RE: Mobile Phones in EMC Labs

[Conway, Patrick R (bNB Houston)]

That comment makes me think of the interference possibility from different TX
waveforms.

 

 I am curious- has anyone seen correlation between 

levels or quantity of interference

vs

the two phone types:  CDMA and GSM ?

 

 

In a non-lab environment, the actual interference from GSM is orders of
magnitude larger than CDMA.  

But what about in the lab environment?  

 

 

 

Best Regards,

Patrick.

p.con...@hp.com

281-514-2259

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 3:46 PM
To: ieee
Subject: RE: Mobile Phones in EMC Labs

 

Similar problem in our lab. The signal path between the cell tower and the
cell phone is so weak that the output from the cell phone is near max (my cell
phone battery drains pretty quickly as a result) which makes it easier for the
analyzer to pick it up.  Better quality cables have helped, but I always turn
off my cell phone when making radiated scans. I've never seen a problem with
any other tests.

 

Bob Richards, NCT.



--- On Tue, 12/9/08, Bill Owsley  wrote:

 

We used to pick up the cell phones, but then we fixed the cables and
connectors and now no more problems.  We routinely use cell phones while
testing and they are good indication when something is broken.

.

 

-

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


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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  

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

-

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


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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  

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

RE: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

...circling back to an old thread:

What would happen if we placed 8 access points in a circle around some popcorn?
YouTube here we come!



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:00 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN

Recently we added two new food blasters to the lunch room and noted that some 
office areas no longer had reliable network connect.

Installed some isolation transformers between building mains and the food 
blasters - no more complaints from the sales/accounting dweebs, or whatever 
they do. Also noted that some of the power to the lunch room does not have a 
separate ground wire - uses the metal conduit, which probably does not help 
much.

As for the specific ID of these iso transformers, hmmm... we no longer make 
this particular model.

But I am going to upgrade my tin-foil hat, as I very much suspect that the 
space aliens are using the 2.4GHz carrier to link our brains to the NSA 
computers...

luck,
Brian


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of 
don_borow...@selinc.com
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 1:27 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: brian_ku...@lecotc.com
Subject: Re: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN

Except for rebuilding the break rooms with foil-lined dry wall, metal flooring, 
screened windows, filtered power, waveguide-beyond-cutoff ventilation grills, 
and RF tight doors, I don't know there is much for a solution.

I was told that in one major Boeing plant, communications as 2.4 GHz is all but 
impossible -- there are microwave ovens scattered around the various break 
rooms running off of all three phases of the electrical power
(120/208 volts "Y"); and due to variety of manufacturers, generating RF during 
both polarities of each phase. In other words, continuous
2.4 GHz
RF.

Except for specialize industrial units, I don't think you will find microwave 
ovens running at any other frequency.

Don Borowski
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, WA, USA




 "Kunde, Brian"
 
To
 Sent by:  "emc-pstc"

 emc-p...@ieee.org
cc


Subject
 10/06/2008 01:02  Microwave Oven
Interference with
 PM2.4Ghz Wireless LAN










I have just received and interesting call from our IT guys in our production 
facility. They have installed a 2.4Ghz wireless LAN system in our production 
and stock room areas, which is a huge area, and which includes 13 Access Points 
and a couple dozen wireless devices such as bar code readers, computers, and 
printers.

They discovered that they are having a major interference problem which they 
have narrowed down to the Microwave Ovens in the two break areas.
Evidently, Microwave Ovens run at 2.45Ghz.

It would be very difficult to remove the ovens or to move the break areas.

Have any of you experts have experience with this issue?  Any suggestions?  Are 
new ovens better then older ones? Are the microwave ovens that run at a 
different frequency? Would it help to try and shield the ovens better?  Please 
help.

The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice:  This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error.  Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussio

FW: EE Contract Opportunity

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

Posting this as a favor to an "outsider".
This is not connected to me or my employer.
Please contact the recruiter directly using the info at the bottom of the page.
 

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 




From: Jennifer Bingham [mailto:jbing...@americancontractgroup.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:39 PM
To: p.con...@ieee.org
Subject: EE Contract Opportunity 



 ... wanted to let you know about a 6 month + E.E. (EMI) position in the
Chicago, IL area. Our client is looking for a U.S. citizen with a BSEE.
Following is a description of the job. Please contact me if you’re
interested and available. An updated version of your resume would be much
appreciated!

 

Description:

“Under the general supervision of the Director of Electrical Engineering and
the Project Engineer, this lead electrical engineer will have responsibility
for design and test work relating to system level electrical architecture,
power, thermal, shock, vibration, and EMI design for our next generation and
current products. The candidate must be able to work effectively as part of a
team that designs electrical and electro-electrical systems and work with
other engineers. Good communication skills are required to interact
effectively as part of a technical team, integrating mechanical, software, and
electrical designs.”

 

More specifically, this is what they’re looking for:

 

* BSEE

* 10-15 years related experience, at least 5 on DoD or equivalent
government contracts

* Ability to develop and support electrical and electronic concepts
>from design through production

* Capability to conduct product design analysis and verification  

* Experience with Military Specifications and Standards

* Strong verbal and written communication skills

*US Citizen able to obtain DoD security clearance

 

 

Jenn Bingham 

American Contract Group

591 North Ave ,Suite 4, 2nd Floor

Wakefield MA, 01880

Toll Free Phone 877-723-9087 Ext 308

Phone 781-245-9000

Fax 781-245-9009

 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: FM Modulator Information

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

A family member forwarded the below email.
(I'm pleasantly surprised that they remember my field of work !)

Does anyone on this list subscribe to XM?
It would be interesting to know the details of the interference problem.



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway, NCE.
Hewlett-Packard Co.
p.con...@hp.com
281.514.2259
281-514.5473(fax)

~~


From: XM Radio [mailto:xmra...@xmradio.chtah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:11 AM
To:
Subject: FM Modulator Information


Dear XM Subscriber,

The FCC has notified XM that some of our older receiver models (generally, 
those purchased before August, 2006) may not operate in the manner required by 
the FCC and may cause interference to nearby FM radio users depending on how 
the XM radio is installed or used.

The receiver models include the Roady2(r), SKYFi2(r), MyFi(r), Airware(r), Tao, 
RoadyXT(r), Xpress(tm), Sportscaster, XR9-XCX9, Jensen JXR9, inno(r), 
Helix(tm), and Nexus(r). Please note this notice does not apply to you if your 
new car came installed with an XM receiver.

If you do have one or more of the receivers mentioned above and use it with the 
wireless FM option or you have had the receiver professionally installed, then 
we have several options available at no cost to you to alleviate this possible 
interference. Please visit our website at www.xmradio.com/fmmodinfo 
  or call us 
toll-free at 866-410-0096 to choose one of the following three options:

Option A:
We will send you ferrite beads to attach to your XM antenna and power adaptor 
cables. (Ferrite beads are typically placed on the end of data cables to reduce 
interference.)

Option B:
We will send you a replacement cassette adapter to use with your XM radio. Only 
choose this option if your car radio has a cassette player.

Option C:
If your car does not have a cassette player, we will provide you with ferrite 
beads and an installation kit, with hardware, to use in connection with a 
professional installation of your radio along with a coupon redeemable at no 
charge for professional installation.

Please visit the following website, www.xmradio.com/fmmodinfo 
  for more 
information and to select your option. If you do not have access to the 
Internet, you may call 866-410-0096 for information on how to alleviate this 
possible interference. To help expedite your order, please have your 8-digit 
Radio ID (found on Channel 0 of your XM radio) and your FCC ID (found on the 
back, the bottom, or under the battery of your XM radio), available when you 
start this process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best Regards,
XM Management

Note - If you are using your XM radio's FM modulator to send the XM signal to a 
home or car stereo, your radio will work best if you use an unused FM 
frequency. Go to www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/vacant 
  to find the best 
FM frequencies to use in your area.



Please do not reply to this email. This is a service email from XM Satellite 
Radio. Please note that you may receive service email in accordance with your 
XM Satellite Radio Customer Agreement, whether or not you elect to receive 
promotional email.

XM Satellite Radio Inc., 1500 Eckington Place NE, Washington, D.C. 20002. 
Copyright 2008 XM Satellite Radio. All rights reserved.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

 
This is great information.  
Thank you for providing some details.  
 
The comment: "had an 868-MHz reader (2-4 W). "  is informative.  It
indicates that the RFID was not the only transmitter in the proximity of the
medical EUT.  This RFID reader adds another parameter that requires control
and investigation during the test.  
 
continuing the list of possibilities:
 
f)  is it possible that the RFID tag has much less effect than that of the
RFID reader?
Would be informative to find out if the RFID reader, in the absence of the
tags themselves, can duplicate any of the EUT problems.

 

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Dean Gerard
(Medical Physics)
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:48 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: FW: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical






Just nominal power outputs and separation distances between interfering and
susceptible equipment. 

Output info given is - 
 "The passive RFID system selected for this study (OBID, Feig Electronic,
Weilburg, Germany) had an 868-MHz reader (2-4 W). The active RFID system

(Eureka RFID, Avonwood, England) had a 125-kHz reader (68_10E-3 µT at 1m)
that forces tags to transmit in its proximity. The active RFID tag had an
operational frequency of 868 MHz at 2 µW"

Interference effects were provoked at separation distances ranging from 5 -
600cm, depending upon equipment affected. 



Ged Dean 
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust 

 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

[SPAM] RE: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

Gert-
You mention one possible reason for the test results is that the EUT's
have immunity deficits.
I agree, that is one possibility.  
 
here are a few other possibilities:   
(BTW- not affiliated in any way with medical devices nor with, all
comments OOO )
 
 
b)Could it be a systemic testing error?
Was a shield room used?   
Were the ambients controlled and eliminated?
Were the devices connected to a patient simulator?
Did the test engineer have his personal GSM phone "OFF"?  etc. 
(...crazier things have happened.)
 
 
c)Maybe the EUT are old.
Through outdated design specs perhaps RFID proximity was not a
consideration during their design.
And yet, in today's hospitals, the two types of devices may be in
close proximity.
If this is the case then the study has done a great service to the
community by uncovering a problem that was unknown.
 
 
d)Maybe the EUT are old (not a repeat) 
Through many years of use perhaps once immune equipment has lost
some of their designed immunity?
Again- if this is the case this study may have uncovered a
previously unknown problem.
 

e)Is it possible for an RF ID device to overwhelm the immunity levels of
the EUT?
If a medical device is tested at 10 V/m and an RFID device TXout is in
the mW range- is it possible for a RFID mW transmitter to generate 10 V/m?
Perhaps.
For instance- since an RFID device operating at 125 kHz in not
transmitting in the classic sense, then there may be near-field resonant
effects that are not previously understood in the medical device immunity
requirements?
   
 
 
It seems that we, as professionals in this field, have the unique ability
to analyze these reports like no other community can.  I wonder if we will
find the answers to the large number of questions raised by the article.  
 
 
 
All comments OOO.

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 



From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:administra...@ce-test.info] 
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:57 AM
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston); Rudd, Adam; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical



The report was produced by TNO, a Dutch private organization

(http://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?&context
markten&content=markt_persbericht&laag1=189&item_id=200806250026&Taal=2)

 

and some results are available here:

 

http://www.amc.nl/?pid=5266

 

Manufacturers name and equipment type included.

 

Please note that the energy levels of RFID are in the milliwatt range,

so all problems are to be categorized as immunity deficits.

 

 

It is astonishing that the security of healthy persons (like car drivers) 

is taken much more seriously (by car manufacturers for example )

as the security  of people with bad health like in hospitals.

Most medical equipment is tested  at 10 V/meter or less.

where critical car parts must  be tested up to 200V/m.

 

Cars are to be sold at low prices (relatively) , medical equipment

at sky-high costs.  It seems that emc quality is the inverse of the

costs of equipment. Where much attention is given to

reliability and electrical safety of medical equipment,

emc is still  neglected. 

Note that this investigation was made in a Dutch

University Hospital;

On  European soil , where immunity requirements have been 

virtually law since 1996 

 

The lack of EMC care might be related to the fact that

medical accidents are easy to cover up, (more easy then car accidents)

and liability of medical staff is difficult to prove, let alone

the liability of a medical equipment manufacturer.

See the discussion on the Therac-25.

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Conway, Patrick R
(Houston)
Verzonden: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:08 PM
Aan: Rudd, Adam; emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical

 

...and if you put four of them in a circle, you can pop corn.  :)

 

 

 

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rudd, Adam
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:19 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical

“The latest research, conducted at Vrije University in Amsterdam, tested the
effect of holding both "passive" and powered RFIDs close to 41 medical
devices, including ventilators, syringe pumps, dialysis machines and
pacemakers.

A total of 123 tests, three on each machine, were carried out, and 34 produced
an "incident" in which the RFID appeared to have an effect - 24 of which were
deemed either "significant" or "hazardous".

In some tests, RFIDs either switched off or changed the settings on mechanical
ventilators, completely stopped 

RE: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

...and if you put four of them in a circle, you can pop corn.  :)
 
 
 
Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rudd, Adam
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:19 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical



“The latest research, conducted at Vrije University in Amsterdam, tested the
effect of holding both "passive" and powered RFIDs close to 41 medical
devices, including ventilators, syringe pumps, dialysis machines and
pacemakers.

A total of 123 tests, three on each machine, were carried out, and 34 produced
an "incident" in which the RFID appeared to have an effect - 24 of which were
deemed either "significant" or "hazardous".

In some tests, RFIDs either switched off or changed the settings on mechanical
ventilators, completely stopped the working of syringe pumps, caused external
pacemakers to malfunction, and halted dialysis machines.

The device did not have to be held right up to the machine to make this happen
- some "hazardous" incidents happened when the RFID was more than 10 inches
away.”

--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7471008.stm
 

Best Regards,

Adam Rudd

Electrical Engineer (EMC)

NCR Corporation, RHSS

Duluth, GA

(770) 495-2825

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Proposed EuP directive?

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

Kristiaan, 
Thank you.  
 
 
And thanks to all list members that replied.
 

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carpentier
Kristiaan
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:52 PM
To: lauren_cr...@amat.com; Conway, Patrick R (Houston)
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Proposed EuP directive?



2 major Implementation measures are under discussion:

- External Power Supplies (EPS).

The EPS IM measure is a Vertical IM & Product specific. Limits are actually
taken over from Energy star V2.

Implementation expected from H2 2009.

- Off & Standby mode losses.

The latter is a Horizontal Implementation measure affecting a broad range of
products, including ITE equipment; it requires that products go automatically
in Standby or Off mode with limits down to 1 or 2 Watt & even lower values a
few years later.

Implementation expected from H2 2009.

 

These requirements are legal requirements and will have to listed on the EU
DoC of the product.

 

Best regards,

 

Kris Carpentier

Regulatory & Approvals



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lauren_cr...@amat.com
Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 23:13
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston)
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Proposed EuP directive?

 


Check out http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/eco_design/index_en.htm 

The EuP (Energy Using Products) directive has been out for a while and already
has three product sectors in scope (ballasts, refrigerators,and water
heaters).  There have been recent consultation efforts and proposals to expand
the list of products that fall under EuP (which happens to be a CE marking
directive). 

Regards, 

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

-External Use-

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



 




"Conway, Patrick R (Houston)"  
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 

06/11/2008 11:32 AM 

To

"emc-p...@ieee.org"  

cc

 

Subject

Proposed EuP directive?

 

 

 

 

 

  




  
List-members. 
  
I hear there are some proposed regulations for future mandate of power
usage in the EU. 
  
Does anyone have any pointers to the proposed or draft regulations? 
  
Thanks in advance. 
  
  
  
Best Regards, 
  
Patrick Conway, NCE. 
  
Hewlett-Packard Co. 
p.con...@hp.com 
  
281.514.2259 
281-514.5473(fax) 
  
  
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to em

Proposed EuP directive?

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

 
List-members.
 
I hear there are some proposed regulations for future mandate of power
usage in the EU.
 
Does anyone have any pointers to the proposed or draft regulations?
 
Thanks in advance.
 
 
 
Best Regards,
 
Patrick Conway, NCE.
 
Hewlett-Packard Co.
p.con...@hp.com
 
281.514.2259
281-514.5473(fax)
 
 
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Ferrite clamps

[Conway, Patrick R]

Gherry-
Thanks for the response.  I was very interested in knowing what the
responses were at the committee level to those basic questions.  From your
report it seems the basics of "non-interference" were brought up but other
factors weighed heavier in the argument.


If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I
think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000.  But since I work for
neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get
non-interfering product to market.


But, as you say- these points are no longer important.  The DOW
approaches.  So- now I have to go buy some clamps.



Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps?
Anyone started using these in their testing yet?


Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Patrick,

You make a number of valid points.  They are, however, mute.  A1:2000 to
CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the world.
As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform
radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a substantial
cost impact on the ITE industry.

The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between labs.
The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the
discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect.  We're stuck with them, for
better or worse.  We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate testing.
The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the
clamps will cause.  I have personally pointed that out to them in meetings.
We'll see what happens.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.  

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the "noise" generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking:
"if it isn't broke, why fix it" (my words, not theirs!!).  


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agreeable measurements with another lab.  It's good business for him to say
he can agree with any one else.  However- if the foundation for the rules is
to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community)
a little off-base on this one ?


Maybe I'm missing some important details here.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong...



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE

EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Patrick,

The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve repeatability
between labs.  I agree with your concern about it causing double testing for
radiated emissions from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz until all regulatory bodies
accept the ferrite clamps.  Not a good thing.  I am working through an
industry association (ITI) to get the FCC to accept them.  I've been working
on this for 2 years.  Nothing so far, other than some work in ANSI C63 that
might result in the clamps being added to C63.4, maybe in 2004.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@loui

[no subject]

[Conway, Patrick R]

All-

 I'd like to know if there are any opinions about...


 It is my understanding the CISPR 22 A1:2000 will require the
use of "ferrite clamps" during RE tests of table-top equipment.

Has anyone started using these devices during their testing?
Has anyone seen a difference in their test results with the
use of these devices?



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)






---
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...@attbi.com

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...@attbi.com

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: Ferrite clamps

[Conway, Patrick R]

Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.  

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the "noise" generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking:
"if it isn't broke, why fix it" (my words, not theirs!!).  


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agreeable measurements with another lab.  It's good business for him to say
he can agree with any one else.  However- if the foundation for the rules is
to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community)
a little off-base on this one ?


Maybe I'm missing some important details here.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong...



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE

EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Patrick,

The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve repeatability
between labs.  I agree with your concern about it causing double testing for
radiated emissions from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz until all regulatory bodies
accept the ferrite clamps.  Not a good thing.  I am working through an
industry association (ITI) to get the FCC to accept them.  I've been working
on this for 2 years.  Nothing so far, other than some work in ANSI C63 that
might result in the clamps being added to C63.4, maybe in 2004.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:42 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: 


Hello Ghery-

Thank you for the information.

To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with the CISPR voting
process but I do recognize that any election with a 1 vote margin must be a
bit contentious.  Unless of course you live in Florida where every vote
counts AT LEAST once.  There wasn't any "hanging chad" during that CISPR
vote, was there?


But- back to A1:2000:  The data you report indicates that the
emission profile will change with the addition of the ferrite clamps.  This
is bothersome for (at least) three reasons- 

1st: if the ferrite clamp reduces the emissions from a frequency or
two then I can achieve compliance but a customer may experience an
interference problem due to the fact that they do not install the ferrite
clamp at their facility.

2nd:  if the ferrite clamp increases emissions from a frequency then
a product that now achieves compliance may have to be redesigned in order to
pass after the DOW.  

3rd:  since the FCC doesn't presently allow the use of the ferrite
clamps then I have to test each product one more time- this adds cost and
time delay- especially if a failure arises due to this test.



This could be a major headache for people who deliver product to
market in Europe.


Can anyone tell us the driving reason behind this regulation?  Was
it to increase repeatability at test sites?  Was it to reduce the number of
interference complaints from ITE installations? 



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:09 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: 


Patrick,

I performed some A/B comparison measurements several years ago when this was
still working its way through CISPR to aid in the determination of the US
vote.  I found that some emissions go down (some by a bunch) and other

RE:

[Conway, Patrick R]

Hello Ghery-

Thank you for the information.

To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with the CISPR voting
process but I do recognize that any election with a 1 vote margin must be a
bit contentious.  Unless of course you live in Florida where every vote
counts AT LEAST once.  There wasn't any "hanging chad" during that CISPR
vote, was there?


But- back to A1:2000:  The data you report indicates that the
emission profile will change with the addition of the ferrite clamps.  This
is bothersome for (at least) three reasons- 

1st: if the ferrite clamp reduces the emissions from a frequency or
two then I can achieve compliance but a customer may experience an
interference problem due to the fact that they do not install the ferrite
clamp at their facility.

2nd:  if the ferrite clamp increases emissions from a frequency then
a product that now achieves compliance may have to be redesigned in order to
pass after the DOW.  

3rd:  since the FCC doesn't presently allow the use of the ferrite
clamps then I have to test each product one more time- this adds cost and
time delay- especially if a failure arises due to this test.



This could be a major headache for people who deliver product to
market in Europe.


Can anyone tell us the driving reason behind this regulation?  Was
it to increase repeatability at test sites?  Was it to reduce the number of
interference complaints from ITE installations? 



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:09 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: 


Patrick,

I performed some A/B comparison measurements several years ago when this was
still working its way through CISPR to aid in the determination of the US
vote.  I found that some emissions go down (some by a bunch) and others may
go up when you add the clamps.  You will need to re-test products for Europe
as you can't predict what the change will by just by inspection.

BTW, this amendment to CISPR 22 passed by 1 vote.  The US voted no as the
clamps were not adequately defined in the proposal.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:53 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: 




All-

 I'd like to know if there are any opinions about...


 It is my understanding the CISPR 22 A1:2000 will require the
use of "ferrite clamps" during RE tests of table-top equipment.

Has anyone started using these devices during their testing?
Has anyone seen a difference in their test results with the
use of these devices?



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)






---
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...@attbi.com

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...@attbi.com

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"