>reasons.

Governments understand very little about training needs. They tend to be 
led by the nose by a certain type of 'educationalist', who have an 
approach which I think many engineers would find incomprehensible and 
not well-directed.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
All these closing-downs have been caused by dozing clowns
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

[James, Chris]

My reply was in respect of the proposed amendments. If the original equipment
supplied is not in scope then spares do not have to be in scope, period. If
someone deems to take the supply out the printer and use it for another
purpose then that is their “folly”. Think what would happen if you applied
your rationale; every nut & bolt in the machine could be said to be useable
outside the original equipment.

 

What you really need to consider is what constitutes large scale stationary
industrial tools as there are printers and printers... if the
installation is a purpose built print mill then it would almost certainly
qualify but if it’s just a large floor standing print press then almost
certainly not.

 

The UK enforcer FAQ defines LSSIT as:

 

http://www.rohs.gov.uk/FAQs.aspx#11

*  Consist of a combination of equipment, systems, products and/or
components (therefore not a singe discrete tool such as a small or medium
scale lathe, milling machine or pillar drill) 
*   Be a tool and not be covered under any other category 
*   Be required to be fixed to operate safely or within specification 
*   Be of ‘large-scale’ 
*   Require professional installation 
*   Only be used in an industrial environment 
*   Be built to perform a specific task 

 

 

See also inserts below

 

Chris

 

 



From: lauren_cr...@amat.com [mailto:lauren_cr...@amat.com] 
Sent: 15 December 2008 15:36
To: James, Chris
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; Nick Williams
Subject: RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

 


Chris, 

Is that your read of the current RoHS or the revision proposal? My question is
related to the revision proposal. This is what I see 



Original RoHS said 

This Directive does not apply to: spare parts for the repair, or to the reuse,
of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006.
[Art 2.3] 

Proposed Change says 

This Directive does not apply to: 
(a) equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests
of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material
intended for specifically military purposes ; 
(b) equipment which is specifically designed as part of another type of
equipment that does not fall within the scope of this Directive and can
fulfill its function only if it is part of that equipment; 
(c) equipment which is not intended to be placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit. 
[Art 2.3] 

[James, Chris] these merely clarify already given or understood interpretation
of the existing directive.



So getting exemption here depends on

[James, Chris] you are not “getting” an exemption, it is already given.

 

*   clearly understanding "can fulfill its function only if is part of that
equipment" - It seems a PSU can still fulfill its function of providing power,
in or out of a printing press. 

[James, Chris] as above, so can a screw of nut but if the product is not in
scope then neither are it components. 

OR 

*   demonstrating that the PSU is not being placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit - but what exactly is meant by "single
functional unit" or "commercial unit"? No defs. are provided. 

[James, Chris] agreeably this is vague, but again you are looking at the scope
which applies to the finished product not the individual components. Is the
finished product in or out of scope, I thought you had decided it is out as
it’s large scale stationary industrial tools.


Further, later in the proposal it is stated 

Member States shall ensure that EEE, including spare parts for its repair or
its reuse placed on the market does not contain the substances listed in Annex
IV {the big 6}. [Art 4.1] 

With some exceptions 

4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to spare parts for the repair or to the reuse
of the following: 
(a) EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006. 
(b) Medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2014. 
(c) In vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market before 1st
January 2016. 
(d) Monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January
2014. 
(e) Industrial monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before
1st January 2017. 
(f) EEE which benefited from an exemption and was placed on the market before
that exemption expired. 

So the PSU which might be considered a monitoring and control instrument in
its own right, is a spare part for the printing press (a electrical tool) and
so may only benefit from (a), but if the particular printing press being
repaired was placed on the market this year, there is no available exemption. 

[James, Chris] yes there is as you said it’s LSSIT which Annex I cl 6
excludes from scope.




Regards, 
Lauren 

- external use -
Save paper and trees!  Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. 



 




"James, Chris"  

12/15/2008 03:14 AM 

To

Lauren C

RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

[Lauren_Crane]

Chris, 

Elaboration --> It is frustrating how many laws in general in a country, and
the EU specifically (though not a country), affect similar classes of products
but do not reference each other. For example, a small aerosol can of
specialized oil for a machine might be within scope of the EU Narcotics
Precursor Regulation, the REACH Regulation, the Dangerous Preparations
Directive, the Aerosol Dispensers Directive and the Prepackaged Products
directive, but the laws do not always cross reference each other (though there
is some). In this same way, EEE within scope of RoHS could easily contain
materials relevant to the restrictions of REACH (Annex XVII) or the "Candidate
List" materials of REACH. It is nice to see the RoHS directive explicitly
mention REACH (see the following) and to say it applies even though RoHS might
also.  REACH, of course, is the acronym for Regulation 1907/2006. 

Reference to REACH ->  "This Directive shall apply without prejudice to
requirements of Community legislation on safety and health, on chemicals, in
particular Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 as well as of  specific Community waste
management legislation." 

Hope that helps 
Lauren 

- external use -

Save paper and trees!  Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. 






"James, Chris"  

12/15/2008 03:35 AM To
Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT 
cc
, "Nick Williams"  
Subject
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives



  



Lauren, 
Please elaborate or what you mean by "Yep, you gotta do REACH too." 
  
  
Chris 
  
  




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lauren_cr...@amat.com
Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25
To: Nick Williams
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives 
  

Nick, 

Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. 

Some of what I see; 

*   RoHS has its "own scope" now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been
pulled into RoHS. 
*   For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. 
*   The RoHS "spare parts" exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three
scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope
equipment that "fulfills its function only if part of that equipment"; and
equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or
commercial unit" - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much
guidance and source much debate. 
*   RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the "big 6" RoHS materials from
spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) 
*   There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing 
linkage
of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 
*   RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) 
*   RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are "manufacturers"
(regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). 
*   Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also
>from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). 
*   The definition of "homogeneous material" is now defined in RoHS. 

  

*   WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. 
*   Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say
"Yep, you gotta do REACH too." 
*   Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or 
users
other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was
just silent on this point prior. 
*   EN 50419 is now "the" reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few 
cases
where a directive mandates the use of a standard). 


=== 
I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts
would apply in the following scenario 

A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press,  is
imported to the EU. It might be considered an "electrical tool" but is exempt
because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. 
The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer
also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. 
The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply
as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their
support supply chain. 
Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as
an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? 

Regards, 
Lauren Crane 
Product Regulatory Analyst
Corporate Product EHS Lead
Applied Materials Inc.
Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540]

- External Use -

Save paper and trees!  Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. 





Nick Williams  
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 

12/12/2008 04:38 AM 

To
emc-p...@ieee.org 
cc
  
Subject
Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

  



 

  

RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

[Lauren_Crane]

Chris, 

Is that your read of the current RoHS or the revision proposal? My question is
related to the revision proposal. This is what I see 




Original RoHS said 

This Directive does not apply to: spare parts for the repair, or to the reuse,
of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006.
[Art 2.3] 

Proposed Change says 

This Directive does not apply to: 
(a) equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests
of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material
intended for specifically military purposes ; 
(b) equipment which is specifically designed as part of another type of
equipment that does not fall within the scope of this Directive and can
fulfill its function only if it is part of that equipment; 
(c) equipment which is not intended to be placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit. 
[Art 2.3] 

So getting exemption here depends on 

*   clearly understanding "can fulfill its function only if is part of that
equipment" - It seems a PSU can still fulfill its function of providing power,
in or out of a printing press. 

OR 

*   demonstrating that the PSU is not being placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit - but what exactly is meant by "single
functional unit" or "commercial unit"? No defs. are provided. 


Further, later in the proposal it is stated 

Member States shall ensure that EEE, including spare parts for its repair or
its reuse placed on the market does not contain the substances listed in Annex
IV {the big 6}. [Art 4.1] 

With some exceptions 

4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to spare parts for the repair or to the reuse
of the following: 
(a) EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006. 
(b) Medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2014. 
(c) In vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market before 1st
January 2016. 
(d) Monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January
2014. 
(e) Industrial monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before
1st January 2017. 
(f) EEE which benefited from an exemption and was placed on the market before
that exemption expired. 

So the PSU which might be considered a monitoring and control instrument in
its own right, is a spare part for the printing press (a electrical tool) and
so may only benefit from (a), but if the particular printing press being
repaired was placed on the market this year, there is no available exemption. 


Regards, 
Lauren 

- external use -
Save paper and trees!  Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. 






"James, Chris"  

12/15/2008 03:14 AM To
Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT 
cc
, "Nick Williams"  
Subject
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives



  



Lauren, 
If the PSU is being supplied as a spare to repair a product not in scope then
the spare can be rohs or non-rohs so there would be no need to prove it is
RoHS. 
  
Chris 
  
  




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lauren_cr...@amat.com
Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25
To: Nick Williams
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives 
  

Nick, 

Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. 

Some of what I see; 

*   RoHS has its "own scope" now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been
pulled into RoHS. 
*   For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. 
*   The RoHS "spare parts" exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three
scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope
equipment that "fulfills its function only if part of that equipment"; and
equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or
commercial unit" - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much
guidance and source much debate. 
*   RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the "big 6" RoHS materials from
spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) 
*   There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing 
linkage
of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 
*   RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) 
*   RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are "manufacturers"
(regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). 
*   Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also
>from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). 
*   The definition of "homogeneous material" is now defined in RoHS. 

  

*   WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. 
*   Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say
"Yep, you gotta do REACH too." 
*   Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or 
users
other 

EMC Eduction and Training

[Alan E Hutley]

Hello All
 
I recently posted a request for information on Universities that offer EMC
Educational activities. I thank those that responded but was very surprised by
the very small number of Universities involved. I would like therefore to
widen the debate.
 
EMC Education and Training
Behind EMC lays the Technology and Science of Electromagnetism, Signal
Integrity and RF Engineering... EMC is a by-product of these disciplines. Over
the past dozen or so years EMC has been largely, if not entirely, driven by
Directives and Regulations. Around this scenario has evolved a specialised
product industry together with consultants and soothsayers.
Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not have been
on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Could this be the reason why
formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace
or magnitude?
 Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education due to
the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect
to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons.
Invariably, or at least in many cases, Engineers seem to have ended up
becoming EMC Engineers by default, not design. Does anyone actually set out
with the sole purpose of becoming an EMC Engineer?  Did you?
I am interested in the views of others and finding out what resources are
currently available, plus I would like to hear from Trainers, Educators,
Course Presenters, EMC Engineers, Consultants and anyone else that can
contribute to the debate by expressing their opinions.
Thank you.
 
Alan E Hutley
The EMC Journal
www.theemcjournal.com
 
 
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

[James, Chris]

Lauren,

Please elaborate or what you mean by "Yep, you gotta do REACH too."

 

 

Chris

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lauren_cr...@amat.com
Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25
To: Nick Williams
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

 


Nick, 

Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. 

Some of what I see; 

*   RoHS has its "own scope" now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been
pulled into RoHS. 
*   For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. 
*   The RoHS "spare parts" exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three
scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope
equipment that "fulfills its function only if part of that equipment"; and
equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or
commercial unit" - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much
guidance and source much debate. 
*   RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the "big 6" RoHS materials from
spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) 
*   There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing 
linkage
of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 
*   RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) 
*   RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are "manufacturers"
(regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). 
*   Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also
>from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). 
*   The definition of "homogeneous material" is now defined in RoHS. 

 

*   WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. 
*   Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say
"Yep, you gotta do REACH too." 
*   Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or 
users
other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was
just silent on this point prior. 
*   EN 50419 is now "the" reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few 
cases
where a directive mandates the use of a standard). 


=== 
I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts
would apply in the following scenario 

A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press,  is
imported to the EU. It might be considered an "electrical tool" but is exempt
because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. 
The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer
also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. 
The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply
as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their
support supply chain. 
Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as
an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? 

Regards, 
Lauren Crane 
Product Regulatory Analyst
Corporate Product EHS Lead
Applied Materials Inc.
Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540]

- External Use -

Save paper and trees!  Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. 



 




Nick Williams  
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 

12/12/2008 04:38 AM 

To

emc-p...@ieee.org 

cc

 

Subject

Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

 

 

 

 

 

  




I'm sure many readers here will be interested in the information at 
the following location:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct
on.do?reference=IP/08/1878&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Nick.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  



This

RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

[James, Chris]

Lauren,

If the PSU is being supplied as a spare to repair a product not in scope then
the spare can be rohs or non-rohs so there would be no need to prove it is
RoHS.

 

Chris

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lauren_cr...@amat.com
Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25
To: Nick Williams
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

 


Nick, 

Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. 

Some of what I see; 

*   RoHS has its "own scope" now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been
pulled into RoHS. 
*   For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. 
*   The RoHS "spare parts" exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three
scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope
equipment that "fulfills its function only if part of that equipment"; and
equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or
commercial unit" - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much
guidance and source much debate. 
*   RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the "big 6" RoHS materials from
spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) 
*   There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing 
linkage
of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 
*   RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) 
*   RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are "manufacturers"
(regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). 
*   Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also
>from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). 
*   The definition of "homogeneous material" is now defined in RoHS. 

 

*   WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. 
*   Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say
"Yep, you gotta do REACH too." 
*   Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or 
users
other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was
just silent on this point prior. 
*   EN 50419 is now "the" reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few 
cases
where a directive mandates the use of a standard). 


=== 
I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts
would apply in the following scenario 

A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press,  is
imported to the EU. It might be considered an "electrical tool" but is exempt
because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. 
The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer
also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. 
The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply
as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their
support supply chain. 
Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as
an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? 

Regards, 
Lauren Crane 
Product Regulatory Analyst
Corporate Product EHS Lead
Applied Materials Inc.
Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540]

- External Use -

Save paper and trees!  Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. 



 




Nick Williams  
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 

12/12/2008 04:38 AM 

To

emc-p...@ieee.org 

cc

 

Subject

Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives

 

 

 

 

 

  




I'm sure many readers here will be interested in the information at 
the following location:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct
on.do?reference=IP/08/1878&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Nick.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy qu