RE: CE-Standards method of Compliance for Battery Chargers

2009-01-07 Thread Ted Eckert 
Have you considered EN 61851?  EN 60335-2-29 references this standard for 
electric vehicle charging systems.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CE-Standards method of Compliance for Battery Chargers

Previously posted on the IEEE/PSTC Forum Board:

CE-Standards Compliance for Battery Chargers
Posted: Dec 30, 2008  2:53 PM 7 views

Season's Greetings to All,

Our company manufactures industrial battery chargers that are used for EVs, 
various types of mobile work platforms, golf carts, and personnel movers. They 
operate at universal ac input voltages, and charge batteries at output voltages 
that range from 24V to 96V, depending upon the final application. They can be 
"'built-in" to machines, or mounted to structures for "off-board use"( charged 
by plugging the dc output into the machine).  We currently have third party 
approvals to the US and Canadian standards for Industrial Battery chargers, and 
EV Battery Chargers on these products as components, and stand alone products, 
depending upon the output configuration.
We are in the process of being tested by a European CB Body to EN60335-2-29, 
(referencing  EN60335-1)with the intent of using the report to self-declare and 
CE mark the product for compliance with the LVD. Our CB Body informs us that we 
are not entitled to a CB Report, solely because our output voltages exceed the 
scope allowed by EN60335-2-29. They are only willing to provide a test and 
evaluation report, which may be of questionable value to us later when we 
intend to have further country specific approvals performed. Our CB Body has 
offered no alternative route to this, and argue against any alternate approach 
using the Standards Route.
Another CB Body has suggested that we declare the product to EN60335-1, using 
EN60335-2-29 as a guide for specific testing and evaluation, issuing a CB 
Report listing both standards, noting the exception in output voltages. I would 
appreciate the opinions of the group as to whether this approach is valid by 
the Standards Route to compliance, or whether it is only a loophole that 
circumvents the intent of the European compliance process. Can you direct me to 
the specific guidelines or legislation that contain chapter and verse about the 
process?
Is our only alternative to use a Notified Body for declaration to the Essential 
Requirements?
 Any comments you may have offering guidance are much appreciated.

Best Regards,

Brian Ceresney, CTech.
Test and Regulatory Lead,
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.
Unit 3 - 5250 Grimmer Street
Burnaby, BC  Canada  V5H 2H2
Tel: 604-327-8244 Ext.112
bceres...@delta-q.com



Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. 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:

CE-Standards method of Compliance for Battery Chargers

2009-01-07 Thread Brian Ceresney 
Previously posted on the IEEE/PSTC Forum Board:

CE-Standards Compliance for Battery Chargers
Posted: Dec 30, 2008  2:53 PM 7 views

Season's Greetings to All,

Our company manufactures industrial battery chargers that are used for EVs, 
various types of mobile work platforms, golf carts, and personnel movers. They 
operate at universal ac input voltages, and charge batteries at output voltages 
that range from 24V to 96V, depending upon the final application. They can be 
"'built-in" to machines, or mounted to structures for "off-board use"( charged 
by plugging the dc output into the machine).  We currently have third party 
approvals to the US and Canadian standards for Industrial Battery chargers, and 
EV Battery Chargers on these products as components, and stand alone products, 
depending upon the output configuration.
We are in the process of being tested by a European CB Body to EN60335-2-29, 
(referencing  EN60335-1)with the intent of using the report to self-declare and 
CE mark the product for compliance with the LVD. Our CB Body informs us that we 
are not entitled to a CB Report, solely because our output voltages exceed the 
scope allowed by EN60335-2-29. They are only willing to provide a test and 
evaluation report, which may be of questionable value to us later when we 
intend to have further country specific approvals performed. Our CB Body has 
offered no alternative route to this, and argue against any alternate approach 
using the Standards Route.
Another CB Body has suggested that we declare the product to EN60335-1, using 
EN60335-2-29 as a guide for specific testing and evaluation, issuing a CB 
Report listing both standards, noting the exception in output voltages. I would 
appreciate the opinions of the group as to whether this approach is valid by 
the Standards Route to compliance, or whether it is only a loophole that 
circumvents the intent of the European compliance process. Can you direct me to 
the specific guidelines or legislation that contain chapter and verse about the 
process?
Is our only alternative to use a Notified Body for declaration to the Essential 
Requirements?
 Any comments you may have offering guidance are much appreciated.

Best Regards,

Brian Ceresney, CTech.
Test and Regulatory Lead,
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.
Unit 3 - 5250 Grimmer Street
Burnaby, BC  Canada  V5H 2H2
Tel: 604-327-8244 Ext.112
bceres...@delta-q.com



Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. 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: FCC Part 15.109 and 15.209 Radiated emission limits

2009-01-07 Thread Luksich Mark-TXP763 
Requiring the unintentional limits for intentional radiators to be lower
reduces the chance intermod products being radiated.


Mark S. Luksich 
DMTS - Regulatory Engineering 


Office: 631-738-5134
Mobile: 631-827-9385 
Fax: 631-738-3776 
e-mail: mark.luks...@motorola.com 





From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Haynes,
Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK)
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:59 AM
To: Andrew McCallum; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC Part 15.109 and 15.209 Radiated emission limits

Hi Andy,
 
In the UK it is the same. Developers of radio equipment are required to
suppress the harmonic and spurious radiated emission levels to a level
lower than the general radiate emission limits given for domestic
environments [for most of the spectrum, this is true - there are some
exceptions]
 
The only reason I have ever been given, is that radio designers have (or
should have) the knowledge and test equipment to achieve these levels
AND because the equipment is likely to be connected to an antenna
mounted at a reasonable height above ground.
 
The general requirement is applied to non-radio equipment, where the
designer might not have the knowledge or the equipment to achieve the
lower levels. Since the equipment is likely to be used at a normal
height, not normally connected to an antenna and normally used inside a
building [a lot of generalisation on my part here] the permitted levels
will actually have a lower risk of causing interference to radio
systems.
 
I do not know if the same logic has been applied in America but it might
have been.
 
Regards
Tim



Tim Haynes A1N10

Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist

SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems 

300 Capability Green

Luton LU1 3PG

( Tel  : +44 (0)1582 886239

7 Fax : +44 (0)1582 795863

) Mob: +44 (0)7703 559 310

* E-mail : tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com

P Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

 

There are 10 types of people in the world-those who understand binary
and those who don't. J. Paxman

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
McCallum
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: FCC Part 15.109 and 15.209 Radiated emission limits


*** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
external partner or the Global Internet. 
Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 
 
Happy new year all
 
Can anyone explain why an unintentional radiator is allowed to have
higher emission limits than an intentional radiator. By design you would
hope that spurious emissions from an intentional radiator would be lower
but why have two different limits? 
 
Any help much appreciated.
 
regards
 
Andy





Confidentiality: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the
addressees only (or people authorised to receive them on their behalf)
and may be confidential or privileged. If they have come to you in error
you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to
anyone; please delete them from your system and reply to this e mail
highlighting the error.

Security: Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge
that internet e-mail is not 100% secure. Anyone who communicates with us
by e-mail is taken to accept this.

Viruses: We have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments
are virus free, but we advise that in keeping with good computing
practice you should ensure that they are actually virus free. 




DeltaRail Group Limited registered office Hudson House, 2 Hudson Way,
Pride Park, Derby, DE24 8HS. Registered in England and Wales, number
5839985. Please refer to www.deltarail.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  

SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited Registered Office: Sigma
House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company
registered in England & Wales. Company no. 02426132

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribut

IEC 60950-1 section 4.7.3.2 regarding openings in fire enclosures

2009-01-07 Thread Jim Eichner 
IEC 60950-1 section 4.7.3.2 contains the following paragraph:

Materials for components that fill an opening in a FIRE ENCLOSURE, and that are 
intended to be
mounted in this opening shall:
− be of V-1 CLASS MATERIAL; or
− pass the tests of Clause A.2; or
− comply with the flammability requirements of the relevant IEC component 
standard.

Seems ok to require most of the fire enclosure to be 5V with small sections of 
V1 allowed, but the above has no size restriction, which seems odd to me.  Does 
anyone know if this is the subject of a CTL decision or any other 
“official” interpretation?  

I’ve seen UL and CSA standards with similar easements but there’s a 
dimensional cap (for example openings no more than 1” (25.4mm) in any 
dimension).

Thanks,

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com 

Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. 

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. 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:

High Quality RF Cables for Lab use

2009-01-07 Thread Luke Turnbull 
Hi all,
 
I am trying to source high quality test cables for test laboratory use.  I
wonder if people know of any cable / connector types that they have found to
be ultra-reliable.
 
Some of the issues I am considering are:
 
Using SC connectors for immunity - we have in the past burnt out N-type
connectors with the power biconcial test (2.5 kW at 200 MHz), and with 1kW at
1 GHz.  It looks like if a thick cable is used with SC connectors, extremely
low loss and high power handling can be achieved up to 11 GHz.  Am I right?
 
It looks like SC is an American high power connector and 7/16 is a similar
connector used in Europe.  Am I right?  It looks like Rosenberger and others
don't supply cable assemblies with SC connectors.
 
The other problems we have had with one British supplier is that test leads
have had poor captivation of the centre pin in the connector, leading them to
extrude, and the pins becoming proud within approx 1.5 years of use.  I would
be interested in recommendations of cable / connector types that are extremely
secure and have a stable pin depth.
 
Thanks for your help,
 
Luke Turnbull
 
 
 
Dr Luke Turnbull
EMC Technical Manager
TRW Conekt
Stratford Road
Solihull
West Midlands B90 4GW

email:  luke.turnb...@trw.com
web: www.conekt.net


Conekt is a trading division of TRW Limited 

Registered in England, No. 872948 

Registered Office Address: Stratford Road, Solihull B90 4AX 

-

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: Pacemakers

2009-01-07 Thread John Woodgate 

In message 
<201048ea81ba0745aca78e4cc883900104203...@desmdswms201.des.grplnk.net>, 
dated Wed, 7 Jan 2009, "Haynes, Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK)" 
 writes:

>Is WG15 also dealing with combined pacemaker/defibrillator units?

I think so, but I'm not a member. I think the work is proceeding rather 
slowly.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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: Pacemakers

2009-01-07 Thread Haynes, Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK) 
John,

Is WG15 also dealing with combined pacemaker/defibrillator units?

I have a friend who emigrated to Greece from the UK because the anti-theft
devices at UK shop entrances use to trip the defibrillator into action.
A couple of joules across the heart is apparently equivalent to a couple of
hundred joules across the chest - not nice!
 
Regards
Tim






Tim Haynes A1N10
Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist
SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems
300 Capability Green
Luton LU1 3PG
Tel  : +44 (0)1582 886239
Fax : +44 (0)1582 795863
Mob: +44 (0)7703 559 310
* E-mail : tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com

 Please consider the environment before printing this email.



There are 10 types of people in the world-those who understand binary and
those who don't. J. Paxman



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org  ]
On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:07 PM
To: Helge Knudsen
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Pacemakers

  *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external
partner or the Global Internet.
 Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

In message <2f29d35299a4dc4bae37325d0a8be6148df...@nfexc1.daniro.dk>,
dated Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Helge Knudsen  writes:

>I do not think Cenelec TC 106X work with this issue:

 I do: their WG15 is studying the subject.
>
>Scope (en) TC 106X deals with various aspects of the exposure of people
>to electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 300 GHz.

Yes, and that includes exposure of the pacemakers to those fields.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things
can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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: 



SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited
Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14
3EL
A company registered in England & Wales. Company no. 02426132

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.



-

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: Pacemakers

2009-01-07 Thread John McAuley 
Helge

If you go to www.cenelec.eu and put 50527 in the Database search window you 
will find it.

Best regards

John McAuley

* 
DISCLAIMER:   The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and 
is intended solely for the use of the named addressee.  Access, copying or 
re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person 
is not authorised.  If you are not the intended recipient please notify us 
immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator 


 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Helge Knudsen
Sent: 07 January 2009 14:56
To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Pacemakers

Hello John,
I do not think Cenelec TC 106X work with this issue:

Scope (en) TC 106X deals with various aspects of the exposure of people to 
electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 300 GHz.

http://www.cenelec.eu/Cenelec/Code/Frameset.aspx
Insert CLC/TC 106X as Technical body and click on "Run Report"
Click on "CLC/TC 106X" and you will have access to: 
Meetings 
Work program 
Environmental statement  



Med venlig hilsen / Best regards

Helge Knudsen

Direct:   +45 44 34 22 51
Fax: +45 44 99 28 08
e-mail: h.knud...@niros.com
Niros Communications A/S â–ª Hirsemarken 5 â–ª DK-3520 Farum â–ª Tel. +45 44 99 
28 00 â–ª www.niros.com





From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: 7. januar 2009 14:49
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Pacemakers

In message <009d01c970cb$a4087720$ec196560$@dk>, dated Wed, 7 Jan 2009, 
Niels Hougaard  writes:

>I am looking for the field strength that implantable pacemakers are 
>designed to work perfect at. Frequency range in question is 10 - 50 kHz.

This is a very complex issue, still under study in CENELEC TC106X. 
Someone at Danish Standards may well be able to give you the up-to-date 
situation.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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: 

-

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: Pacemakers

2009-01-07 Thread John Woodgate 
In message <2f29d35299a4dc4bae37325d0a8be6148df...@nfexc1.daniro.dk>,
dated Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Helge Knudsen  writes:

>I do not think Cenelec TC 106X work with this issue:

 I do: their WG15 is studying the subject.
>
>Scope (en) TC 106X deals with various aspects of the exposure of people
>to electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 300 GHz.

Yes, and that includes exposure of the pacemakers to those fields.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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: Pacemakers

2009-01-07 Thread Helge Knudsen 
Hello John,
I do not think Cenelec TC 106X work with this issue:

Scope (en) TC 106X deals with various aspects of the exposure of people to 
electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 300 GHz.

http://www.cenelec.eu/Cenelec/Code/Frameset.aspx
Insert CLC/TC 106X as Technical body and click on "Run Report"
Click on "CLC/TC 106X" and you will have access to: 
Meetings 
Work program 
Environmental statement  



Med venlig hilsen / Best regards

Helge Knudsen

Direct:   +45 44 34 22 51
Fax: +45 44 99 28 08
e-mail: h.knud...@niros.com
Niros Communications A/S â–ª Hirsemarken 5 â–ª DK-3520 Farum â–ª Tel. +45 44 99 
28 00 â–ª www.niros.com





From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: 7. januar 2009 14:49
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Pacemakers

In message <009d01c970cb$a4087720$ec196560$@dk>, dated Wed, 7 Jan 2009, 
Niels Hougaard  writes:

>I am looking for the field strength that implantable pacemakers are 
>designed to work perfect at. Frequency range in question is 10 - 50 kHz.

This is a very complex issue, still under study in CENELEC TC106X. 
Someone at Danish Standards may well be able to give you the up-to-date 
situation.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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: 

-

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: Pacemakers

2009-01-07 Thread John McAuley 
Niels
 
EN 45502-1 only gives induced levels into leads (the last time I looked) and
is difficult to correlate to field strengths.
 
Cenelec TC106X is working on a proposed standard and a preliminary draft is
out on which you have to contact your National Committee. 
 
A good starting point is to look at manufacturers environmental specifications
and the EU EMF Recommendation 1999/519/EC is also a useful reference.
 
Best Regards
 
John McAuley


DISCLAIMER:   The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and
is intended solely for the use of the named addressee.  Access, copying or
re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person
is not authorised.  If you are not the intended recipient please notify us
immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator 


 
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Niels Hougaard
Sent: 07 January 2009 13:27
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Pacemakers
 
Dear list members,
 
I am looking for the field strength that implantable pacemakers are designed
to work perfect at. Frequency range in question is 10 - 50 kHz.
 
The medical standard EN 60601-1-2 has no requirements in that frequency range.
I have found EN 45502-1 and ISO 14708-2 as standards for implantable
pacemakers but we do not have these standards. Do you know if one of these
standards, or the both, would be relevant for answering the question?
Or maybe someone is able to toss off an answer?
 
Regards, and thanks in advance,
Niels Hougaard
 
Niels Hougaard
Bolls Rådgivning
Ved Gadekæret 11F
DK-3660 Stenløse
Denmark
 
T: +45 48 18 35 66
F: +45 48 18 35 30
n...@bolls.dk
www.bolls.dk   
 
 
-

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: Pacemakers

2009-01-07 Thread John Woodgate 

In message <009d01c970cb$a4087720$ec196560$@dk>, dated Wed, 7 Jan 2009, 
Niels Hougaard  writes:

>I am looking for the field strength that implantable pacemakers are 
>designed to work perfect at. Frequency range in question is 10 - 50 kHz.

This is a very complex issue, still under study in CENELEC TC106X. 
Someone at Danish Standards may well be able to give you the up-to-date 
situation.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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: EN61000-4-6: coupling to shielded cable

2009-01-07 Thread John Woodgate 

In message 
<49c3718e3f1c9341a9fb7b5d1f05ceed01aa8...@de08ev806.global.ds.honeywell.c
om>, dated Wed, 7 Jan 2009, "Sterner, David (NY80)" 
 writes:

>The immunity document for security systems, EN 50130-4, specifies a CDN 
>for screened cable; we use the Fischer CDN on video cable.  EN 55024 
>(ITE) does not specify a test procedure for screened cable.  Our 
>comparative results on the same 75-ohm cable link indicate that the 
>CDN-75 provides a much more severe stress than the (Fischer) E-M clamp.

If EN 61326-2-3 does not call for a CDN, in principle you do not need to 
look at other standards **and use a provision of such a standard outside 
its scope**. If a customer thinks that a CDN should be used, they should 
take that up with their national standards committee, proposing an 
amendment to the standard.
>
>Outlook:
>Products that 'pass' using the E-M clamp on sccreened cables are very 
>likely to fail if retested, i.e. by an agency or an OEM customer. E-M 
>results on video products are likely to give one a false sense of 
>security; image degradation will be more severe with the CDN.

Presumably those results apply to an unbalanced (coaxial) 
interconnection. With a two-wire connection, if it is balanced, it may 
be very difficult indeed, perhaps impossible, to obtain or build a CDN 
that does not degrade the balance and thereby give a very pessimistic 
result.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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: EN61000-4-6: coupling to shielded cable

2009-01-07 Thread Bob Richards 
The severity of the test using a CDN is much more repeatable compared to the
EM-clamp. With a clamp test, how the auxillary end of the cable is terminated
has a profound affect on the test since it affects the total circuit
impedance. It could make the test either less or more severe.  This is where
subclauses 7.3 and 7.4 of 61000-4-6 come into play.
 
If I were to test a shielded cable using an EM-clamp, I would short the cable
shield to the ground plane on the AE side. This would lower the overall
circuit impedance, making it a more severe test in most cases.  Then I would
use a feedback probe on the EUT side to measure the induced current and limit
the induced level based on that measurement, according to subclause 7.4 of the
standard.
 
Obviously, when allowed, the preferred method is to use a CDN for shielded
cables.
 
Bob Richards, NCT

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Sterner, David (NY80)  wrote:


From: Sterner, David (NY80) 
Subject: RE: EN61000-4-6: coupling to shielded cable
To: "Charles Blackham" ,
emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 11:10 AM


Charlie -

The immunity document for security systems, EN 50130-4, specifies a CDN
for screened cable; we use the Fischer CDN on video cable.  EN 55024
(ITE) does not specify a test procedure for screened cable.  Our
comparative results on the same 75-ohm cable link indicate that the
CDN-75 provides a much more severe stress than the (Fischer) E-M clamp.

Outlook: 
Products that 'pass' using the E-M clamp on sccreened cables are very
likely to fail if retested, i.e. by an agency or an OEM customer.
E-M results on video products are likely to give one a false sense of
security; image degradation will be more severe with the CDN.

  _Honeywell
  David W. Sterner
  Quality Assurance Engineering
  2 Corporate Center Drive Suite 100
  P.O. Box 9040
  Melville, NY   11747
  Phone: (516) 577-2321 
  Fax: (516) 577-3540
 david.ster...@honeywell.com
  




-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Charles
Blackham
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:49 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN61000-4-6: coupling to shielded cable

Group

We have a unit with a 2-wire shielded signal cable that falls under
EN61326-2-3 and also requirements of NAMUR (automation technology in
process industries).

We have been performing EN61000-4-6 Conducted Immunity tests on the
shielded cable using a coupling clamp as the injection method, however
client is requesting we use a CDN

Does anyone perform such testing using a CDN?

regards
Charlie

-

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 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 search

Pacemakers

2009-01-07 Thread Niels Hougaard 
Dear list members,

 

I am looking for the field strength that implantable pacemakers are designed
to work perfect at. Frequency range in question is 10 - 50 kHz.

 

The medical standard EN 60601-1-2 has no requirements in that frequency range.

I have found EN 45502-1 and ISO 14708-2 as standards for implantable
pacemakers but we do not have these standards. Do you know if one of these
standards, or the both, would be relevant for answering the question?

Or maybe someone is able to toss off an answer?

 

Regards, and thanks in advance,

Niels Hougaard

 

Niels Hougaard

Bolls Rådgivning

Ved Gadekæret 11F

DK-3660 Stenløse

Denmark

 

T: +45 48 18 35 66

F: +45 48 18 35 30

n...@bolls.dk

www.bolls.dk   

 

 

-

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: EN61000-4-6: coupling to shielded cable

2009-01-07 Thread Sterner, David (NY80) 
Charlie -

The immunity document for security systems, EN 50130-4, specifies a CDN
for screened cable; we use the Fischer CDN on video cable.  EN 55024
(ITE) does not specify a test procedure for screened cable.  Our
comparative results on the same 75-ohm cable link indicate that the
CDN-75 provides a much more severe stress than the (Fischer) E-M clamp.

Outlook: 
Products that 'pass' using the E-M clamp on sccreened cables are very
likely to fail if retested, i.e. by an agency or an OEM customer.
E-M results on video products are likely to give one a false sense of
security; image degradation will be more severe with the CDN.

  _Honeywell
  David W. Sterner
  Quality Assurance Engineering
  2 Corporate Center Drive Suite 100
  P.O. Box 9040
  Melville, NY   11747
  Phone: (516) 577-2321 
  Fax: (516) 577-3540
 david.ster...@honeywell.com
  





From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Charles
Blackham
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:49 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN61000-4-6: coupling to shielded cable

Group

We have a unit with a 2-wire shielded signal cable that falls under
EN61326-2-3 and also requirements of NAMUR (automation technology in
process industries).

We have been performing EN61000-4-6 Conducted Immunity tests on the
shielded cable using a coupling clamp as the injection method, however
client is requesting we use a CDN

Does anyone perform such testing using a CDN?

regards
Charlie

-

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:

Sad News IEEE Chicago EMC Chapter

2009-01-07 Thread Frank Krozel 
Posted at the direction of Jack Black, out of town today..
 
We have been saddened by the unexpected passing of Joyce Klouda, wife of long
time IEEE member, and past Chicago Chapter Chair Roy Klouda on Sunday, January
4, 2008. Joyce was a long time supporter of the IEEE and had acted in several
official and unofficial capacities on behalf of the EMC society, including the
IEEE International Symposium on EMC, and the Annual IEEE EMC Society holiday
party. Our condolences go out to Ray and his family for this sudden and tragic
loss.

Visitation (Today)
Wednesday: 01/07/2009

3:00 pm - 9:00 pm

Friedrich-Jones Funeral Home

44 South Mill Street

Naperville, IL 60540

Ph# 630-355-0213

 http://www.friedrichjones.com/napmap.html
 
 > 



Funeral Mass

Thursday: 01/08/2009

10:00 am

Saint Margaret Mary Church

1450 Green Trails Drive

Naperville, IL 60540

Ph# 630-369-0777



http://www.smmp.com/info/directions.html
 
 > 

 


Warm regards,  Frank

Frank Krozel
http://www.electronicinstrument.com 
Tel: (630) 924-1600   Fax: (630) 477-0321
technical representative, Electronic Instrument Associates Central, Inc.
Serving the Midwest since 1971
-

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: FCC Part 15.109 and 15.209 Radiated emission limits

2009-01-07 Thread Haynes, Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK) 
Hi Andy,
 
In the UK it is the same. Developers of radio equipment are required to
suppress the harmonic and spurious radiated emission levels to a level lower
than the general radiate emission limits given for domestic environments [for
most of the spectrum, this is true - there are some exceptions]
 
The only reason I have ever been given, is that radio designers have (or
should have) the knowledge and test equipment to achieve these levels AND
because the equipment is likely to be connected to an antenna mounted at a
reasonable height above ground.
 
The general requirement is applied to non-radio equipment, where the designer
might not have the knowledge or the equipment to achieve the lower levels.
Since the equipment is likely to be used at a normal height, not normally
connected to an antenna and normally used inside a building [a lot of
generalisation on my part here] the permitted levels will actually have a
lower risk of causing interference to radio systems.
 
I do not know if the same logic has been applied in America but it might have
been.
 
Regards
Tim



Tim Haynes A1N10

Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist

SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems 

300 Capability Green

Luton LU1 3PG

( Tel  : +44 (0)1582 886239

7 Fax : +44 (0)1582 795863

) Mob: +44 (0)7703 559 310

* E-mail : tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com

P Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

 

There are 10 types of people in the world-those who understand binary and
those who don't. J. Paxman

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andrew McCallum
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: FCC Part 15.109 and 15.209 Radiated emission limits


*** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

Happy new year all
 
Can anyone explain why an unintentional radiator is allowed to have higher
emission limits than an intentional radiator. By design you would hope that
spurious emissions from an intentional radiator would be lower but why have
two different limits? 
 
Any help much appreciated.
 
regards
 
Andy





Confidentiality: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the
addressees only (or people authorised to receive them on their behalf) and may
be confidential or privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take
no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please
delete them from your system and reply to this e mail highlighting the error.

Security: Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that
internet e-mail is not 100% secure. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail
is taken to accept this.

Viruses: We have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are
virus free, but we advise that in keeping with good computing practice you
should ensure that they are actually virus free. 




DeltaRail Group Limited registered office Hudson House, 2 Hudson Way, Pride
Park, Derby, DE24 8HS. Registered in England and Wales, number 5839985. Please
refer to www.deltarail.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  

SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited
Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14
3EL
A company registered in England & Wales. Company no. 02426132

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.



-

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/requ

FCC Part 15.109 and 15.209 Radiated emission limits

2009-01-07 Thread Andrew McCallum 
Happy new year all
 
Can anyone explain why an unintentional radiator is allowed to have higher
emission limits than an intentional radiator. By design you would hope that
spurious emissions from an intentional radiator would be lower but why have
two different limits? 
 
Any help much appreciated.
 
regards
 
Andy





Confidentiality: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the
addressees only (or people authorised to receive them on their behalf) and may
be confidential or privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take
no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please
delete them from your system and reply to this e mail highlighting the error.

Security: Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that
internet e-mail is not 100% secure. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail
is taken to accept this.

Viruses: We have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are
virus free, but we advise that in keeping with good computing practice you
should ensure that they are actually virus free. 




DeltaRail Group Limited registered office Hudson House, 2 Hudson Way, Pride
Park, Derby, DE24 8HS. Registered in England and Wales, number 5839985. Please
refer to www.deltarail.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: SASO

2009-01-07 Thread Brian_McAuliffe 
Jason

While probably still some time before in comes into force ….. the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia is also a member state of the recently formed Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) http://www.gcc-sg.org/eng/index.php

 

The GCC are working on a common market and customs union for 6 Gulf States
(Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman). Part of this agreement will
hopefully see the introduction of a harmonized regulatory framework for
electrical/electronic products marketed in these States, with a common mark
and an agreed market surveillance regime.

 

Developments in this area have been announced via the WTO TBT notifications.

 

Brian McAuliffe

Dell

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of peter
merguerian
Sent: 07 January 2009 04:17
To: emc-p...@ieee.org; Jason Chesley
Subject: Re: SASO

 

Jason and All,

 

Happy New Year

 

You are correct. Saudi Arabia has abolished the ICCP program. Regarding the
current procedure, you can refer to this document

 

http://globalcompliance.blogspot.com/search?q=saudi+arabia

 

Refer to: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia CoCs - New Regulations
  

 

A CB cert or report is not good enough for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. You
need a CoC from a registered certification body. That certification body does
review the technical file (available test reports against SASO standards and
Saudi deviations) and if satisfactory, issues a CoC for each shipment to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For the CoC, you will need the commercial invoice
>from the exporter to the Saudi Arabian importer. Like other countries with CoC
procedures, Saudi customs can pick samples at the port and test in-country to
SASO standards.

 

Let me know how I can help with any of your global requirements. 

 

Best Regards,

 

Peter

 

 


--- On Tue, 1/6/09, Jason Chesley  wrote:

From: Jason Chesley 
Subject: SASO
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 12:05 PM

All
 
I understand that the International Conformity Certification Program
(ICCP) has been eliminated as of August 2004 in accordance with WTO
accession requirements. I believe the previous ICCP program was managed
exclusively by Intertek but it is my understanding that the ICCP
document is no longer necessary.
 
Refer to the following WTO document, paragraph 197, item ii, for
details.
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres05_e/wtaccsau61_e.doc
 
Accordingly, "During a transitional period, the conformity certificate
should be issued by an entity authorized by the competent official
agency in the country of origin.  Such conformity certificates should

accompany all consignments of imported goods certifying their conformity
to the established mandatory standard (technical regulation).  The
certificate should confirm that these goods were subjected to regular
laboratory examination under supervision of the competent control agency
in the country of origin."
 
Does anyone have current experience with Saudi Arabian customs still
enforcing the previous ICCP program? Or are you understanding that a
conformity certificate from a competent authority from the country of
origin such as a CB certificate can accompany each shipment?
 
Any insight, corrections, details would be appreciated.
 
Best regards,
 
Jason L. Chesley
CSA International
2210 Justin Trail
Alpharetta, GA 30004
P: (678) 992-0134
F: (770) 500-3948
jason.ches...@csa-international.org
www.csa-international.org
 
This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization 
to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the 
reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for 
delivering the
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have
 received this communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately by email and delete the original message 
immediately. The
sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept liability for any
errors,
omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any
attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you.
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a messa

EN61000-4-6: coupling to shielded cable

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Blackham 
Group

We have a unit with a 2-wire shielded signal cable that falls under
EN61326-2-3 and also requirements of NAMUR (automation technology in
process industries).

We have been performing EN61000-4-6 Conducted Immunity tests on the
shielded cable using a coupling clamp as the injection method, however
client is requesting we use a CDN

Does anyone perform such testing using a CDN?

regards
Charlie

-

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: SASO

2009-01-07 Thread peter merguerian 
Jason and All,
 
Happy New Year
 
You are correct. Saudi Arabia has abolished the ICCP program. Regarding the
current procedure, you can refer to this document
 
http://globalcompliance.blogspot.com/search?q=saudi+arabia
 
Refer to: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia CoCs - New Regulations
  
 
A CB cert or report is not good enough for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. You
need a CoC from a registered certification body. That certification body does
review the technical file (available test reports against SASO standards and
Saudi deviations) and if satisfactory, issues a CoC for each shipment to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For the CoC, you will need the commercial invoice
>from the exporter to the Saudi Arabian importer. Like other countries with CoC
procedures, Saudi customs can pick samples at the port and test in-country to
SASO standards.
 
Let me know how I can help with any of your global requirements. 
 
Best Regards,
 
Peter
 
 

--- On Tue, 1/6/09, Jason Chesley  wrote:


From: Jason Chesley 
Subject: SASO
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 12:05 PM


All

I understand that the International Conformity Certification Program
(ICCP) has been eliminated as of August 2004 in accordance with WTO
accession requirements. I believe the previous ICCP program was managed
exclusively by Intertek but it is my understanding that the ICCP
document is no longer necessary.

Refer to the following WTO document, paragraph 197, item ii, for
details.
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres05_e/wtaccsau61_e.doc

Accordingly, "During a transitional period, the conformity certificate
should be issued by an entity authorized by the competent official
agency in the country of origin.  Such conformity certificates should
accompany all consignments of imported goods certifying their conformity
to the established mandatory standard (technical regulation).  The
certificate should confirm that these goods were subjected to regular
laboratory examination under supervision of the competent control agency
in the country of origin."

Does anyone have current experience with Saudi Arabian customs still
enforcing the previous ICCP program? Or are you understanding that a
conformity certificate from a competent authority from the country of
origin such as a CB certificate can accompany each shipment?

Any insight, corrections, details would be appreciated.

Best regards,

Jason L. Chesley
CSA International
2210 Justin Trail
Alpharetta, GA 30004
P: (678) 992-0134
F: (770) 500-3948
jason.ches...@csa-international.org
www.csa-international.org

This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization 
to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the 
reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for 
delivering the
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
notify
the
sender immediately by email and delete the original message 
immediately. The
sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept liability for any
errors,
omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any
attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you.

-

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