RE: What standards reference the insertion force for a PCB into a card cage?
Take a look at GR-78. Regards, Bandele Adepoju Jetstream Communications badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com [mailto:paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:44 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: What standards reference the insertion force for a PCB into a card cage? Folks Are there any specifications in any EU Directive, or other standards governing how much manual force is required to insert a PCB into a card cage? If not, are there any specifications from any standard that determines how much horizontal force an operator can be expected to exert? This operation is expected to be infrequent. Please contact me if questions. Thanks for your assistance. Best Regards,Paul J Smith Teradyne, Inc., 179 Lincoln Street, MS-L22-19 Boston, MA 02111 paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com Voice 617-422-2997; cell 617-549-1308 Fax 603-843-7526 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Ivory Coast ITE Compliance Requirements
Hello Collins, Meeting the IEC standards applicable to your product should get you into the Ivory Coast. To be sure, get ARSO (Africa Regional Organization for Standardization) approval. You would probably need to get approval thru an NSB (National Standards Body) of a member country (The Ivory Coast is not one). Testing is based on the IEC standards. The mark itself consists of three circles (inner and outer) with the Africa map in the middle. It is usually affixed to the product with the mark of the approving NSB. There is a Quality System to ISO9000 and surveillance program required. The ARSO page is at: http://www.arso-oran.org/English/Main_menu.htm Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:01 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Ivory Coast ITE Compliance Requirements Group, Anyone familiar with Compliance requirements to deploy ITE into the Ivory Coast? I've done some research and found that France, Nigeria, China, Italy, and Germany in that order are their biggest import partners. With France leading the way I would assume that meeting the NF ( French Norms ) or CE Mark requirements would suffice. Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins Sr. HW Engineering Manager EMC/ NEBS/ Safety/ Reliability CIENA Core Switching Division 10480 Ridgeview Court, Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 366-4806, Fax (408) 366-4866 jcoll...@ciena.com http://www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: My departure
Okay John, I may be a little late in my response, but I am just getting back in from a busy schedule and read your last posting with alarm. I hope this isn't the start of something new. I don't know the reasons for your departure (correction - intended departure), but I for one really enjoy your postings and do not see that there is anything in them that could justify censorship (if this is what is going on). I hope that you reconsider and rejoin the forum. I hope that the administrators, whom are doing an excellent job I must say, take note of the overwhelming response from the membership in your favor and tone down whatever their displeasure in you is and allow you to rejoin the forum unimpeded. As far as I am concerned, one member down is one member too many! Regards to all.. Bandele Sr. Compliance Engineer Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:07 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: My departure As a result of representations from one of the administrators, which I consider totally unjustified, I am leaving the group. I regret having to break contact with those that responded favourably to my input. You are free to e-mail me if you wish. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court
Uhmmm ... This makes me wonder about this display monitor in front of me. Didn't I read somewhere... Bandele -Original Message- From: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com [mailto:kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:28 AM To: rbus...@es.com; gil...@nortelnetworks.com; peter.tar...@sanmina.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court Interesting, Guess the power companies will be the next target since the jury still seems to be out on impacts of low frequency E-H fields. We already know the pollution generated by companies (which also fuel the economy) is bad. Can I sue? I can't get away from it unless I buy bottled air...a niche market of the future no doubt. Does the plaintiff just want a free headset? The article discusses the use of headsets with the implication of their use as a method of reduction of exposure. Weren't there studies conducted indicating that some headsets on some phones increased the radiation levels? Besides, even if supplied, how do you prove the headset was/was not used? There's always testimonials I suppose. Hot dogs. What do they feed the critters that end up on every child's plate in the form of a weenie? Are the critter feeds sprayed with pesticides and herbicides? Do the critter-feed pesticides/herbicides bear the warning of might be harmful if consumed? I wonder how far David will get against goliath? The legal folks are sure to benefit and we'll all see yet another definition of dangerous. My opinion only and not that of my employer. Kaz Gawrzyjal -Original Message- From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:01 AM To: gil...@nortelnetworks.com; peter.tar...@sanmina.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court The difference is that everyone knows that a car can be dangerous. IF cell phones are proven hazardous, most people would not be aware or understand the risk. Im not saying that these aligations are valid, but it does make sense to keep informed. Rick Busche -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:33 AM To: peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the knowledge that they may be dangerous! -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM To: PSTC - articles 1 Subject:Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court From the Telecom Digest Monty Solomon wrote: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html -- The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail messages to edi...@telecom-digest.org.
RE: Product Risks
A subject close to my heart... Let me add - I once picked up my car from the service shop (a simple tire rotation, I thought), drove one block and my two rear tires came right off the car. The car wobbled and just dropped! It turned out that the service person (or should I say service idiot) forgot to screw in wheel nuts. I say that if you look deep enough, human error beyond the driver can be traced to a lot of auto crashes (I refuse to call them accidents). Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:06 PM To: private_u...@lexmark.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Product Risks My two cents . . . And many of those related to part failure are still related to human error. There is some evidence that the Firestone problem is related to under inflated tires which is a driver responsibility. This doesn't even address the faulty maintenance that causes accidents that may never be attributed to human error beyond the driver. (i.e. faulty brake jobs, missing lug nuts, etc.) There was a news report recently that showed recording of a State Patrolman's car camera. While stopped for a traffic accident the camera recorded a car crossing the median in a slow rotation and striking a tow truck that was trying to remove the first wrecked vehicles. The reporter stated that the cause was the bad weather. Did the driver have any responsibility for driving too fast on ice covered roads? Besides the litigious culture, we want to blame all of our problem on someone else. I agree that virtually all of the automotive accidents are traceable to the nut that holds the steering wheel. OO George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:36:15 PM Please respond to George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Product Risks Allow me to make one addendum to my prior note before I get blasted by the readers. I implied that virtually all traffic accidents are due to bad drivers. I overlooked the infamous Firestone tire episode. However, this does not alter my position. If you had a pie diagram indicating the accidents vs. (1) bad driver choices, and (2) vehicle defects, the latter would be a barely discernable sliver. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance
Jim, The details and logistics of the FCC continuing compliance program and the next step in de-regulation process can be viewed or downloaded at: http://www.conformity-update.com/fcc-part68-010112.doc Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:hulbe...@pb.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 5:52 AM To: j...@aol.com Cc: ctho...@patton.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance Under the latest Part 68 Rules, I believe you no longer submit an application to the FCC for Part 68 registration. This initial registration process is now handled in the private sector by Technical Conformance Bodies, or TCB's, that have been approved for that purpose. The manufacturer can do his own six month continuing compliance testing. The next revision of the Part 68 Rules further de-regulates the approval process and allows for a manufacturer's self-certification, provided the manufacturer tests his product to the appropriate technical standards -- similar to the present verification process for Part 15. The details and logistics of this next step in the de-regulation process are not yet worked out. Jim Hulbert j...@aol.com on 01/18/2001 03:56:52 PM Please respond to j...@aol.com To: ctho...@patton.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI) Subject: Re: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance In a message dated 1/17/01, Courtland Thomas write: I have a question concerning coninuing compliance for Part 68. I believe that we are required to submit units for testing every six months. If the FCC audits and finds that the test reports aren't up to date, then there can be problems. This testing costs around $1500.00 for our ITE products. This becomes a very expensive process. Is there anything that can be done to eliminate this cost. I would like to test the units in house and log the results and use that info as my continuing compliance data. Any thoughts on this? Hi Courtland: To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why you can't do the continuing compliance testing yourself. In fact, you can even do the initial testing yourself if you are equipped to do so. For the initial testing you would have to submit a written report to the FCC, but there is no filing requirement for continuing compliance. You simply have to keep the test data on file. If you have a lot of different products in production, the economics favor in-house testing. A few years ago one of my clients who had about 30 different products decided to do their continuing compliance testing in-house. They figured the savings of at least $60,000 per year would easily justify the cost of the test equipment and a part time technician. They purchased the FCC Part 68 test equipment from Compliance Design, but never actually used it. I guess they just got too busy with other priorities to set up the in-house capability. Recently they told me they would like to unload the equipment, so if you are interested I will put you in touch with them. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the Compliance Design equipment for a new purchase, but if the price is right on the used equipment, it might be an attractive option. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: FCC Part 15 exempted devices
Hello Dan, Item 1 is not taking the rest of the paragraph into consideration. My interpretation goes along with your items 2 and 3. My interpretation to Item 2, however, does not see the public utility exclusivity. Delete the adverb only. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Dan Kinney (A) [mailto:dan.kin...@heapg.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 12:41 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: FCC Part 15 exempted devices I need help with interpretation of one paragraph in FCC Part 15. I have the 1 Oct 97 version. Paragraph 15.103 (b) says a digital device is exempted from Part 15 if it is used exclusively as an electronic control or power system utilized by a public utility or in an industrial plant. One could interpret this several ways to include: A digital device is exempted if it is used exclusively as: 1) an electronic control 2) an electronic control utilized by a public utility only 3) an electronic control utilized in an industrial plant The first interpretation is pretty broad and would exclude a lot of equipment. The third interpretation is broad but causes the manufacturer of control equipment to somehow make certain his products do not end up in use anywhere except in an industrial plant. The second interpretation is narrow and might be the real intent of this exemption. I would appreciate any advice on how any of you would interpret this. Thanks in advance. Dan Kinney Horner APG --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: VCCI application Membership required??
The way I remember it, test labs are 'associate members'. Only manufacturers can be 'members'. Has this changed? Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:46 PM To: 'chasgra...@aol.com'; Gary McInturff; jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; bgilmar...@cereva.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: VCCI application Membership required?? Any one can be a member and there are two classes; Member manufacturers and Member test facilities. VCCI collects fees from both of us. From the manufacturer's side the fee's are based upon the anticipated number of submittals per year. The payment is billed once a year, but then there are no individual filling fees. They review your test report and accept the data and return a stamped copy to you. At that point you can apply their logo, they send you camera ready artwork of the logo and the required Japanese text. There is one other little gotcha. Even though you are a manufacturing member, the data you submit has to come from the other type of member, the test facility. They are required to have VCCI audits and they also pay a yearly fee. You will need to get the C and R numbers which identify their conducted and radiated test sites. You'll also need to have a report number from them and provide a drawing of the cable routing, along with the description of the cables. E.G.. 3 meter, round shielded, RS232 cable, or whatever. So VCCI is in effect double dipping. Some from me and some from you. That is why I maintain them to be the most expensive voluntary organization that I have ever seen. Gary -Original Message- From: chasgra...@aol.com [mailto:chasgra...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:15 PM To: gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com; jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; bgilmar...@cereva.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: VCCI application Membership required?? Can anyone apply for VCCI registration. I thought membership was required prior to sending in an application. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: RTTE Radio Verification
Hello Sam, I am not familiar with this 'Grantee Change' procedure that you described below. My experience with the FCC in the situation of an OEM of a radio product by second company is that the company OEMing the product (Company B) files 'a new application' with the FCC (albeit an abbreviated application) referencing the test data and report previously submitted by the Company holding the equipment grant (Company A) and indicating that both products are the same and would continue to be so. Company B submits new photos of the product, a new label with label location diagram showing new FCC ID, any change in product model and new company name and the application must be accompanied by an attestation statement. For the new FCC ID, Company B would need to file for a grantee code if it does not already have one. The 'Grantee Change' procedure that you described below seems to be the one that is applicable in the case of a 'transfer of control' or 'a sale' of the old company (Company A) to a new company (Company B). I would believe that a similar OEM situation (Company B OEMing Company A's product) in Europe would require that Company B goes the TCF route, using the test report and product data of Company A. Annex V is for Companies with a qualified Quality Assurance System in place. -Original Message- From: Wismer, Sam [mailto:wisme...@lxe.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:40 AM To: EMC Forum (E-mail) Subject: RTTE Radio Verification Group, Interesting discussion on FCC Verification of OEM ITE equipment. I have another twist that includes radio and the EU. Company A has a 2.4GHz radio device that they have self declared to the RTTE Directive in accordance with Annex V of the directive. Company B, with no internationally recognized quality system in place and has not been assessed by a Notified Body, wishes to OEM the radio device and to assume the existing approvals. In effect appear to the world as the manufacturer. In the USA that can be done via a Grantee change with the FCC. With that, company B assumes the FCC approval that company A has obtained and now enjoys it's own FCC identity. This allows company B to file permissive change applications with no involvement by Company A. This also used to be the case in the EU before the RTTE Directive. However, is it still possible between company A, that used Annex V to declare compliance, and company B who wishes to assume that approval even if company B does not have the quality system in place that is required by Annex V, which the approval is declared to? ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: FCC Verification Testing
The FCC rules seem to say that only in the case of a transfer of control could you relinquish responsibility of equipment compliance. FCC CFR 2.909: The following parties are responsible for the compliance of radio frequency equipment with the applicable standards: - (b) In the case of equipment subject to authorization under the verification procedure, the manufacturer or, in the case of imported equipment, the importer. See also FCC CFR 2.953(c): In the case of transfer of control of equipment... ... the new manufacturer or importer shall bear the responsibility of continued compliance of equipment. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:58 PM To: 'Don Clayton'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FCC Verification Testing Legally yes . . . the question I ask is who's is going to be resposible for continued compliance? And get it in writing. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Don Clayton [ mailto:dclay...@nccn.net mailto:dclay...@nccn.net ] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:27 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC Verification Testing Just a quick question: Company A sells a non-residential ITE device which has passed FCC class A and has outside test lab. test report. Company B wants to re-label company A's product and sell it to be operated and installed as described in A's manuals. Can Company B use A's report as proof of FCC compliance. Thanks in advance Don Clayton ESR Engineering --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: RE: EN55024 question
This interpretation came from the FCC and a Notified Body - in the course of numerous discussions on this subject, may I say. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:00 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question Bandele - Please forgive an ignorant question: I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines. To wit: outside is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic) that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and subject to transients. Direct implies to me that there is no interposing hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices, galvanic isolating equipment, etc). Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of the standards committee that wrote the requirement? Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM Hello Debbie, If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to it is considered to be an indirect connection. If the jack does not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a direct connection. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [ mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com ] forwarding for Debbie... Reply Separator Subject:EN55024 question Author: Debbie Mallory debbie.mall...@fibre.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 8/25/00 10:59 AM Hello, I have a question about the use of the word directly in Note 2, of Table 2, in EN55024: 1998. It says Applicable only to [telecommunication] ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect directly to outdoor cables. If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the outdoor cable via a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to immunity testing) or does it not apply? Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises? Thanks for your comments. Regards, Debbie Mallory AFC, Inc. Largo, FL
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, I have in the past had UL/CSA hi-pot testing waived for the production line testing of the end product based on the specific method of installation of the power supply in the end product. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:40 AM To: EMC Society Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
...Regardless, I still feel the same about DoD Compliance (EMC, Environmental etc.,) overall today as I felt about it in the yesteryear - it is a bureaucratic maze cluttered with US Government jargon and disdain to the intelligence of the rest of the world. (For some reason, the expression faraday shield keeps popping into my mind every time I hear or see the phrase military standard.) Anyway, DoD compliance is only really applicable to the USofA. It is not relevant to Europe, Asia, South America - or even Canada! You would find yourself continuously having to justify the rational of its standards in most areas of the world, if any are put to used for compliance at an international level. At least the commercial standards are ubiquitous in this aspect. The flavors out there of commercial standards on a subject are a derivative of a single standard on the same subject - in requirement and rational. I would advise you not let the plagiarism of standards in their various numerical schemes fool or confuse you. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:04 PM To: jestuckey; 'ricklinf...@phobos.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Vibration and Shock Testing A general philosophical response to Mr. Stuckey's specific and cogent reply. Twenty years ago when I told colleagues I did military engineering, I would uniformly get comments about how could I stand the bureaucracy, red tape, and yes, comments to the effect of Customers of limited intelligence. Fade to the present, and I feel exactly the same way when someone tells me they do commercial EMC/safety/etc., especially after reviewing the e-mail trails I get off this service. And DoD EMC seems to have a much better foundation in reality in terms of justifiable limits than the commercial world has. I realize that commercial EMC/safety is in a period of transition, but for now I am quite content to be where I am and simply sit back and watch the chaos and confusion... -- From: jestuckey jestuc...@micron.com To: 'ricklinf...@phobos.com' ricklinf...@phobos.com, emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Vibration and Shock Testing Date: Thu, Aug 31, 2000, 5:24 PM When in doubt and there are no defined industry requirements, you can safely go to Mil STD 810 E and find profiles for the proposed environment and shipping mode to which your equipment will be subjected. It provides you with an articulable and justifiable position from which to answer questions. Further before anyone questions the use of Mil STD, if you review other Standards and practices the majority of them have as a reference Mil STD 810. Hope this helps. Best regards, JOHN E. STUCKEY EMC Engineer Micron Technology, Inc. Integrated Products Group Micron Architectures Lab 8455 West Emerald St. Boise, Idaho 83704 PH: (208) 363-5313 FX: (208) 363-5596 jestuc...@micron.com -Original Message- From: ricklinf...@phobos.com [ mailto:ricklinf...@phobos.com mailto:ricklinf...@phobos.com ] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 14:28 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Vibration and Shock Testing This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called out it is not even the same within the same company. The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and transportation will have different levels. Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for vibration, shock or other environmental parameters? Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing and compliance? Thank you in advance for time on this matter. Rick Linford rlinf...@phobobs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list
RE: EN 55022 Conducted Emissions
The answer to your question is Yes!. A good reference would be FCC Part 15.107(f) for the United States which accepts measurements to CISPR22. The FCC rules for emissions test setups are generally more restrictive than those of Europe and you cannot loose if you apply a conservative interpretation if you should decide to use them as a reference in your test setups for Europe. From a measurement standpoint, you would surprised what effect coupling between power cables and I/O cables can have on your line conducted and radiated emissions measurements. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Brooks, Barbara [mailto:bbro...@hnt.wylelabs.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:55 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN 55022 Conducted Emissions I have had an inquiry that I am not sure of the answer and I was hoping that someone could provide me with an answer. If an EUT is DC powered device (i.e., a video card, internal modem, etc.), deriving its power from a host's power supply (i.e., a video card, internal modem, etc.) would the conducted emission specified in EN 55022 be performed on the power leads for the host as part of the test program for the EUT. Thank you for your assistance. Barbara Brooks Wyle Laboratories 7800 Highway 20 West Huntsville, AL 35807- (256) 837-4411 ext 595 (253) 721-0144 Fax bbro...@hnt.wylelabs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: UL Acceptance of On-Line Manuals
For your information, UL allows safety instructions to be in 'electronic' or 'soft' format if printed material is provided with instructions for initialization of the product in question without the introduction of a hazard. Per UL, the printed material should also include information describing existence of the electronic instructions within the product software. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 10:18 AM To: gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com Cc: dick.grob...@medgraph.com; marti...@appliedbiosystems.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: UL Acceptance of On-Line Manuals Safety standards specify topics which must be addressed in manuals. Only those portions of the manual addressing those specific safety topics are controlled by the certifier. The remainder of the manual is controlled by the product manufacturer; this remainder may be provided in any form the manufacturer chooses. So, the manual can be considered as consisting of two sets of data: 1) data required by the safety standard; and 2) data provided by the manufacturer (e.g., instructions on how to install, operate, and service the equipment). The certifier cannot tell us how to run our business with regard to item 2. The manufacturer can provide the data in any form he chooses. Data required by the safety standard can be subdivided into two parts: a) data required for installation (i.e., up to the point where data could be read from an electronic format); and b) data required after installation. Clearly, any safety data required before the unit can display electronic data, (a), must be provided in hard-copy or equivalent form. Data for (b) can be provided in electronic format. In my experience, certifiers accept these kinds of categorization of manual safety data. Regards, Rich ps: I have approached UL with the request... Asking permission (e.g., from a certifier) empowers the other party to determine how you will behave and what you need to do to satisfy him. Often, such empowerment results in decisions well beyond the range or outside the bounds of the standard. In the end, you are often stuck with an onerous requirement that does not coincide with either safety or business needs. I address such issues with a proposal together with a rationale why my proposal meets the standard or the intent of the standard. This enables a discussion of the principles that are involved, and does not empower the other party to make decisions for me. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Protection Against Ingress of Water - -IPXX
Look in IEC529: First Character - 0 = Non-Protected (against particles) 1 = Protected against solid objects greater than 50mm 2 = Protected against solid objects greater than 12mm 3 = Protected against solid objects greater than 2.5mm 4 = Protected against solid objects greater than 1.0mm 5 = Dust protected 6 = Dust tight Second Character - 0 = Non-Protected (against water) 1 = Protected against dripping water 2 = Protected against dripping water when tilted up to 15 deg 3 = Protected against spraying water 4 = Protected against splashing water 5 = Protected against water jets 6 = Protected against heavy seas 7 = Protected against the effects of immersion 8 = Protected against submersion EXAMPLE: IP20 =Protects against 12mm or greater objects, but not against water Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 5:50 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Protection Against Ingress of Water - -IPXX I have misplaced a file that explains the various IP ratings for ITE as to the above subject. Does someone have these to post, or a website listing these? I have been asked about IP54 and IP64. Many thanks, George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Rack populating??-Rationalize it !!
You need to concern yourself with how may shelves to install in a rack only if you are responsible for the rack and its contents. If your responsibility is limited to the shelf, don't worry about the rack. Test rack with your shelf only - at top half. For rack concerns, I only populate racks at 50% load to test, if the shelves are of identical type. My experience has shown that if you are going to have any problems with emissions or emissions margins, you will see this at half rack with identical shelves. Anything beyond this would not be cost effective. However, if the shelves are of different type, you MUST test at full rack. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: chasgra...@aol.com [mailto:chasgra...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:33 PM To: jestuc...@micron.com; wmf...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: e...@emcinteg.com Subject: Re: Rack populating??-Rationalize it !! Methinks I must protest against the keep adding until no more than xdB. As near as I can tell that was put in place by the FCC and others to minimize cable bundles - I cannot see how that applies to rack systems. The fundamental truth is that - no matter how one rationalizes it - if the full system is not tested then you flat have no idea what the real emissions profile is. Come on stop rationalizing - admit that there will be systems in the field that fail - and move on. This is a byproduct of volume vs test. The higher the volume the more rationalization takes place (witness the Class B procedures) until the emissions standards will be rendered irrelevant. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Moving Parts Hazard Symbol
[One more try..] Try this web page: http://www.cellotape.com/ Some samples of symbols can be located by selecting from the left column in the Services section: Transfer Design Guide Compliance Symbols The ANSI Symbols 2 option may have the symbol that you are looking for. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 7:59 AM To: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re:Moving Parts Hazard Symbol Forwarding for Martin... Reply Separator Subject:Moving Parts Hazard Symbol Author: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 7/20/00 8:10 PM Is anyone aware of a symbol that is used for cautioning the user of a Moving Parts hazard? I was unable to locate an appropriate symbol in IEC 417. I realize that I can use the Exclamation Point within a triangle and reference the hazard in the documentation, yet I was curious to find out if there were any symbols specifically for this type of hazard. All responses are appreciated. Regards Joe Martin Applied Biosystems marti...@pebio.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Moving Parts Hazard Symbol
Try this web page: http://www.cellotape.com/ The ANSI Symbols 2 option may have the symbol that you are looking for. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 7:59 AM To: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re:Moving Parts Hazard Symbol Forwarding for Martin... Reply Separator Subject:Moving Parts Hazard Symbol Author: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 7/20/00 8:10 PM Is anyone aware of a symbol that is used for cautioning the user of a Moving Parts hazard? I was unable to locate an appropriate symbol in IEC 417. I realize that I can use the Exclamation Point within a triangle and reference the hazard in the documentation, yet I was curious to find out if there were any symbols specifically for this type of hazard. All responses are appreciated. Regards Joe Martin Applied Biosystems marti...@pebio.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Looking for Inrush Current Standard
Don, I don't think that there is any one standard on inrush current requirements on power supplies. I know that there are several standards out there that specify (directly or indirectly) inrush currents conditions depending on your end-product application, but I do not believe that you will find a standard dedicated in itself to the subject of inrush currents requirements. In addition to the standards listed below, you may want to take a look at the ETS300132 - Power Supply Interface at Input to Telecommunications Equipment - series of standards. They provide detailed descriptions on inrush currents requirements and measurements pertaining to telecommunications equipment. Regards, Bandele Adepoju Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: George, David L [mailto:george.da...@unisys.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 10:37 AM To: 'Mark Gill'; 'don_macart...@selinc.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Looking for Inrush Current Standard Mark; There are several standards. One was mentioned before (IEC61000-3-3). This standard is vague on its application to inrush currents but most people consider it also applies to inrush. Committee work in process clarifies this in the latest draft now out for vote. Maybe the vote is complete by now. This draft leaves no doubt about its application to inrush current. Another standard is IEC61000-3-5 titled: Limitation of voltage fluctuations and flicker in low-voltage power supply systems for equipment rated current greater than 16 A. Another standard is IEC61000-3-11 titled: Limitations of voltage changes, voltage fluctuations and flicker in public low-voltage supply systems - Equipment with rated current less than or equal to 75A and subject to conditional connection. This standard is in the FDIS stage and the voting period ends early July. Apparently this standard covers the entire range up to 75A and includes the ranges of 61000-3-3 and 61000-3-5. The above are so called emission standards and there in addition there are immunity standards.If you need information on immunity -please let me know. Dave George Unisys Corp. 2476 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Tel: 1-610-648-3653 Fax: 1-610-695-4700 -Original Message- From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 1:56 PM To: 'don_macart...@selinc.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Looking for Inrush Current Standard Don - I have not heard of such a standard. Somewhat obvious, but general product safety requirements state that the inrush current must be limited such that overcurrent protection devices (either supplemental or branch circuit) are not opened in the course of normal operation of the product. This would be the upper limit for inrush, and depends upon the characteristics of the particular protector. Normally this is an end-product requirement, as compliance is affected by all passives and the particular supplemental protection (if any) in front of the supply in the final product. Unusually large decoupling capacitors (bulk) can sometimes require special circuits to limit the size of the inrush current. I am a bit unsure about the limits you mention below, specifically for t500 ms, as normal operation of all products falls within this range and can well exceed this limit (infinite time implies steady state)! I hope this helps. Regards, Mark Gill, P.E. EMC/Safety/NEBS Design Nortel Networks - RTP, NC, USA -Original Message- From: don_macart...@selinc.com [SMTP:don_macart...@selinc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:03 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Looking for Inrush Current Standard I am looking for a standard or standards (IEC, EN or similar) which contain inrush current requirements for power supplies. The standard might require the inrush to be: 20A for 50 ust1.5ms, 10A for 1.5mst500ms, 0.6A for t500ms. Do any good standards exist on inrush current? Thanks, Don MacArthur --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: ISM prohibited frequencies
Hello Jenkins, As long as the levels in the restricted bands are below the limits specified in 15.209, you should be okay. No frequency (fundamental or harmonic or 'internal functioning') within a restricted band can exceed the levels specified in 15.209. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: JENKINS, JEFF [mailto:jeff.jenk...@aei.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 7:38 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ISM prohibited frequencies I have a question about ISM prohibited frequencies according to 47 CFR Part 18. Section 18.303 says that operation in the prohibited frequency bands is not allowed. My question is, what is their interpretation of the word operation? 1.) If the equipment in question uses these frequencies only for internal functioning, is it still prohibited? (In other words, the energy does not intentionally leave the equipment enclosure.) 2.) If the equipment sweeps through a prohibited band while it auto-tunes, is this a problem? 3.) What if the fundamental operating frequency of the equipment is outside the prohibited bands, but there is significant harmonic energy within a prohibited band? Thanks, Jeff Jenkins Regulatory Compliance Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins, CO USA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Microwave Cables
Try a Helix cable. This is a high frequency, low loss cable suitable for taking measurements in the frequency range that you mentioned. For cable specs contact Mr. John Royer in Phoenix, Arizona, at 410-987-9713. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 2:23 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Microwave Cables Friends, We have been performing EMC measurements below 1 GHz. Now we need to do measurements for 2.5 GHz systems to the 10th harmonic (25 GHz). What kind of coax (or other cable) have you found suitable for testing this frequency range on an OATS? Type and vendor would be appreciated. Also, a brief description, such as flexible, rigid, diameter, loss characteristics, typical connector system, etc would help. Any cable (or measurement) tips would be appreciated. Thanks, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org XMTR-TsT.RTF Description: RTF file
RE: Network Card Certification
Unfortunately, there is a UL60950. I had the draft copy, which was sent to me direct from UL, but not the final copy. My draft was misplaced in a change of companies. I have spoken to UL about getting another copy. I also understand that this standard went into effect on April 1st, 2000. http://www.wll.com/teupdate0100.pdf Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:10 AM To: george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Network Card Certification George, There is no UL60950. Try UL1950, Third Edition. George george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/11/2000 11:50:58 AM Please respond to george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc
RE: Network Card Certification
You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: ETS 300 019-2-3
The focus on fire safety in Europe is fragmented at best. The Alliance for Consumer Fire Safety in Europe (ACFSE) http://www.acfse.org/ or http://www.acfse.co.uk/ seems to be the group driving the issue of consumer fire safety in Europe. I know of no ETSI standard that covers fire safety. Other localized groups include: NIBRA - Netherland http://www.nibra.nl/ BVFA - Germany http://www.bvfa.de/ EIEMA - England http://www.eiema.demon.co.uk/ Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 6:04 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: ETS 300 019-2-3 The ETSI standards in this series do not seem to address fire resistance. Is this addressed in other ETSI standards or have they left this area to CENELEC? Richard Woods -- From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:16 PM To: gmcintu...@telect.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: FW: GR-63 is aligned with ETS300.019-2-3 and ANSI T1.304. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: e...@itsqs.com [mailto:e...@itsqs.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:37 PM To: gmcintu...@telect.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Hi Gary, Not sure about NEBS GR-63, but might want to take a look at these standards for GR-1089: ETS 300-386-1 (EMC requirements) ETS 300-132-1(Power Supply Interface Operated by alternating current ac derived from direct current DC/AC) ETS 300 132-2 (Power Supply Interface Operated by direct current DC) ETS 300 253 (Earthing and bonding of telecom equipment) Hope this helps -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:40 PM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: Anybody have the ETSI cross documents for the NEBS GR-63 and GR-1089 standards, or do they cross directly? Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
RE: Where is 8.2.1 is EN55022 ?
In the absence of 8.2.1, the scrolling H pattern with controls at maximum is the setup of choice when testing monitors. Most labs/agencies will use this setup when performing their testing. In MS Windows, you may open several 'windows' to fill the screen. I recommend that you pay particular attention to the DOT clock rates, resolution and scanning modes of the monitor, selecting the highest, middle and 'lower' DOT clock rates for your testing. Also, note that the non-interlace scanning mode tends to exhibit more noise than the interlace mode. Both should be checked, though. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 12:43 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; bnad...@matrox.com Subject: RE: Where is 8.2.1 is EN55022 ? Early BW monitors were tested with scrolling H to produce maximum emissions and reproducibility. With the newer monitors, noise does not appear to be so pattern-dependent. For an unknown unit, I would experimentally try several screen displays to determine pattern dependence (if any) and note the reasoning for your choice in the test report. A color pattern may emit more than a simple text (e.g. letter H) pattern. David Sterner __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Where is 8.2.1 is EN55022 ? Author: Benoit Nadeau SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/9/2000 1:06 PM Bonjour de Montreal, In CISPR22:1997 one can read in section 8.2: ... Any mechanical activities should be performed and visual display units should be operated as in 8.2.1. 8.2.1 Operation of visual display units If the EUT includes a visual or monitor, The following operating rules shall be used. - Set the contrast control to maximum. - Set the brightness control to maximum or at raster extinction if raster extinction occurs at less than maximum brightness. - For colour monitors, used white letters on a black background to represent all colours. - Select the worse case of positive or negative video if both alternatives are available. - Set the character size and number of characters per line so that typically the greatest number of characters per screen is displayed. - For monitors with graphics capabilities, a pattern consisting of all scrolling Hs should be displayed. For monitors with text capability, a pattern consisting of random text shall be displayed. If neither of the above apply, use typical display. The EUT shall be operated in the operating mode that generates the greatest level of emission while satisfying the above operating rules. In BS EN 55022:1998 one can read in section 8.2: ... Any mechanical activities should be performed and visual display units should be operated as in 8.2.1. | | | | | | ??? There is no section 8.2.1, although it is referenced in the text. What happen to 8.2.1? obviously it has been deleted, without editorial review, when CENELEC adopted CISPR22:1997. What is the rational behind this? Should visual display unit be configured as in CISPR22:1997 or is this field wide open? The CISPR22:1997 is quite similar to ANSI C63.4 requirements. Is this deletion some sort of denial of the ANSI method? What should visual display units (or graphic cards as in my particular case) do? Any comment will be helpful. Regards, -- Benoît Nadeau, ing. M.ing (P.eng., M.eng.) Conformity Group Manager Matrox Tel: (514) 822-6000 (x2475) Fax: (514) 822-6275 Chairman 2001 IEEE EMC International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility Montreal August 13 to 17, 2001 -- --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail
FW:
GR-63 is aligned with ETS300.019-2-3 and ANSI T1.304. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: e...@itsqs.com [mailto:e...@itsqs.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:37 PM To: gmcintu...@telect.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Hi Gary, Not sure about NEBS GR-63, but might want to take a look at these standards for GR-1089: ETS 300-386-1 (EMC requirements) ETS 300-132-1(Power Supply Interface Operated by alternating current ac derived from direct current DC/AC) ETS 300 132-2 (Power Supply Interface Operated by direct current DC) ETS 300 253 (Earthing and bonding of telecom equipment) Hope this helps -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:40 PM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: Anybody have the ETSI cross documents for the NEBS GR-63 and GR-1089 standards, or do they cross directly? Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
FW: Measurement Uncertainty for product safety tests
The RCIC page has as part of the File and Software Exchange section, an EMI test uncertainty estimate excel spreadsheet from Mr. Dan Hoolihan and posted by Tom Bao. It's based on NIS 81. http://www.rcic.com/files/download/NIS81R1.XLS Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Graham Rae Dulmage [mailto:grdulm...@sympatico.ca] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 1:23 PM To: Ned Devine Cc: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject: Re: Measurement Uncertainty for product safety tests Ned, To my knowledge it is a calculation based on the accuracy(calibration) of the equipment used in the carrying out of a test. You must know what the stated tolerance of each device according to its manual and equipment records. You then for example would take the test equipment plus account for any probes, cables etc. and come up with a measurement uncertainty statement or table for that particular test set up and that particular intsrument. At the Post Compliance 97 conference that Austel put on in Melbourne Australia in 1997 there was a paper presented on this as well as examples of why it can become an issue. NSCL has a number of excellent papers on this issue as well. I trust that this helps you out. G. Rae Dulmage President TelApprove Services Corporation (613) 257 3015 Ned Devine wrote: Hi, One of the accreditations our lab has, is from the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). A2LA has recently mandated that we determine the measurement uncertainty for all of the tests we do. I have been assigned the task of determining the measurement uncertainty for the normal product safety tests. I have talked to a number of people, but all I get are different answers. Some say to just pick an uncertainty based on your judgment. Others say it is a mathematical derived number based on the accuracy of the equipment used. Still others say it is a combination of the first two. Has any one done this or knows how to do it? Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Bellcore Standard for Alarms
Hello All, Does anyone know of a Bellcore/Telcordia standard that covers alarms in the CO?. If not, what are the rules covering alarms in the CO? What kind of relays are called for? (ie. N/O, N/C, both)? What current is the relay expected to handle? Are there any definitions of Critical, Major, Minor? Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com
RE: EIRP
Contact RSI for ERP/EIRP measurement techniques. They can be reached at: RSI Radiofrequency Safety International Corporation 1-888-830-5648 316-825-4600 fax: 316-825-4324 Peaks over 1Ghz are measured with the average detector function of the measurement device activated. Bandwidth and amplitude criteria can be viewed in FCC document 47CFR - Part 15, Section D and Part 24. For acceptable techniques at making average measurements or measurements above 1Ghz, refer to ANSI C63.4-1992. Another good reference guide is the FCC's 1995 memorandum entitled Guidance on Measurements for Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum Systems. It describes methods for making average measurements. Siegfried Linkwitz of Hewlett-Packard's Signal Analysis division (in 1987) wrote two articles titled Measurement of Narrowband and Broadband Emissions using Peak and Average Detection (for the 1987 IEEE Symposium) and Using a Spectrum Analyzer to Measure the Narrowband Content of an Emissions Spectrum. I have copies of these documents somewhere. If you would like copies, send me an email and I will fax them to you. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com [mailto:ron_cher...@densolabs.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:53 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EIRP I am looking for a spec that describes the correct techniques for measuring ERP/EIRP on an OATS. (FCC) The EUT is a AMPS/PCS cell phone. Are signals over 1000 MHz measured in Peak or Averaged! Thanks, Ron C., Denso Wireless --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: ERP and EIRP calculators
There is a decent one on the internet at: www.vwlowen.demon.co.uk/java/eirpie.htm Bandele Adepoju Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com [mailto:ron_cher...@densolabs.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 3:49 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: ERP and EIRP calculators Hi all, I am looking for an ERP/EIRP calculator program. I get the raw data in dBuV/m from an OATS. Thx, Ron Chernus, Denso --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's
Then, Tania, I would say that if the price is equipment dependant, don't blame the labs. They are only performing the tests asked of them. Our equipment, by itself is well over $25,000.00 (they cost at least a quarter of a 'mil). I don't think that if we went back 10 years the price we pay now for testing would be much lower, when adding the costs of equipment. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:42 PM To: 'Doug'; ; 'Bandele Adepoju' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Bandele, Testing to Bellcore requirements can be quite expensive when your are burning a whole cabinet of expensive OEM stuff, especially if you are burning it twice because the first test failed! Thus, the cost is not just what you pay the lab for running the test, but the cost is also equipment going up in smoke. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:51 PM To: 'Doug'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Doug, telling your customers that your product was UL approved when in fact it was approved by a Lab other than UL would have been a hard sell - in any period. I wouldn't have bought that story myself, and your arguing in support of it would have just irritated me much more. You should have told your customers that your product was safety approved to a UL standard. ps, I wonder at what test lab those companies paying over $160,000.00 are doing their testing? Poor souls! Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC, NEBS NRTL's I have a little experience with this interpretation by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance testing as the compliance guy of a former company. There's certainly people here with more experience and history with this stuff than I. The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a small lab in the engineering department where I personally did some of the more simple tests for Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ... I had someone on the qualification survey team from these places come in and witness the testing I did. All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements. I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950, EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for $25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC. I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. Two problems arose. One was having UL testing performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus, with some customers, it was unfathomable that a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT have been tested at UL, and NOT have the classic UL label showing compliance. I always ran into this where ever I went. Second, a change occurred whereby some of the RBOCs got scammed or whatever (so I was told). This lead to testing such as safety, environmental, shake testing, flame spread ... to be done *** AT *** important word there at, an NRTL. A lab that had some sort of national accreditation, i.e. reputation. In other words, in scanning the test results, the customer could see that the testing was done at some maybe famous lab, and well ... then it was in like flint. FCC testing was still separate from an NRTL lab. I threw many wrenches back then about this. Some of those wrenches landed on this newsgroup. Anywho, I estimated that such testing off site would raise from $25,000 to well over $100,000. This would impact my budget, it would bleed over into cost for the product and thus would obviously end up with increased costs to the customers (RBOCs) and finally, the increased costs would settle right in their customers laps - i.e. you and me. The heck with arguing about raising minimum wages. We're talking increasing the overhead on developing a product by a factor of times 4 overnight! I may as well have been a chickadee blowing flowers in a hurricane with that one, scuse my language. I'm hearing that those same type of products on which I used to spend only $25,000 to get through compliance now costs somewhere on the order of $160,000. And you as the mfr of that equipment are totally out of the loop during the testing. No more customizing some part of some test for a customer by way of a phone call and doing the test before running off to lunch. Anywho, at that time there were some really good people at the RBOCs. People who really knew their stuff when it came to compliance and Bellcore
RE: FCC to regulate xDSL???
I would like to thank all who have responded so far to my email. There seems, at last, to be some dialogue on this subject. What puzzles me, however, is the absence of reference to xDSL technology such as SDSL. All responses seem to concentrate on ADSL technology. Does this mean that the FCC ruling only concerns ADSL technology or is the lack of reference to the other technologies an indication that there is still a question of how the ruling affects them? Thank you, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: martin garwood [mailto:mgarw...@babtps.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:07 PM To: 'Bandele Adepoju';emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com; David Patton Subject: re: FCC to regulate ADSL On February 28, 2000, the Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Alcatel USA's petition for waiver of the signal power limitations contained in Section 68.308(e)(1) of the Commission Rules. This order followed on the heels of earlier petitions by Paradyne Corporation (order released March 29, 1999) and Nortel (order released July 30, 1999). During the comment period in the Alcatel proceedings, comments were filed recommending that the Commision consider a streamlining of the waiver petition process, based on compliance with established criteria found to be acceptable by the Commission in earlier proceedings. The Commission responded in the order that the ADSL petition process should be streamlined, in the same manner as is currently provided for stutter dial tone waiver petitions. Parties seeking waiver of 68.308(e)(1) can now utilize this streamlined procedure when filing Part 68 applications for ADSL modems, provided that they comply with well established industry standards such as ANSI T1.413. BABT Product Service provides technical assistance and services for manufacturers of ADSL equipment seeking FCC certification. We assist in the preparation of complete Part 68 Registration packages including: waiver petition; relevant Part 68 testing and data, in addition to supporting test data to show compliance with signal power requirements against standards such as ANSI T1.413; and all other supporting Part 68 application documentation. Best Regards, Martin Garwood, CEO BABT Product Service USA Santa Clara CA Ph: 408 919 3759 Fax: 408 919 0585 http://www.babtps.com
FCC to Regulate xDSL???
Group, Can anyone confirm that the FCC will now require xDSL modems to comply with Part 68. Until recently, there were no FCC guidelines on how DSL devices should meet Part 68. I saw an article from an industry magazine about the FCC saying they would 'immediately' enforce it (See http://www.conformity.com/). I have scanned the FCC web page, but cannot find anything on this. Can any one elaborate? My question is, does anyone know how much of this Part 68 'ruling(?)' applies to this SDSL? What tests are required and how is it going to be regulated? I don't believe xDSL devices of any type can meet all the FCC Part 68 tests as written. There is mention of a waiver option (God forbid!) requiring applicants to subject themselves to unnecessary public scrutiny in order to register these devices and to have to wait up to a year. Does all this make any sense? I would think and hope that there would be some sort of grandfathering. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com
RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's
Doug, telling your customers that your product was UL approved when in fact it was approved by a Lab other than UL would have been a hard sell - in any period. I wouldn't have bought that story myself, and your arguing in support of it would have just irritated me much more. You should have told your customers that your product was safety approved to a UL standard. ps, I wonder at what test lab those companies paying over $160,000.00 are doing their testing? Poor souls! Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC, NEBS NRTL's I have a little experience with this interpretation by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance testing as the compliance guy of a former company. There's certainly people here with more experience and history with this stuff than I. The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a small lab in the engineering department where I personally did some of the more simple tests for Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ... I had someone on the qualification survey team from these places come in and witness the testing I did. All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements. I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950, EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for $25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC. I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. Two problems arose. One was having UL testing performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus, with some customers, it was unfathomable that a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT have been tested at UL, and NOT have the classic UL label showing compliance. I always ran into this where ever I went. Second, a change occurred whereby some of the RBOCs got scammed or whatever (so I was told). This lead to testing such as safety, environmental, shake testing, flame spread ... to be done *** AT *** important word there at, an NRTL. A lab that had some sort of national accreditation, i.e. reputation. In other words, in scanning the test results, the customer could see that the testing was done at some maybe famous lab, and well ... then it was in like flint. FCC testing was still separate from an NRTL lab. I threw many wrenches back then about this. Some of those wrenches landed on this newsgroup. Anywho, I estimated that such testing off site would raise from $25,000 to well over $100,000. This would impact my budget, it would bleed over into cost for the product and thus would obviously end up with increased costs to the customers (RBOCs) and finally, the increased costs would settle right in their customers laps - i.e. you and me. The heck with arguing about raising minimum wages. We're talking increasing the overhead on developing a product by a factor of times 4 overnight! I may as well have been a chickadee blowing flowers in a hurricane with that one, scuse my language. I'm hearing that those same type of products on which I used to spend only $25,000 to get through compliance now costs somewhere on the order of $160,000. And you as the mfr of that equipment are totally out of the loop during the testing. No more customizing some part of some test for a customer by way of a phone call and doing the test before running off to lunch. Anywho, at that time there were some really good people at the RBOCs. People who really knew their stuff when it came to compliance and Bellcore. And I could actually negotiate with them various parts of the Bellcore tests to do. They're almost gone now. And I fear some marketing contract reviewer with a business degree is the only person at some RBOC who checks off required testing deliverables. And things like NRTL and Class A don't mean a hoot to them ... Sorry for the length. Regards, Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher:
FW: Mexico Regulatory Requirements
The telephone number to ITS, Menlo Park is 650-463-2959. The number provided below is their fax line. My mistake. Sorry, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 2:46 PM To: TREG (E-mail); EMC_PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Mexico Regulatory Requirements Paul, Try ITS (Intertek Testing Services). It is my understanding that they have local representation in Mexico and can assist in obtaining the NOM mark. They should be able to provide you with the correct answer to your question. The telephone number of their office in Menlo Park, California is 650-463-2960. Ask for Ted Haschke. -Original Message- From: Lubeski, Paul [mailto:plube...@hnt.wylelabs.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 2:03 PM To: TREG (E-mail); EMC_PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Mexico Regulatory Requirements Dear List members: Can anyone provide the Product Safety and Industry/Regulatory Network requirements and approval authority contact(s) for Mexico? Thank you. Paul A. Lubeski Project Manager, Telephone Technology Center Wyle Laboratories, Inc. 7800 HWY 20 W. Huntsville, AL 35806 (256) 837-4411 ext. 494 (256) 830-0904 (FAX) plube...@hnt.wylelabs.com http://www.wylelabs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Mexico Regulatory Requirements
Paul, Try ITS (Intertek Testing Services). It is my understanding that they have local representation in Mexico and can assist in obtaining the NOM mark. They should be able to provide you with the correct answer to your question. The telephone number of their office in Menlo Park, California is 650-463-2960. Ask for Ted Haschke. -Original Message- From: Lubeski, Paul [mailto:plube...@hnt.wylelabs.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 2:03 PM To: TREG (E-mail); EMC_PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Mexico Regulatory Requirements Dear List members: Can anyone provide the Product Safety and Industry/Regulatory Network requirements and approval authority contact(s) for Mexico? Thank you. Paul A. Lubeski Project Manager, Telephone Technology Center Wyle Laboratories, Inc. 7800 HWY 20 W. Huntsville, AL 35806 (256) 837-4411 ext. 494 (256) 830-0904 (FAX) plube...@hnt.wylelabs.com http://www.wylelabs.com
RE: EMC and product safety split?
Hello All, I feel that I need to add my comments, just in case this thing becomes a voting matter by makeup of response. I do not want to see a forum split. I know it can be frustrating at times having to go through the numerous emails, but I have learned to filter out what I believe is not useful from what I believe is useful. It is well worth it as I have found it very useful just following the issues or reading the comments and questions from colleagues from around the world and at home (here in the USA). It is also very enlightening to have a perspective on what the regulatory, emc, safety perception is in other parts of the world. Furthermore, at my company I happen to be responsible for telecom, emc, safety, NEBS, FDA. (need I go on?). As one responsible for all the regulatory issues (existing and yet to come) at my company, I benefit greatly from the convenience of emc and safety issues at a single location. I am sure others do too. Note that there is also the TREG forum (which I subscribe to). I say two forums is enough. On another thought, I get to know people from the forum (safety, telco, emc), if not in person, at least by name. Some of these names, it is as if I know these people in person. Occasionally, I get to meet forum members at seminars, conventions, etc. at locations all over the world and we talk like old friends. I say, lets not tamper with a good thing. Keep the forum as it is. Best regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 12:15 PM To: Product Safety Technical Committee Subject: Re: EMC and product safety split? Regarding a possible EMC and product safety split... I want to thank each of your for your contributions to this topic. As with our technical discussions, your comments are of high quality and are highly worthwhile and thought-provoking. Each of your technical contributions make this forum what it is. The forum is not moderated, and the technical discussions are what they are because of the individual contributions. My personalthanks to you for your contributions. This forum was founded for the purpose of discussions regarding product safety. Because the PSTC is a part of the IEEE EMC Society, a condition for the listserver operation was that it include EMC discussions. More recently, we seem to discuss all sorts of regulatory issues, not just safety and EMC. Clearly, our subscribers have a need to bring these topics to a worldwide forum. You have presented valid pros and cons for separate safety and EMC lists. From a practical point of view, we would need at least three people (volunteers) to set up and operate an EMC- only list as well as authorization from the EMC Society. We would need one volunteer to take on the leadership function, and two volunteers to take on the day-to-day administrative functions. Personally, I think we have a good, effective operation today. Splitting the operation will reduce the range of discussion, especially in the overlapping safety-EMC areas and in the non- safety and non-EMC regulatory areas. So, until someone steps up with answers to these service problems and can also manage a new EMC listserver, our listserver will continue as it is. Thank you for bringing up this discussion and for your views on the listserver. This discussion has helped those of us who operate the listserver to better understand our subscribers needs and helps us in keeping a useful service to you. Best regards, Richard Nute PSTC listserver administrator --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Job Opening - Update
Terawave Communications a leading manufacturer of Intelligent Wave Division Multiplexing (IWDM) equipment, targeted at local access networks, is seeking a Compliance Engineer. The successful candidate will be expected to lead the compliance approvals on all of Terawave products, which will include responsibility for all NEBS, CE-Mark, UL and FCC compliance efforts. Responsibilities will also include interfacing with regulatory agencies and testing labs to coordinate and analyze compliance factors and confirm adherence to all related standards. A strong background in EMI/EMC is required and the ability to expedite internal and external processes to meet fast paced development schedules is essential. Ability to setup and manage an EMC laboratory is a plus. Do not reply to this message. Please call or send resume to: Mohamed Tahmaspur, Director, Product Design Terawave Communications, Inc. 30695 Huntwood Ave, Hayward, CA 94544 Phone: (510) 401-2268 Fax: (510) 429-5754 Email: mtahmas...@terawave.com attachment: winmail.dat
Job Opening
Terawave Communications a leading manufacturer of Intelligent Wave Division Multiplexing (IWDM) equipment, targeted at local access networks, is seeking a Compliance Engineer. The successful candidate will be expected to lead the compliance approvals on all of Terawave products, which will include responsibility for all NEBS, CE-Mark, UL and FCC compliance efforts. Responsibilities will also include interfacing with regulatory agencies and testing labs to coordinate and analyze compliance factors and confirm adherence to all related standards. A strong background in EMI/EMC is required and the ability to expedite internal and external processes to meet fast paced development schedules is essential. Ability to setup and manage an EMC laboratory is a plus. Please call or send resume to: Mohamed Tahmaspur, Director, Product Design Phone: (510) 401-2268 Fax: (510) 429-5754 Email: mtahmas...@terawave.com attachment: winmail.dat
