RE: Telecom Ports
CAUTION! The Notified Body is not optional. The ISM band is not harmonized. The transmitter is a class 2 product and member countries may have restrictions. Further, the EC authority of each memeber country must be notified 4 weeks prior to placing on the market and a fee of $500 is required. Contacting a NB is good advice. Dale. -Original Message- From: Schanker, Jacob [mailto:jschan...@adaptivebroadband.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 1:56 PM To: 'Dick Grobner'; IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) Subject: RE: Telecom Ports The ETSI standard you refer to is actually ETS 300 328, and you can retrieve a copy from www.etsi.org Your transmitter module would certainly fall under the scope of the R&TTE Directive. I would contact a European notified body, and pay them to tell you which standards you need to meet. Then, test to those standards, which are likely to include radio performance and EMC and safety. Then, have them assess the test reports for compliance to the R&TTE Directive. FInally, you can then declare conformity to the applicable directive, and that you meet "all essential requirements" and put the CE Mark on the product and sell it in the EU. If you have never been through this (and because the R&TTE is new as of April most people have not) it pays to get a Notified Body and test lab helping you along. Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E. Director of Agency Compliance Adaptive Broadband Corporation 615 Fishers Run Victor, NY 14564 +716 742 6154 (voice) +716 742 6102 (fax) +716 820 7364 (US cellphone) +0777 992 5368 (UK cellphone) jschan...@adaptivebroadband.com -Original Message- From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:45 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) Subject: RE: Telecom Ports Mr. Woods informed me of missing data from my first e-mail - sorry about that! Equipment is medical (EN60601-1 Safety, EN60601-1-2 EMI) Countries: USA, Canada and Europe at this time There is also an option to use a short range telemetry unit with this device to transmit patient data. It is spread spectrum at 2.4 GHz. Is an OEM configuration which we repackage (the transmitter) into the battery back (+12V) worn my the athlete/patient. It does not have CE, but is complaint with ETSI 300.28 (I'm not sure what this is it yet)and FCC (which I still have not seen any FCC cert. yet). Does the telemetry module fall under the scope of the RTTE directive? If I'm missing any other pertinent information please advise. Thank you -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 9:32 AM To: dick.grob...@medgraph.com Subject: RE: Telecom Ports You will have to provide the forum with additional information. What kind of equipment? ITE, test equipment, medical, etc. What countries? Europe, North America, other Richard Woods -- From: Dick Grobner [SMTP:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:07 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) Subject: Telecom Ports Good Day Forum Members I have a very similar question that Barry Ma presented on 7-13. It regarded a Ethernet port on test equipment. His question was as follows: 1. A phone line port has to comply with related regulations in Telecom world. In my recollection, PC industry just added an Immunity requirement to the phone line port. (It is included in EN55024?) But Ethernet can be converted to phone line through an adapter. Is there a similar immunity requirement for the Ethernet port in test equipment? If not, should it be added to EN61326? My dilemma is that my company "inherited" a piece of equipment via an earlier acquisition. On this piece of equipment they incorporated an RJ-11 telecom jack. Over this jack they are running power (+12V & pwr gnd) from a remote battery pack and RS-232 (Tx & Rx)comm which terminates to a PC. Can anyone provide me with some insight with regards to EMI/RFI requirements and device safety (I have somewhat of a handle on the safety side - but welcome other opinions!). None of these four lines have any type of safety (over current/voltage) protection nor any EMI filtering, etc. If you can provide some insight or reference to required standards I would appreciate it Thank You (in advance) Dick Grobner Compliance Engineering Medical Graphics Corporation 350 Oak Grove Parkway St Paul, MN 55127 651-766-3395 651-484-8941 (fax) dick.grob...@medgraph.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...@
EN 55103
Group, We are using an HP 8561E to perform the magnetic emission test per EN 55103-1. HP says they do not have any other instrument to support this test. Is anyone using a different instrument? Dale. --- 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
Quite Expert
If anyone is interested in the information, please email me direct and I will send you the pdf brochure. Dale. --- 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
Quiet Expert
Group, I am in the process of evaluating an EMI analysis tool. The program is "Quiet Expert" by Innoveda (formally Viewlogic as I understand it). Is anyone using this program or have you evaluated it along with others? Dale --- 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: Surge
Richard, This was our intuitive thought too. However, I do not fully understand the discharge network and do not know, for instance, if the total joules delivered to the coupler is independent of load or impedance. Does the network always fully discharge? Today we spent some time to capture it. The following test was run on the AC: One EUT was connected to the coupling/decoupling network. A digital scope and fast Fluke probe was used to capture the voltage waveform at the input of the EUT. The data was plotted. A second EUT was added in parallel to the coupling/decoupling network. The test was re-run (no moving the probe) and the data was plotted. To my surprise, there was no change in waveform. My expectation was to see no change in rise time but to see a much faster decay time. A second test was attempted with a Fischer F-33-1 current probe. Not successful. The subject EUTs pull approx. 1/4 Amp, no surge protection devices. The test equipment is Keytek ECAT system (E4551 and E501A). We are proceeding to make a justification of the method (for these particular EUTs ONLY) that the individual EUTs are not under-stressed. I would like to seek additional input from the group. Unfortunately, most senior staff at Keytek involved in the development of the system have left. If anyone knows of whereabouts, please email. Also if anyone has a contact at Schaffner or Haefely. Best Regards, Dale Albright -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Surge I assume that you mean applying the surge energy to multiple power ports (or I/O ports). Consider the energy produced by the surge generator and how that energy is dissipated in the EUTs. If there is one and only one port being tested, would not the energy being delivered to that port be much higher than if multiple ports were being tested at the same time? I think the answer to your question is that you cannot test multiple ports since each of those ports would be under-stressed. Richard Woods -- From: Dale Albright [SMTP:dale.albri...@flextronics.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 11:14 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Surge Group, A question came up today regarding testing multiple EUTs for surge (61000-4-5). I spoke with the secretary of the subcommittee 77B (Jacques Delaballe) on this subject. We agree that: The method is not part of the standard; If the results are positive (EUT passes) then maybe OK; If EUT fails, then indeterminate. What are your thoughts? Regards, Dale Albright --- 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: Surge
Richard, This was our intuitive thought too. However, I do not fully understand the discharge network and do not know, for instance, if the total joules delivered to the coupler is independent of load or impedance. Does the network always fully discharge? Today we spent some time to capture it. The following test was run on the AC: One EUT was connected to the coupling/decoupling network. A digital scope and fast Fluke probe was used to capture the voltage waveform at the input of the EUT. The data was plotted. A second EUT was added in parallel to the coupling/decoupling network. The test was re-run (no moving the probe) and the data was plotted. To my surprise, there was no change in waveform. My expectation was to see no change in rise time but to see a much faster decay time. A second test was attempted with a Fischer F-33-1 current probe. Not successful. The subject EUTs pull approx. 1/4 Amp, no surge protection devices. The test equipment is Keytek ECAT system (E4551 and E501A). We are proceeding to make a justification of the method (for these particular EUTs ONLY) that the individual EUTs are not under-stressed. I would like to seek additional input from the group. Unfortunately, most senior staff at Keytek involved in the development of the system have left. If anyone knows of whereabouts, please email. Also if anyone has a contact at Schaffner or Haefely. Best Regards, Dale Albright -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Surge I assume that you mean applying the surge energy to multiple power ports (or I/O ports). Consider the energy produced by the surge generator and how that energy is dissipated in the EUTs. If there is one and only one port being tested, would not the energy being delivered to that port be much higher than if multiple ports were being tested at the same time? I think the answer to your question is that you cannot test multiple ports since each of those ports would be under-stressed. Richard Woods -- From: Dale Albright [SMTP:dale.albri...@flextronics.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 11:14 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Surge Group, A question came up today regarding testing multiple EUTs for surge (61000-4-5). I spoke with the secretary of the subcommittee 77B (Jacques Delaballe) on this subject. We agree that: The method is not part of the standard; If the results are positive (EUT passes) then maybe OK; If EUT fails, then indeterminate. What are your thoughts? Regards, Dale Albright --- 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: Chamber and OATS Coorelation
Richard, Up to 6 dB on a system with cables. 3 to 4 dB on floor standing equipment and no cables. 2 - 3 dB on table top and no cables. Today we measured a 6ft telecom rank with one module and several cards and several cables. Some cables went under the floor, some laid on the turntable, and some were routed in Telcordia cable tray fashion. The highest deviation was 4.2 dB. Regards, Dale Albright - Original Message - From: To: ; Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 2:41 PM Subject: RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation > Dale, what correlation error are you obtaining? > Richard Woods > > -- > From: Dale Albright [SMTP:da...@emclabs.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 12:57 PM > To: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com; mmate...@foxboro.com; > barry...@altavista.com > Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: Chamber and OATS Coorelation > > > Don, > > We have made correlation between our chamber and OATS using the CNE > meter at > several positions in the "uniform field" of the chamber. Chamber > antenna > fixed, Oats antenna scanned. We have created a correction table > whereby one > point or an average of several points can be used depending on the > particular EUT you are testing. If you have knowledge of where the > EUT is > emitting, maybe a top slot of a 6ft cabinet, you can elect to apply > a > specific correction. Or if the EUT is small, then the average of 4 > points > may cover the area of the EUT. We have gotten very good results. > However, > when cables are involved, correlation goes down. Our next run will > include > the several positions on the OATS also. > > Best Regards, > > Dale Albright. > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: > To: ; > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 8:16 AM > Subject: RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation > > > > > > Barry, > > > > Thank you for your comment. What we are trying to do is establish > better > > correlation between the chamber and OATS so we minimize our time > in the > > heat, humidity, rain and bugs (South Florida) at the OATS. We are > not > > trying to replace the OATS with the chamber. > > > > We have recently been evaluating a REFRAD for correlation > purposes. So > far > > the results with the REFRAD factors have been very good. The > emission in > > the chamber was 7 dB off from the OATS value, but this correlated > to > within > > 1 dB of what was predicted by the REFRAD. I admit our sample > universe is > > small at this time with only a handful of emissions to compare to. > But > > these first results are promising. > > > > Don Umbdenstock > > Sensormatic > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > From: Barry Ma[SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] > > > Reply To: Barry Ma > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:55 PM > > > To: mmate...@foxboro.com > > > Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > > Subject: RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation > > > > > > > > > Mirko, > > > > > > I happen to have a copy of CISPR 16-1 at hand. Clause 16.6 "Open > area > site > > > validation procedure" reads: > > > > > > ... The deviation between a measured NSA value and the > theoretical value > > > shall not be used as a correction for a measured EUT field > strength. > This > > > procedure shall be used only for validating a test site. ... > > > > > > The above statement is not followed by any explanation. What do > you > think > > > the reason is? My guess is that there are lot of factors causing > > > inaccurate E-field measurement. The collective result of those > factors > > > cannot be simply corrected by changing antenna factors. > > > > > > At the end of your message, however, you stressed on "for a > specific > test > > > setup". May we try this "illegal" correction procedure with > caution only > > > "for a specific test setup" and for a specific frequency range? > Hopefully > > > it might be worthwhile to try. > > > > > > Barry Ma > > > Anritsu Company > > > Morgan Hill, CA > > > --- > > > On Tue, 11 January 2000, "Matejic, Mirko" wrote: > > > > > > Richard, > > > > > > You could improve correlation by adjusting chamber antenna > factors for a > > > correlation differences which you can get from NSA measurements > one at > > > OATS the other in the chamber with a fix
Re: Chamber and OATS Coorelation
Don, We have made correlation between our chamber and OATS using the CNE meter at several positions in the "uniform field" of the chamber. Chamber antenna fixed, Oats antenna scanned. We have created a correction table whereby one point or an average of several points can be used depending on the particular EUT you are testing. If you have knowledge of where the EUT is emitting, maybe a top slot of a 6ft cabinet, you can elect to apply a specific correction. Or if the EUT is small, then the average of 4 points may cover the area of the EUT. We have gotten very good results. However, when cables are involved, correlation goes down. Our next run will include the several positions on the OATS also. Best Regards, Dale Albright. - Original Message - From: To: ; Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 8:16 AM Subject: RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation > > Barry, > > Thank you for your comment. What we are trying to do is establish better > correlation between the chamber and OATS so we minimize our time in the > heat, humidity, rain and bugs (South Florida) at the OATS. We are not > trying to replace the OATS with the chamber. > > We have recently been evaluating a REFRAD for correlation purposes. So far > the results with the REFRAD factors have been very good. The emission in > the chamber was 7 dB off from the OATS value, but this correlated to within > 1 dB of what was predicted by the REFRAD. I admit our sample universe is > small at this time with only a handful of emissions to compare to. But > these first results are promising. > > Don Umbdenstock > Sensormatic > > > > > > -- > > From: Barry Ma[SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] > > Reply To: Barry Ma > > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:55 PM > > To: mmate...@foxboro.com > > Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Subject: RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation > > > > > > Mirko, > > > > I happen to have a copy of CISPR 16-1 at hand. Clause 16.6 "Open area site > > validation procedure" reads: > > > > ... The deviation between a measured NSA value and the theoretical value > > shall not be used as a correction for a measured EUT field strength. This > > procedure shall be used only for validating a test site. ... > > > > The above statement is not followed by any explanation. What do you think > > the reason is? My guess is that there are lot of factors causing > > inaccurate E-field measurement. The collective result of those factors > > cannot be simply corrected by changing antenna factors. > > > > At the end of your message, however, you stressed on "for a specific test > > setup". May we try this "illegal" correction procedure with caution only > > "for a specific test setup" and for a specific frequency range? Hopefully > > it might be worthwhile to try. > > > > Barry Ma > > Anritsu Company > > Morgan Hill, CA > > --- > > On Tue, 11 January 2000, "Matejic, Mirko" wrote: > > > > Richard, > > > > You could improve correlation by adjusting chamber antenna factors for a > > correlation differences which you can get from NSA measurements one at > > OATS the other in the chamber with a fixed antenna height. You could also > > determine correlation differences by comparing measured field strength > > levels from battery powered comb generator. > > > > Fixed vs. 1-4m antenna height among other factors will always create > > unpredictable correlation for a specific test setup. > > > > Mirko Matejic > > > > > > __ > > > > Free Internet Access from AltaVista: Get it, share it & win! > > http://freeaccess.altavista.com/pika/www/initweb.jsp > > > > > > - > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > > > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: EMC Automation software
Ron, I have used TILE (Totally Integrated Laboratory Environment) for almost 5 years. It is an outstanding package for automation. I have dealt with just about every vendor in the EMI business, and Quantum Change (Mike Hart and Bill Scheer) have exceeded, by far, the best technical and product update support. I use the software for radiated and conducted emissions and immunity, cable and antenna calibrations, NSA, site checks, shielding effectiveness, etc. You can reach Mike or Bill at 215-674-8845 or look at Quantumchange.com. Dale. -Original Message- From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 3:51 PM Subject: EMC Automation software > >I am looking for PC based EMC Automation software for an anechoic chamber >for FCC part 15 class B testing. > I have HP analyzers. I would also like the software to do automated NSA >meaurements. > >Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT >Denso International >Carlsbad, California, USA > > > >- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Conducted emissions for an intentional radiator
Pierre, I understand from your request that you are following FCC Part 15 Subpart C for an intentional radiator that operates on an ISM frequency. I think the section you are recalling regarding "frequencies generated by the product, except the one needed for functional purpose" is part 18.305. This section allows for unlimited radiated energy in the band specified (13.56 +/- 7.0 kHz). The rules do not allow for unlimited conducted energy in Part 15 or Part 18. If you only need to do as proposed, show that no other frequencies are over the limit within the bandwidth of the fundamental, I think the hood (of same impedance) is a great idea. Regarding the conducted level of the fundamental, the above assumes that your message meant 30 dBuV over the limit. I recommend calling the FCC and getting a judgement. A good contact for this part is Rich Fabina at ex. 3027. If international time is a problem and you need it now, I will be happy to make the call. You may contact me if desired by phone or email. Regards, Dale Albright President EMCI 919-554-0901 da...@emclabs.com -Original Message- From: Pierre Selva To: SAFETY-EMC Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:06 PM Subject: Conducted emission for an intentional radiator Hello all, I have to perform radiated and conducted emission tests on an intentional radiator, following FCC Part 15, Subpart C test requirements. This product is a contactless card reader. It's made of an external power supply block (which is not sold with the product) and a kind of box with the antenna included (antenna is loop of coaxial cable, about 20cm diameter). Radiated tests are passed, but conducted levels are about 30 dBµV under the limit at 13.56 MHz (fundamental frequency). I cannot reduce the power to obtain an acceptable level, because this one is necessary to have a good behaviour of the product. With this power, the maximum distance between card reader and card is about 10cm. Do you know if I can replace the integrated antena by a 50 Ohms hood when I perform the conducted emission test, in order to show that no other frequencies are generated by the product, except the one needed for functional purpose ? Do you know if FCC Part 15 or ANSI C63.4 authorizes this kind of procedure ? I thank you a lot for your answers, Meilleures salutations de France, == Pierre SELVA Laboratory responsible SMEE Actions Mesures EMC & Safety laboratory ZI des Blanchisseries Phone : 33 4 76 65 76 50 38500 VOIRON FRANCE Fax : 33 4 76 66 18 30 e-mail : actionsmesu...@compuserve.com ===
Re: Telecom reqs.
Thanks Andy. Dale. -Original Message- From: Dale Albright To: Gorodetsky, Vitaly ; Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI) ; emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:33 AM Subject: Re: Telecom reqs. >Dear Lost, > >A piece of equipment tested to EN 300 386-1,-2 V1.1.3 (1997) >[Telecommunication Centres] does not fully meet the requirements of EN >50082-1:1992 or 1998. ESD would be under-tested, Air Discharge, for both >generics, and magnetic immunity would not have been addressed for the 1998. > >For [Other than Telecommunication Centres] the requirements of the 1992 >would be meet (however, ESD would be over-tested, Contact Discharge), but >still not the 1998 magnetic. Note that we are talking about a notebook PC. >There are other considerations for ports such as DC and outdoor signal >lines. > >In consideration of the Vice Versa: Presumably, there will be a connection >to the telephone lines or to the back side of routing equipment. In the >case of a connection to the telephone lines, the generics to not fully cover >the requirements of the 300-386. > >Perhaps you are unsure about the applicability of 300-386. The original >message stated "It's to be used as part of a telecomm central office >troubleshooting set". Under the Scope of 300-386 it states "General purpose >equipment which is used as a part of a switching system may be covered by >the scope of other standards. For such equipment, if those other standards >fully cover all the requirements of the present document, no further >requirements are necessary." Although "general purpose" is not defined, it >is probably acceptable to associated troubleshooting equipment with general >purpose equipment. > >Certainly it will take more information to determine, "legally," the >applicability and cross referencing. Perhaps the original reference to >"routing equipment" does not fall under the category of "Switching >Equipment." > >With all of that stated there is one thing left. Computer Dynamics is an >OEM. They design, develop, manufacture, and integrate ITE and Telecom type >products. They, like the rest of us, must meet the requirements of NUMBER >ONE - their customer. The request for compliance has come from them. And >if they want "CE Telecomm Compliance," then compliance it is - 300-386. > >Regards, > >Dale. > > > >-Original Message- >From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly >To: 'Dale Albright' ; Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, >CDI) ; emc-p...@ieee.org >Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:05 PM >Subject: RE: Telecom reqs. > > >>Dale, >>I am lost. If a piece of equipment is tested to EN 300 386-1,-2 than it >>wouldn't be necessary to test it to EN55022/EN50082-1 (right/wrong?). In >>fact, as it spelled out in the original message, this computer will be used >>not as a part of a telecom network but rather for troubleshooting. Do you >>think that in this case it would be better to recommend EN55022 and CISPR >24 >>given that John did not mention NEBS conformity requirements (if equipment >>is not integral part of telecom network, "resistibility" requirements are >>not necessary)? >> >>Regards >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Dale Albright [SMTP:da...@emclabs.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 3:40 PM >>> To: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI); emc-p...@ieee.org >>> Subject: Re: Telecom reqs. >>> >>> John, >>> >>> Yes. EN 300 386-1 and EN 300 386-2 - Electromagnetic compatibility and >>> Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Telecommunication network equipment; >>> Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requirements. >>> The requirements are based on the installation environment and category >of >>> equipment within the scope of the standard (part 2). It covers emissions >>> and immunities and is very thorough and includes tests for >"resistibility" >>> much like the Bellcore (telcordia) "objectives." >>> >>> Dale. >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI) < >>> john.linst...@cdynamics.com <mailto:john.linst...@cdynamics.com>> >>> To: emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> < emc-p...@ieee.org >>> <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> >>> Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 5:09 PM >>> Subject: Telecom reqs. >>> >>> >>> >>> We are being asked to bid on a proposal for a portable comp
Re: Telecom reqs.
Dear Lost, A piece of equipment tested to EN 300 386-1,-2 V1.1.3 (1997) [Telecommunication Centres] does not fully meet the requirements of EN 50082-1:1992 or 1998. ESD would be under-tested, Air Discharge, for both generics, and magnetic immunity would not have been addressed for the 1998. For [Other than Telecommunication Centres] the requirements of the 1992 would be meet (however, ESD would be over-tested, Contact Discharge), but still not the 1998 magnetic. Note that we are talking about a notebook PC. There are other considerations for ports such as DC and outdoor signal lines. In consideration of the Vice Versa: Presumably, there will be a connection to the telephone lines or to the back side of routing equipment. In the case of a connection to the telephone lines, the generics to not fully cover the requirements of the 300-386. Perhaps you are unsure about the applicability of 300-386. The original message stated "It's to be used as part of a telecomm central office troubleshooting set". Under the Scope of 300-386 it states "General purpose equipment which is used as a part of a switching system may be covered by the scope of other standards. For such equipment, if those other standards fully cover all the requirements of the present document, no further requirements are necessary." Although "general purpose" is not defined, it is probably acceptable to associated troubleshooting equipment with general purpose equipment. Certainly it will take more information to determine, "legally," the applicability and cross referencing. Perhaps the original reference to "routing equipment" does not fall under the category of "Switching Equipment." With all of that stated there is one thing left. Computer Dynamics is an OEM. They design, develop, manufacture, and integrate ITE and Telecom type products. They, like the rest of us, must meet the requirements of NUMBER ONE - their customer. The request for compliance has come from them. And if they want "CE Telecomm Compliance," then compliance it is - 300-386. Regards, Dale. -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly To: 'Dale Albright' ; Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI) ; emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:05 PM Subject: RE: Telecom reqs. >Dale, >I am lost. If a piece of equipment is tested to EN 300 386-1,-2 than it >wouldn't be necessary to test it to EN55022/EN50082-1 (right/wrong?). In >fact, as it spelled out in the original message, this computer will be used >not as a part of a telecom network but rather for troubleshooting. Do you >think that in this case it would be better to recommend EN55022 and CISPR 24 >given that John did not mention NEBS conformity requirements (if equipment >is not integral part of telecom network, "resistibility" requirements are >not necessary)? > >Regards > >> -Original Message- >> From: Dale Albright [SMTP:da...@emclabs.com] >> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 3:40 PM >> To: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI); emc-p...@ieee.org >> Subject: Re: Telecom reqs. >> >> John, >> >> Yes. EN 300 386-1 and EN 300 386-2 - Electromagnetic compatibility and >> Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Telecommunication network equipment; >> Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requirements. >> The requirements are based on the installation environment and category of >> equipment within the scope of the standard (part 2). It covers emissions >> and immunities and is very thorough and includes tests for "resistibility" >> much like the Bellcore (telcordia) "objectives." >> >> Dale. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI) < >> john.linst...@cdynamics.com <mailto:john.linst...@cdynamics.com>> >> To: emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> < emc-p...@ieee.org >> <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> >> Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 5:09 PM >> Subject: Telecom reqs. >> >> >> >> We are being asked to bid on a proposal for a portable computer that >> must meet UL1950/CAN/EN60950 and get the CE mark (EN55022/50082-1). >> Understandable. It's to be used as part of a telecomm central office >> troubleshooting set, and the rest of the reqs. calls for "CE Telecomm >> compliance". What other standards must the unit meet? >> >> I don't know yet if the unit will be connected to the telephone >> lines or to the back side of routing equipment, etc. Are there standards >> for telecomm equip. that doesn't interface to the phone lines? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> John Linstrom >> Computer Dynamics >> PH 864.281.7768 x266 >> FX 864.675.0106 >> john.linst...@cdynamics.com >> - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Telecom reqs.
John, Yes. EN 300 386-1 and EN 300 386-2 - Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Telecommunication network equipment; Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requirements. The requirements are based on the installation environment and category of equipment within the scope of the standard (part 2). It covers emissions and immunities and is very thorough and includes tests for "resistibility" much like the Bellcore (telcordia) "objectives." Dale. -Original Message- From: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI) To: emc-p...@ieee.org Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 5:09 PM Subject: Telecom reqs. We are being asked to bid on a proposal for a portable computer that must meet UL1950/CAN/EN60950 and get the CE mark (EN55022/50082-1). Understandable. It's to be used as part of a telecomm central office troubleshooting set, and the rest of the reqs. calls for "CE Telecomm compliance". What other standards must the unit meet? I don't know yet if the unit will be connected to the telephone lines or to the back side of routing equipment, etc. Are there standards for telecomm equip. that doesn't interface to the phone lines? Thanks in advance. John Linstrom Computer Dynamics PH 864.281.7768 x266 FX 864.675.0106 john.linst...@cdynamics.com
Re: Flow Meter EMC requirements
Dear flow meter, I read my own message this morning and found a mistake. For the US, the meter falls under part 18 assuming that is DOES intentionally generate RF energy for the purpose of mechanical vibration, ionizing gases, accelerating particles etc.. In my experience with a flow meter, this was the case. Otherwise, assuming that it is exempt from part 15, you are only required to hand it over to the FCC if they ask for it and cease operation if notified by the commission that it is causing harmful interference. Dale. -Original Message- From: Dale Albright To: chasgra...@aol.com ; emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 8:23 PM Subject: Re: Flow Meter EMC requirements > >For the US, it is likely that your equipment falls under Part 15 Subpart B >or Part 18 of the rules. >For the EU, it is likely that your equipment falls under the generic >emission and immunity requirements. >Further information about your product is required. > >Part 15 is for unintentional radiating digital devices that use timing >signals in excess of 9kHz and uses digital techniques for the purpose of >performing data processing functions such as electronic computations, data >processing, storage, retrieval, transfer etc.. Does your flow meter perform >these type of functions? Does it have or connect to a computer? If not it >likely falls under part 18. Furthermore, and not withstanding the answers >to the above, if the device is used exclusively as industrial, commercial, >or medical test equipment, then it is exempt from part 15 and will fall >under part 18. However, it is also likely that for this type of equipment, >the test requirements (radiated and AC line conducted emissions) will be the >same whether part 15 or 18, assuming that the device does not intentionally >generate RF energy for the purpose of mechanical vibration, ionizing gases, >accelerating particles etc.. To that end, I will guess that your device >falls under Part 18 and is further classified under part 18.203(b) - >non-consumer ISM equipment, which requires "verification" under part 2 >subpart J. No evolvement by the FCC is required. > >For the EU: >Your equipment falls under the product family standard EN 61326 (Electrical >equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use - EMC requirements). >Legally however, you may claim EMC compliance by applying the generic >emission and immunity standards EN 50081-2 and EN 50082-2 until July 1, >2001. >Further information about your product is necessary to determine all the >tests that would be required. For example: is it AC and/or DC powered and >does it have long distance lines or I/O cables longer than 3 meters? > >The above is for EMC compliance only. There is safety issues as well. The >CE mark presumes compliance with all applicable directives. If you don't >get further info you can call our lab 919-554-0901. > >Regards, > >Dale Albright >President >EMC International, Inc. > > > > > > > >-Original Message- >From: chasgra...@aol.com >To: emc-p...@ieee.org >Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 3:04 PM >Subject: Flow Meter EMC requirements > > >> >>Does anyone know what EMC standards are required >>for flow meters? >> >>Does it fall under Part15 for FCC >>CE Mark - What testing is required?? >> >>Thanks >> >>- >>This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >>To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >>with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >>quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >>jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >>roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). >> >> > > >- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Flow Meter EMC requirements
For the US, it is likely that your equipment falls under Part 15 Subpart B or Part 18 of the rules. For the EU, it is likely that your equipment falls under the generic emission and immunity requirements. Further information about your product is required. Part 15 is for unintentional radiating digital devices that use timing signals in excess of 9kHz and uses digital techniques for the purpose of performing data processing functions such as electronic computations, data processing, storage, retrieval, transfer etc.. Does your flow meter perform these type of functions? Does it have or connect to a computer? If not it likely falls under part 18. Furthermore, and not withstanding the answers to the above, if the device is used exclusively as industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment, then it is exempt from part 15 and will fall under part 18. However, it is also likely that for this type of equipment, the test requirements (radiated and AC line conducted emissions) will be the same whether part 15 or 18, assuming that the device does not intentionally generate RF energy for the purpose of mechanical vibration, ionizing gases, accelerating particles etc.. To that end, I will guess that your device falls under Part 18 and is further classified under part 18.203(b) - non-consumer ISM equipment, which requires "verification" under part 2 subpart J. No evolvement by the FCC is required. For the EU: Your equipment falls under the product family standard EN 61326 (Electrical equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use - EMC requirements). Legally however, you may claim EMC compliance by applying the generic emission and immunity standards EN 50081-2 and EN 50082-2 until July 1, 2001. Further information about your product is necessary to determine all the tests that would be required. For example: is it AC and/or DC powered and does it have long distance lines or I/O cables longer than 3 meters? The above is for EMC compliance only. There is safety issues as well. The CE mark presumes compliance with all applicable directives. If you don't get further info you can call our lab 919-554-0901. Regards, Dale Albright President EMC International, Inc. -Original Message- From: chasgra...@aol.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 3:04 PM Subject: Flow Meter EMC requirements > >Does anyone know what EMC standards are required >for flow meters? > >Does it fall under Part15 for FCC >CE Mark - What testing is required?? > >Thanks > >- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
The Doors
No, it is not about the rock group. It is about the doors of GR-1089-CORE. Over the last couple of days I have enjoyed observing multiple opinions and supporting evidence of the proper limit to apply to a product that has no cabinet doors (Table 3-1 Vs Table 3-2). It is clear that at minimum, the emission levels with cabinet doors open must meet the open door requirement and with cabinet doors closed must meet the closed door requirement. Perhaps this is a fine way to limit the shielding effectiveness of the enclosure so that in real life, when the doors have been removed and tossed, the threat of interference remains low. And how about "cabinet" doors. That type of language seams to indicate a large 7ft cabinet in which rack mount devices are contained. Is the actual housing/chassis of the EUT considered a "cabinet" ? There does seam to be an indication that another type of door exists - one that is not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair. What type of door is this that remains closed during all of those circumstances. And what is the un-identified operation mode for which it is opened? And now finally for equipment that is not intended to be placed in a cabinet - maybe table-top or open-rack type. Notwithstanding the ultimate decision being driving by the RBOCs, what do you think? See some of you at the conference next week. Regards, Dale Albright EMCI
Re: Coatings for Ferrite Tiles?
Scott, I have had good results by applying styrofoam sheets to the walls. Dale. -Original Message- From: Lacey,Scott To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 6:00 PM Subject: Coatings for Ferrite Tiles? > >To the group, > >Can anyone recommend a paint or other (light colored) coating that can be >applied over ferrite tiles? >The lighting in the bat cave (shield room) is rather grim. It can be very >difficult to see when working inside of a cabinet. Photos of test setups >would also look better if there were less contrast with the background. > >Scott Lacey > >- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: NSA
Is the problem in Horizontal or Vertical? Is the site high or low? Where in the 1 to 4 meters is it maximum? What type of antennas are used? What does the graph look like from 35 to 60 MHz? What is the size of the turntable? (30 MHz is fairly large compared with most turntables). Can compliant results be repeated when moving the other antenna to the side and leaving the one on the turntable fixed? Ok that is enough. Now one suggestion. Try laying metal sheets or screen over the turntable area to further conclude the culprit. Regards, Dale Albright EMCI To -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD To: 'emc-pstc' List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 4:55 PM Subject: NSA > >Argh! For the first time in five years, our NSA is out of spec on our 3 >meter OATS at 30 MHz. The problem appears to be the turn table. We can move >the equipment off of the table to one side or toward the front and comply, >so it does not appear to be an off site reflection problem. We have replaced >marginal brushes from the table to the ring and we have added wide copper >ground strips from the ring (attached with screws) to the ground screen >(soldered). Still won't pass. Suggestions? > >- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: EMC Detective and Flushing Toilet
Dear Customer, In order to speculate the cause to the effect, please answer the following question: Is the water to which your house is connected supplied via the city water supply, or supplied via your own well pump? Answer: I live in a rural area and have a well pump. After careful thought of your smelly situation, we present the following scenario: The water that feeds your house is likely pumped a couple hundred feet up with a 1/2 to 3/4 HP pump. The water pressure in the lines is regulated by a pressure switch which limits the high and low pressure, and a pressure tank that is pressurized and supplies pressure to the lines. When the line pressure is too low "low limit" (usually approx. 20 psi), the switch closes and powers on the pump. As the pressure increases to the specified "high limit" (usually approx. 40 psi), the switch open and powers off the pump. If the pressure tank is very small (not a lot of volumn) or if the range between the "low limit" and the "high limit" is small, then a single flush of the toilet can use up all of the pressure in the tank and trigger the "low limit" switch and power on the pump. If your rural area is like mine, your AC mains supply is provided through some cheesey utility company like ... I won't say. Never-the-less your AC mains feed is not up to par, and under these conditions we speculate that each time your toilet is flushed the pump is powered on which causes a temporary voltage reduction in the AC mains (on the order of 40% to 70% of voltage). The voltage reduction is significant enough to cause your computer to reboot. . Apparently, your computer was not tested by EMCI for compliance to EN 61000-4-11. Please take the following action to verify the speculation: Switch the well pump breaker in the breaker panel to the OFF position. Flush the toilet. After the water in the toilet holding tank has flushed, the tank should not completely re-fill. Check the status of the computer. If the computer did not reboot, switch the well pump breaker to the ON position. Check the status of the computer. If the computer did reboot, take the following action to solve the problem: Install a UPS to provide power to the computer. If the computer did not reboot, call Bill Gates and tell him that you just discoverd yet another one of his alluding Windows bugs! Best Regards, Dale Albright President EMC International, Inc. 762 Park Ave. Youngsville, NC 27596 919-554-0901 -Original Message- From: Bailin Ma To: emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, July 09, 1999 3:02 PM Subject: EMC Detective and Flushing Toilet > >Greeting to the group, > >EMC engineers in a PC maker received a customer's complains transferred >from technical support group that every time he flushes toilet his PC >always reboots. Assuming you were one of EMC engineers, please participate >the discussion and try to answer following questions: >(1) Fabricate an EMC story to relate the cause (Flushing toilet) to the >effect (Rebooting PC). >(2) Direct the customer to verify your speculation. >(3) Fix the problem. > >Barry Ma > > >- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS
George, It is our understanding that If your equipment meets the appropriate sections of FCC Part 15, than no further testing is necessary for Canadian approval and your FCC report will be acceptable. However, an equipment label is required which is similar to the FCC Class A label. The suggested text is given in the Annex of ICES-003 . "This Class (A or B) digital apparatus meets all requirements of the Canadian Interference-Causing Equipment Regulations." Best Regards, Dale Albright President EMC International, Inc. -Original Message- From: George Waters To: emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 11:59 AM Subject: CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS > >I need some guidance on an indoor satellite receiver we build. >Functionally it is similar to a DISH network receiver, but ours is not a >consumer product. > >We worked with test labs to obtain conformance to FCC Part 15, and CE, >for which we have a DOC. > >Now our US customer wants to lease some of the units in Canada. What >else do we need to do? > >George Waters > >- >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the >quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
