[PSES] Safety Test Labs Currently in and around SF Bay Area

[Leo Eisner]

Hello EMC-PSTC,

It's been a long time since I have been in this community.  So, hello all.

Please respond with any test labs in and around the SF Bay Area with what there 
specialities are.  I do not have a current list and would like to include the 
big name brands and the smaller independents as well.  This will help me 
provide better service to my clients.
Also, one other point with this list please advise your understanding if the 
labs that are provided are capable of doing IEC 60601-1 (medical electrical 
equipment and systems standard).  If you also have any direct contact info to 
the medical group that would be greatly appreciated too.

The ones I know and please correct if I am wrong are:
UL - SJC - Electrical Safety - they do medical
ETL or Intertek - Menlo Park - Electrical Safety - they do medical

I know there are other labs in the Bay Area but haven't used any of late to 
know which ones are still around.

Thx so much for your help with this.

Cheers,

Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
Phone: (503) 244-6151
Mobile: (503) 709-8328
Email: l...@eisnersafety.com
Website Consulting Service: www.EisnerSafety.com
Website Standards Reconnaissance Database: www.EisnerSafety.net
 
*** Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ***
This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, 
distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you 
received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message 
and its attachments to the sender.

Eisner Safety Consultants 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.
***


-

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

[Ed Price]

Not wanting to sound like too much of a dinosaur, but back in the 1960's and
early 70's, emission data was acquired by slowly tuning a receiver across
the frequency range while listening to headphones and watching a meter. You
would record the frequency and amplitude at several frequencies per octave,
or more if you were feeling charitable, and also record any uniquely
"interesting" emission peaks. When you were finished acquisition, you might
have several pages of tabular data (perhaps 75-100 frequency / amplitude
data pairs).

 

Then, you could go back to your desk and break out your correction data, a
set of graphs for each of the parameters of cable loss, gain flatness,
bandwidth variation, pre-amplifier gain, antenna factors and maybe filter
attenuation (nothing was flat in those days). Typically, you might have 5 of
these variables, so that meant writing down (5 x 75) 375 numbers on your
data sheet. Then, you added up the raw amplitude and all factors for each
frequency and entered that corrected amplitude. Next, you used the limit of
the standard to visually interpolate and enter a limit value for each
measurement frequency. And lastly, you compared the amplitude value to the
limit value, and entered the over-limit values if necessary. And, if this
was a very formal test, you often had to break out that old pre-printed
multi-cycle logarithmic graph paper and plot the corrected data and the
limit.

 

Data correction took as long, or longer, than data acquisition. I dread to
think of the error budget!

 

The first automation that I encountered was a box using a variable speed
motor and a flexible speedometer cable connected to the tuning knob of a
receiver. You would set a "reasonable" scanning speed and connect an analog
plotter to plot detector amplitude versus scan progress (or the Volts/MHz
receiver output if you had a very advanced receiver). In this case, you
would make a master plot with a derived limit (as Ken Javor described), then
make photocopies of that master for the working measurement plots.

 

We have come a very long way in 40 years.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 5:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

 

I agree.  A modern machine adjusts the raw data or noise floor for any and
all transducer/amplifier/attenuator factors, and if the transducer factor is
not flat, neither will be the adjusted noise floor.

The only reason we do things this way is an "embarrassment of riches" in
processing power.  Absent a digital controller, the sane way to take data
would be to adjust the limit for the transducer factors and arrive at an
adjusted limit in terms of dBuV, or dBm.  Consider the number of
computations involved in adjusting a thousand data points across a screen
for the transducer factors, vs. a simple flat or log-linear limit and
transducer factors that only need be reentered at the next frequency at
which they have changed by some set amount from the last frequency, such as
1 dB, or 0.5 dB. The adjusted limit represents orders of magnitude less
computation, plus one can reverse engineer an adjusted limit if one knows
the transducers in use, whereas adding factors to a signal above noise
renders this impossible.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



  _  

From: "McDiarmid, Ralph" 
Reply-To: "ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com"

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:42:47 -0800
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

I would like to explain to a colleague why the noise floor on a SA does not
look flat as it sweeps across a given frequency range after antenna factors,
cable factors, external gain and external attenuation are programmed into
its display function.  

I think it breaks down to these fundamental points: 

1. the SA receiver has noise in its attenuator, mixer and filter circuits
(say -80 dBm, and maybe flat within a limited  frequency range) 
2. the external amplifier has some noise too, but its gain lowers the noise
floor created by #1  (also flat within a limited frequency range) 
3. the cables have losses which are frequency dependant, and those can be
entered as loss factors into the SA  (shapes the noise floor a little and
those losses raise the noise floor) 
4. the antenna has a gain which is frequency dependant with several dB of
hills and valleys across its usable frequency range (that really shapes the
noise floor more than 1, 2 or 3 above) 
5. noise floor shape caused by #4 is the mirror image of the antenna factor
vs frequency 

Is that a decent summary? 
. 
Ralph McDiarmid
Compliance Engineering
Residential/Commercial
Solar Business
Schneider Electric D  +1 (604) 422 2622 x62622 

E  ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com

Re: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

[Ed Price]

Ralph:

 

That's a workable explanation for the variation from flatness. Those who
spend a lot of their time acquiring emission data get very accustomed to the
shape of the corrected noise floor, and any variation from expected is a
reason to stop the test and examine everything that is going on in the
signal and the data processing paths.

 

However, there is a problem with your statement #2. A pre-amplifier is
chosen primarily for it having a first stage which has a Noise Figure lower
than that of the input stage of your spectrum analyzer. You could well have
a pre-amp with a small-signal gain of 35 dB and a noise figure of 1 dB, but
if you put that pre-amp onto a spectrum analyzer that has a noise floor of
-15 dBuV, you will not be able to see emissions of -50dBuV at the input of
that pre-amp. Regardless of pre-amp gain, the Minimum Discernable Signal
through the pre-amp and SA system will be limited by the pre-amp's 1st stage
Noise Figure.

 

You can prove this, without any math, just by getting a signal generator
that puts out say 60 dBuV. Now add another 60 or so dB attenuation on the
signal generator output, the idea to be able to apply a very smal signal to
your SA. Now, put the pre-amp into the circuit and see what happens to the
SA amplitude. Then, begin reducing the signal generator amplitude while
noting the SA response. This will show you where the Minimum Discernable
Signal fades into the pre-amp Noise Figure.

 

Perhaps Ken or Ghery can give us a more elegant mathematical description of
this effect.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



 

From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

 

I would like to explain to a colleague why the noise floor on a SA does not
look flat as it sweeps across a given frequency range after antenna factors,
cable factors, external gain and external attenuation are programmed into
its display function.   

I think it breaks down to these fundamental points: 

1. the SA receiver has noise in its attenuator, mixer and filter circuits
(say -80 dBm, and maybe flat within a limited  frequency range) 
2. the external amplifier has some noise too, but its gain lowers the noise
floor created by #1  (also flat within a limited frequency range) 
3. the cables have losses which are frequency dependant, and those can be
entered as loss factors into the SA  (shapes the noise floor a little and
those losses raise the noise floor) 
4. the antenna has a gain which is frequency dependant with several dB of
hills and valleys across its usable frequency range (that really shapes the
noise floor more than 1, 2 or 3 above) 
5. noise floor shape caused by #4 is the mirror image of the antenna factor
vs frequency 

Is that a decent summary? 
. 


Ralph McDiarmid
Compliance Engineering
Residential/Commercial
Solar Business
Schneider Electric 

D  +1 (604) 422 2622 x62622
E   
ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com 

3700 Gilmore Way
Burnaby
BC
Canada

-


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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

[alfred1520list]

I am just now gotten very interest on this subject. I think you mention a key 
factor: antenna factor. The SA noise floor unit is dBm. After you have added 
the antenna factor the unit is dBuV/m. Everything else being perfect, zero 
loss, 0 dBi antenna gain across frequency, etc., the antanna factor is still be 
highly frequency depedent. I think: AF = 20log(MHz) - 29.8. Therefore the flat 
SA noise floor in dBm will be traslated into a curve in dBuV/m.

Regards,
Alfred

On February 23, 2016 4:42:47 PM PST, "McDiarmid, Ralph" 
 wrote:
>I would like to explain to a colleague why the noise floor on a SA does
>
>not look flat as it sweeps across a given frequency range after antenna
>
>factors, cable factors, external gain and external attenuation are 
>programmed into its display function. 
>
>I think it breaks down to these fundamental points:
>
>1. the SA receiver has noise in its attenuator, mixer and filter
>circuits 
>(say -80 dBm, and maybe flat within a limited  frequency range)
>2. the external amplifier has some noise too, but its gain lowers the 
>noise floor created by #1  (also flat within a limited frequency range)
>3. the cables have losses which are frequency dependant, and those can
>be 
>entered as loss factors into the SA  (shapes the noise floor a little
>and 
>those losses raise the noise floor)
>4. the antenna has a gain which is frequency dependant with several dB
>of 
>hills and valleys across its usable frequency range (that really shapes
>
>the noise floor more than 1, 2 or 3 above)
>5. noise floor shape caused by #4 is the mirror image of the antenna 
>factor vs frequency
>
>Is that a decent summary?
>.
>Ralph McDiarmid
>Compliance Engineering
>Residential/Commercial
>Solar Business
>Schneider Electric
>D  +1 (604) 422 2622 x62622
>E  ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com
>3700 Gilmore Way
>Burnaby
>BC
>Canada
>
>-
>
>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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
>Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
>Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>unsubscribe)
>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: 

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

[Brent DeWitt]

Generally pretty correct Ralph.  The only "picky" point I would have is
about #2.  The pre-amp really doesn't lower the noise floor created by #1.
It raises the signal level further above it.

 

Best of luck,

 

Brent DeWitt

Bose Corporation

Framingham, MA

 

From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

 

I would like to explain to a colleague why the noise floor on a SA does not
look flat as it sweeps across a given frequency range after antenna factors,
cable factors, external gain and external attenuation are programmed into
its display function.   

I think it breaks down to these fundamental points: 

1. the SA receiver has noise in its attenuator, mixer and filter circuits
(say -80 dBm, and maybe flat within a limited  frequency range) 
2. the external amplifier has some noise too, but its gain lowers the noise
floor created by #1  (also flat within a limited frequency range) 
3. the cables have losses which are frequency dependant, and those can be
entered as loss factors into the SA  (shapes the noise floor a little and
those losses raise the noise floor) 
4. the antenna has a gain which is frequency dependant with several dB of
hills and valleys across its usable frequency range (that really shapes the
noise floor more than 1, 2 or 3 above) 
5. noise floor shape caused by #4 is the mirror image of the antenna factor
vs frequency 

Is that a decent summary? 
. 


Ralph McDiarmid
Compliance Engineering
Residential/Commercial
Solar Business
Schneider Electric 

D  +1 (604) 422 2622 x62622
E   
ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com 

3700 Gilmore Way
Burnaby
BC
Canada

-


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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

[Ken Javor]

I agree.  A modern machine adjusts the raw data or noise floor for any and
all transducer/amplifier/attenuator factors, and if the transducer factor is
not flat, neither will be the adjusted noise floor.

The only reason we do things this way is an ³embarrassment of riches² in
processing power.  Absent a digital controller, the sane way to take data
would be to adjust the limit for the transducer factors and arrive at an
adjusted limit in terms of dBuV, or dBm.  Consider the number of
computations involved in adjusting a thousand data points across a screen
for the transducer factors, vs. a simple flat or log-linear limit and
transducer factors that only need be reentered at the next frequency at
which they have changed by some set amount from the last frequency, such as
1 dB, or 0.5 dB. The adjusted limit represents orders of magnitude less
computation, plus one can reverse engineer an adjusted limit if one knows
the transducers in use, whereas adding factors to a signal above noise
renders this impossible.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "McDiarmid, Ralph" 
Reply-To: "ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com"

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:42:47 -0800
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

I would like to explain to a colleague why the noise floor on a SA does not
look flat as it sweeps across a given frequency range after antenna factors,
cable factors, external gain and external attenuation are programmed into
its display function.

I think it breaks down to these fundamental points:

1. the SA receiver has noise in its attenuator, mixer and filter circuits
(say -80 dBm, and maybe flat within a limited  frequency range)
2. the external amplifier has some noise too, but its gain lowers the noise
floor created by #1  (also flat within a limited frequency range)
3. the cables have losses which are frequency dependant, and those can be
entered as loss factors into the SA  (shapes the noise floor a little and
those losses raise the noise floor)
4. the antenna has a gain which is frequency dependant with several dB of
hills and valleys across its usable frequency range (that really shapes the
noise floor more than 1, 2 or 3 above)
5. noise floor shape caused by #4 is the mirror image of the antenna factor
vs frequency 

Is that a decent summary?
. 
Ralph McDiarmid
Compliance Engineering
Residential/Commercial
Solar Business
Schneider Electric D  +1 (604) 422 2622 x62622
E  ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com
 3700 Gilmore Way
Burnaby
BC
Canada 
-


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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) 
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: [PSES] Spectrum analyzer and noise floor

[McDiarmid, Ralph]

I would like to explain to a colleague why the noise floor on a SA does 
not look flat as it sweeps across a given frequency range after antenna 
factors, cable factors, external gain and external attenuation are 
programmed into its display function. 

I think it breaks down to these fundamental points:

1. the SA receiver has noise in its attenuator, mixer and filter circuits 
(say -80 dBm, and maybe flat within a limited  frequency range)
2. the external amplifier has some noise too, but its gain lowers the 
noise floor created by #1  (also flat within a limited frequency range)
3. the cables have losses which are frequency dependant, and those can be 
entered as loss factors into the SA  (shapes the noise floor a little and 
those losses raise the noise floor)
4. the antenna has a gain which is frequency dependant with several dB of 
hills and valleys across its usable frequency range (that really shapes 
the noise floor more than 1, 2 or 3 above)
5. noise floor shape caused by #4 is the mirror image of the antenna 
factor vs frequency

Is that a decent summary?
.
Ralph McDiarmid
Compliance Engineering
Residential/Commercial
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
D  +1 (604) 422 2622 x62622
E  ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com
3700 Gilmore Way
Burnaby
BC
Canada

-

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: [PSES] Ancillary Equipment per EN 301 489-1

[Brian O'Connell]

The adjective ancillary is intended to mean auxiliary or subordinate.

An EPS or battery can be considered as non-effective 'ancillary' equipment only 
where the selection of various models or sources do not affect the outcome of 
the EMC or safety reports.

Brian



From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Ancillary Equipment per EN 301 489-1

If it helps, the Oxford Concise English dictionary defines "ancillary" as: 

"a person, activity, or service providing essential support" 

Since the AC/DC adapter is essential to the function of the device, it provides 
more than merely "essential support" 
It is by all means an inseparable part of the device, even if it is a separate 
physical part. 

Sounds like something the US Supreme Court would love to spend days to argue 
the point.  ;>)) 
Ralph McDiarmid
Compliance Engineering
Residential/Commercial
Solar Business
Schneider Electric 


Burnaby
BC
Canada



From: 
itl-emc user group  
To: 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date: 
02/22/2016 09:23 PM 
Subject: 
[PSES] Ancillary Equipment per EN 301 489-1





Hi, 
1.      According to EN 301 489-1 the definition of ancillary equipment is: 
“equipment (apparatus), used in connection with a receiver or transmitter 
NOTE: It is considered as an ancillary equipment (apparatus) if: 
               the equipment is intended for use in conjunction with a receiver 
or transmitter to provide additional operational and/or control features to the 
radio equipment, (e.g. to extend control to another position or location); and 
               the equipment cannot be used on a stand alone basis to provide 
user functions independently of a receiver or transmitter; and 
the receiver or transmitter, to which it is connected, is capable of providing 
some intended operation such as transmitting and/or receiving without the 
ancillary equipment (i.e. it is not a sub-unit of the main equipment essential 
to the main equipment basic functions). 
2.      According to the above, it is my understanding that any ancillary 
equipment would have to meet all three conditions as the word “and” is used at 
the end of the first two conditions. 
3.      Questions: 
3.1. If a radio device uses an external power supply (e.g. AC/DC adapter) 
without which it cannot function, would the power supply be considered 
ancillary equipment? My opinion is no but I would like to hear other opinions. 
3.2.  A radio device uses an external power supply (e.g. AC/DC adapter) to 
charge an internal re-chargeable battery. The device can also operate from the 
battery power without the power supply. Would the power supply be considered 
ancillary equipment in this case? My opinion is yes as the device can operate 
without the power supply once the battery is charged  but I would like to hear 
other opinions.   
4.      The above is due to disagreement with customer concerning radiated 
emission testing of the power supply as ancillary equipment as stand alone for 
a device with a re-chargeable battery 
5.      Thanks in advance for any opinions. 
  
Regards, 
David Shidlowsky | Technical Reviewer 
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel 
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101 
Mail dav...@itl.co.il/e...@itl.co.il  Web www.itl.co.il 
  

-

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: [PSES] Ancillary Equipment per EN 301 489-1

[McDiarmid, Ralph]

If it helps, the Oxford Concise English dictionary defines "ancillary" as:

"a person, activity, or service providing essential support"

Since the AC/DC adapter is essential to the function of the device, it 
provides more than merely "essential support" 
It is by all means an inseparable part of the device, even if it is a 
separate physical part.

Sounds like something the US Supreme Court would love to spend days to 
argue the point.  ;>))


Ralph McDiarmid
Compliance Engineering
Residential/Commercial
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



Burnaby
BC
Canada




From:
itl-emc user group 
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date:
02/22/2016 09:23 PM
Subject:
[PSES] Ancillary Equipment per EN 301 489-1



Hi,
1.  According to EN 301 489-1 the definition of ancillary equipment 
is:
“equipment (apparatus), used in connection with a receiver or transmitter
NOTE: It is considered as an ancillary equipment (apparatus) if:
   the equipment is intended for use in conjunction with a 
receiver or transmitter to provide additional operational and/or control 
features to the radio equipment, (e.g. to extend control to another 
position or location); and
   the equipment cannot be used on a stand alone basis to 
provide user functions independently of a receiver or transmitter; and
the receiver or transmitter, to which it is connected, is capable of 
providing some intended operation such as transmitting and/or receiving 
without the ancillary equipment (i.e. it is not a sub-unit of the main 
equipment essential to the main equipment basic functions).
2.  According to the above, it is my understanding that any ancillary 
equipment would have to meet all three conditions as the word “and” is 
used at the end of the first two conditions.
3.  Questions:
3.1. If a radio device uses an external power supply (e.g. AC/DC adapter) 
without which it cannot function, would the power supply be considered 
ancillary equipment? My opinion is no but I would like to hear other 
opinions.
3.2.  A radio device uses an external power supply (e.g. AC/DC adapter) to 
charge an internal re-chargeable battery. The device can also operate from 
the battery power without the power supply. Would the power supply be 
considered ancillary equipment in this case? My opinion is yes as the 
device can operate without the power supply once the battery is charged 
but I would like to hear other opinions. 
4.  The above is due to disagreement with customer concerning radiated 
emission testing of the power supply as ancillary equipment as stand alone 
for a device with a re-chargeable battery
5.  Thanks in advance for any opinions.
 
Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Reviewer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail dav...@itl.co.il/e...@itl.co.il  Web www.itl.co.il
 
Fill out Customer Satisfaction Survey
Global Certifications You Can Trust 
This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, 
disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in 
any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by 
forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender.
 
 
 

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__
-

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 <
emc-p...@ieee.org>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

[PSES] UL 1275

[Doug Powell]

All,

I know this is not an electrical question but it is safety related to a UL
standard.  Hopefully there is someone here who has experience.

​UL 1275 Standard for Flammable Liquid Storage Cabinets speaks to
three-point self-latching doors, 18 AWG steel and other construction
constraints.  ​However, I can find nothing about the latching mechanism
itself.  I have also looked into various fire codes and they almost all
repeat the same list of parameter and some include the addition of
self-closing as an option or requirement.

Does anyone know if there are requirements about the size or strength of
the the latches themselves?

Thanks!  Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: [PSES] Ancillary Equipment per EN 301 489-1

[Richard Nute]

 

 

Hi David:

 

 

The above is due to disagreement with customer.

 

Apparently, the customer wants testing and
certification, so give it to him!  (The customer
is always right!) 

 

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 


-

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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: