from:"Dan Kinney \(A\)"

RE: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test

2003-02-17 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Mr. Javor,
I guess I can't argue your points until I read your paper.  Please send me a
Word copy.  I assure you, I will respect the copyright and destroy the
article after I read it.

I think Mr. Betz original post needs to be answered in more thorough detail
>from a practical application of the conducted immunity test standpoint.
Theory is wonderful, but the question that was asked is how do you wire the
thing up to perform the test?  As I read his original request, and I may be
reading more into it than was intended, he has a similar situation to what I
have.  That is, the metallic case of his product is normally grounded in
production applications.  Lifting the ground to create an artificial 150 Ohm
environment defeats the purpose of the ground and creates additional
immunity problems that would not be present in the production application.
I suspect there are other members out there that have run this test many
more times than I have and who could shed significant light on this subject.
There are at least two of us, Mr. Betz and myself, who would really like to
hear from you.
Dan

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 5:39 PM
> To:   Dan Kinney (A); Oliver Betz; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
> 
> 
> snip:
> In the case where a CDN is installed on each line from the EUT, how are
> the
> signal line shields handled at the EUT - left unterminated, terminated to
> ground, or terminated to the metallic case?
> snip
> 
> I am no expert on the specifics of EN61000-4-6.  I like to think I have a
> good understanding of the physics of field-to-wire coupling.  People
> reading
> that article I referred to may or may not agree with my self-assessment.
> 
> With regard to the specific question above, I would assume, and I stress
> assume, that shield termination at the EUT would have to be production
> configuration.  To me that is not the issue at all, but the real issue
> raised by the original question was grounding of the EUT chassis to the
> ground plane.  That is what my paper talked about (in part).
> 
> For those who are interested and do not have access to the symposium
> record,
> either hard copy or CD, I can send an electronic version in Word.  Any
> recipient would have to swear not to reproduce it because it is
> copyrighted
> by the IEEE.
> 
> Ken Javor
> 
> > From: "Dan Kinney (A)" 
> > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:13:06 -0500
> > To: "'Ken Javor'" , "Dan Kinney
> > (A)", Oliver Betz ,
> > emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
> > 
> > Thanks for the quick response.  Please let me explore this further.  I
> have
> > used the "special case" as the general case where the EUT has many
> signal
> > lines in which it would be too costly and impractical to have a CDN on
> each
> > line.  The special case allows the test engineer the flexibility of
> > disregarding the multiple impedances by way of the method described in
> the
> > body of the document and amplified in Annex A.  I will admit I somehow
> > missed the point about the lower impedance requirement of the AE.  In
> the
> > case where a CDN is installed on each line from the EUT, how are the
> signal
> > line shields handled at the EUT - left unterminated, terminated to
> ground,
> > or terminated to the metallic case?  EN61000-6-2 is the generic immunity
> > standard we use.  It states the functional earth port of the EUT will be
> > tested using this basic standard.  If the earth is to be lifted, how is
> this
> > possible?
> > 
> > I was not a member of this community in 1997 thus do not have a copy of
> the
> > symposium record.  Is it available on the IEEE site?
> > Thanks again for your quick response.
> > Dan Kinney
> > 
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From:Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> >> Sent:Friday, February 14, 2003 4:41 PM
> >> To:Dan Kinney (A); Oliver Betz; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> >> Subject:Re: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
> >> 
> >> I was working off IEC 1000-4-6 (1996), Figures 2 and 5b, which cover
> >> direct
> >> injection and show the EUT isolated above ground.  Figure 6 shows clamp
> >> injection and EUT isolation above ground.  What you are referencing is
> a
> >> special case in the annex when the cm 150 Ohm impedance cannot be met.
> >> The
> >> theory is, I believe, as I stated before.

RE: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test

2003-02-14 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Thanks for the quick response.  Please let me explore this further.  I have
used the "special case" as the general case where the EUT has many signal
lines in which it would be too costly and impractical to have a CDN on each
line.  The special case allows the test engineer the flexibility of
disregarding the multiple impedances by way of the method described in the
body of the document and amplified in Annex A.  I will admit I somehow
missed the point about the lower impedance requirement of the AE.  In the
case where a CDN is installed on each line from the EUT, how are the signal
line shields handled at the EUT - left unterminated, terminated to ground,
or terminated to the metallic case?  EN61000-6-2 is the generic immunity
standard we use.  It states the functional earth port of the EUT will be
tested using this basic standard.  If the earth is to be lifted, how is this
possible?

I was not a member of this community in 1997 thus do not have a copy of the
symposium record.  Is it available on the IEEE site?
Thanks again for your quick response.
Dan Kinney

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 4:41 PM
> To:   Dan Kinney (A); Oliver Betz; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
> 
> I was working off IEC 1000-4-6 (1996), Figures 2 and 5b, which cover
> direct
> injection and show the EUT isolated above ground.  Figure 6 shows clamp
> injection and EUT isolation above ground.  What you are referencing is a
> special case in the annex when the cm 150 Ohm impedance cannot be met.
> The
> theory is, I believe, as I stated before.  Incidentally clamp injection is
> fundamentally different than CDN injection.  CDN injects line-to-ground,
> and
> clamp injects in series with the cable.  The standard specifically says
> that
> when using a clamp installed between EUT and AE, the AE must be an equal
> or
> lower impedance than the EUT.  This is opposite of what you want with a
> CDN.
> My paper covers that issue in detail.  It appeared in the 1997 IEEE EMC
> Symposium record, page 479.
> 
> Ken Javor
> 


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test

2003-02-14 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


I have a hard time following Mr. Javor's reasoning.  The standard provides
the option to use current clamp injection.  Paragraph 7.3 states "The AE and
EUT with clamp injection shall represent the functional installation
conditions as close as possible e.g. either the EUT shall be connected to
the ground reference plane or placed on an insulating support (see figures
A.6 and A.7)."  Figures A.6 and A.7 both clearly indicate the EUT may be
connected to ground.  And I would contend, must be connected to ground if
the EUTs normal installation is such that the conductive case is connected
to grounded metal structures.   Furthermore, if shielded signal are used in
the system, the shields must be connected to ground if they are to serve
their intended function.  Often, this is through the conductive case of the
EUT.  I would be interested in reading the article Mr. Javor wrote on this
topic.  If I misunderstand the standard, perhaps the article will show me
the errors in my reasoning.  Is the article available sir?
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

 

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:46 PM
> To:   Oliver Betz; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
> 
> 
> I haven't seen a response to this yet, so I will take a stab at it.  Full
> disclosure:  Except for the following paragraph, I am basically passing
> along what I learned from others on this excellent forum not all that long
> ago.
> 
> First off, my own comment.  My expert :-) opinion is that EN61000-4-6 is
> really meant for equipment that was NOT designed to be electrically bonded
> to a metallic ground plane.  I wrote and presented an article in part on
> that very subject several years ago.
> 
> That said, here is what I learned on this forum.  The test set-up is very
> clear that the EUT case and indeed its safety ground are NOT grounded, at
> least at the frequencies associated with the test.  The power cord
> including
> safety ground go through a CDN which presents a 150 Ohm common mode
> impedance in series with the power cord.  Any other EUT-connected cables
> get
> the same treatment.  The EUT chassis and connected cables are supported
> above the ground plane at a  height that is supposed to provide a 150 Ohm
> characteristic impedance.  The purpose of all of this is to have a
> controlled impedance test set-up so that reflections are minimized.
> 
> So the answer relative to the standard is that the EUT chassis should
> float
> and attached cables should be common mode ungrounded.  Any grounds in
> these
> cables will see an rf impedance of 150 Ohms to ground from 150 kHz to 80
> MHz.  My own opinion again: From a technical point-of-view, if the
> equipment
> in service will be bonded to a ground plane and the attached cables will
> be
> be held in close proximity to a ground plane then the levels injected by
> EN61000-4-6 are higher relative to the assumed incident fields than they
> would be in situ.  Equipment and cables installed close to and referenced
> to
> a ground plane have a lower antenna effective height than equipment
> installed far from and not referenced to a ground plane.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Ken Javor
> 
> 
> 
> > From: "Oliver Betz" 
> > Reply-To: "Oliver Betz" 
> > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:59:22 +0100
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: Grounding of EUT in EN61000-4-6 conducted immunity test
> > 
> > 
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > how shall conductive cases of a EUT (intended to be mounted to a
> > grounded metal construction in real life) be connected to the
> > reference plane during a EN61000-4-6 test: directly, via a resistor
> > or not at all?
> > 
> > I remember only that (auxiliary?) earth connectors have to be
> > connected to ground via 150 Ohms, but I don't remember any word about
> > the case of the EUT.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance,
> > 
> > Oliver
> > 
> > ---
> > 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
> > 
> > Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
> > 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:

RE: ESD Testing Method

2002-12-03 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Alex,
The new A2 (Feb 2001) of EN61000-4-2:1995 is very clear on this point.
Paragraph 7.1.3  states  the charge on the EUT shall be removed prior to
each applied ESD pulse.  I think this would take care of the problem you are
seeing with the charge reversal that you talk about in question 2.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG


---
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: Explosive Atmosphere Safety Question

2002-10-09 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Capacitive fluid level detection is an old and well proven system.  I was an
avionics maintenance technician for some years and all the aircraft I ever
worked on used this technology, to include the B-52 which has been flying
since the early 1950s.  Aircraft fuel level sensors have the capacitive
plates arranged in a coaxial manner.
Dan Kinney


> -Original Message-
> From: George Tang [SMTP:gt...@lsil.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:17 PM
> To:   Ken Javor; Price, Ed; 'EMC-PSTC List'
> Subject:  RE: Explosive Atmosphere Safety Question
> 
> 
> You are exactly right.  I used to work on automotive fuel electrical
> systems
> about 10 years ago.  The fuel meter is a current meter, measuring current
> between 1 to 3 mA (for the one I used).  The meter input resistance is
> greater than 4k ohms.  This is the current limit for the fuel sender unit,
> and the meter is designed to fail in the open circuit mode.  The fuel
> sender
> does not get enough energy to create a hot enough spark to ignite the gas
> vapor, since the resistive element is soldered to the sender metal
> housing,
> which acts as a heat sink.  However, this is not true about the fuel
> pumps.
> I have seen the records of several fuel tank explosions due to faulty
> pumps.
> 
> On another note, there is a better design for the fuel sender.  One
> company
> designed a parallel plate device and submerged it in fuel.  The fuel acts
> as
> the dielectric between the parallel plates.  As the fuel level goes down,
> the capacitance of the parallel plates changes.  The device measures the
> capacitance to determine fuel level.  It was said that the device will out
> last the car, since it has no moving parts to fail.  The current on the
> parallel plates are about 100uA at 500mV, not enough energy to start a
> fire.
> I wonder why this device is not used everywhere.
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 5:39 PM
> To: Price, Ed; 'EMC-PSTC List'
> Subject: Re: Explosive Atmosphere Safety Question
> 
> 
> 
> There was a good answer on this subject about there not being an explosive
> atmosphere within a car fuel tank, but I think there may be another safety
> factor.   If I were designing the sensor system, the meter would be
> configured as an ohmmeter/ammeter, such that there would be a very high
> series resistance in series with the tank variable element.  The meter
> empty
> to full range would actually represent a very small current level.  I
> think
> it could be designed in such a way that there would be little or no
> possibility of shorting 12 Volts to the sensor element.  I don't recall
> the
> specifics, but there is a potential below which resultant sparks have
> insufficient energy to ignite an explosive atmosphere.  I used to know it
> for JP-4, but it will exist for gasoline as well.
> 
> 
> 
> on 10/8/02 11:48 AM, Price, Ed at ed.pr...@cubic.com wrote:
> 
> >
> > I have recently been pondering the safety design of the typical
> automobile
> > gasoline tank fuel quantity sensor (or "sender") assembly. The several
> > examples that I have seen consist of a float attached to a mechanical
> pivot
> > arm. As the fuel level varies, the arm moves, changing the resistance of
> the
> > sensing element.
> >
> > My first question is how is the mechanical sliding resistive contact
> > isolated from the explosive fuel/air mixture? Certainly, when the tank
> is
> > nearly full, the entire sensor element is submerged in the fuel. But
> what
> > happens when the tank is nearly empty, and external air replaces the
> fuel.
> > The sensor is then hanging in the fuel/air mixture. In short, how are
> sparks
> > avoided at the mechanical sliding sensor contact?
> >
> > Secondly, how is the problem of sensor self-heating (during a
> single-fault
> > condition) avoided? I can imagine a scenario where the hot vehicle bus
> is
> > faulted to the sensor lead. Since a typical sensor element varies
> between
> > about 100 Ohms to just a few Ohms, the sensor element could dissipate 25
> > Watts or more. This would cause rapid heating of the sensor element,
> > possibly ending in the burn-out of the resistive element (inside the
> fuel
> > tank). Again, how is this ignition scenario prevented?
> >
> > I am hoping to get a few informed comments before I go out and buy one
> for
> a
> > sacrificial dissection. (I think I became an engineer because I never
> could
> > get those frogs to work again after re-assembly.)
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> > Ed Price
> > ed.pr...@cubic.com
> > Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
> > Cubic Defense Systems
> > San Diego, CA  USA
> > 858-505-2780  (Voice)
> > 858-505-1583  (Fax)
> > Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty
> > Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This message

RE: Family Tree of EMC/EMI/ESD Standards

2002-06-03 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


John,
This looks like a good site.  I have noticed one point you should be aware
of.  EN61000-4-2 is listed with Amendment 1 only.  Amendment 2 came out in
2001 and has some significant changes.

As I go through you site, I'll send whatever comments I have to you
directly.
Dan


> -Original Message-
> From: John Barnes [SMTP:jrbar...@iglou.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:09 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Family Tree of EMC/EMI/ESD Standards
> 
> 
> I've just put a "family tree" of EMC/EMI/ESD standards for information
> technology equipment (ITE) and related (generic) products on our company
> web site at
> http://www.dbicorporation.com/standard.htm
> 
> This came out to 15 web pages, totalling about 200KB of HTML.
> 
> Please look it over.  I would appreciate any comments, corrections,
> additions, or suggestions for improvements that you may have.
> 
> Thanks!
>   John Barnes
>   dBi Corporation
>   jrbar...@iglou.com
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  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: Coaxial Switches

2002-05-21 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Try http://www.jfwindustries.com/


> -Original Message-
> From: richwo...@tycoint.com [SMTP:richwo...@tycoint.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:45 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Coaxial Switches
> 
> 
> Other than Adilent, what are some other sources for low power (<1W) and
> high
> power (>100W) coaxial switches for frequencies up to 2 GHz?
> 
> Richard Woods
> Sensormatic Electronics
> Tyco International
> 
> 
> ---
> 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"

SIL Ratings

2002-05-04 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


A customer called this week and asked what our SIL rating is on one of our
products (Programmable Logic Controller).  I had never heard of a SIL
rating.  I went to the web and discovered SIL stands for Safety Integrity
Level and is addressed in IEC61508.  My impression, from the web search, is
that a SIL analysis would be accomplished on a large manufacturing process
and the outcome would be based on the attributes of all of the components of
the process, i.e.. sensors, controllers, output devices.  I haven't seen
anything on the web that indicates the individual components have a SIL
rating.  Does anyone have any experience with either SIL ratings or IEC61508
who might be able to shed some light?
Dan Kinney
Lead Qualification Engineer
Horner APG, LLC
Indianapolis, IN


---
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: Surge Applications

2002-01-16 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Dave,
Everything seems reasonable and right to me.  I would do it just as you have
stated but I have never worked with a system of this sort (RF port and
antenna).
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: Spencer, David H [SMTP:david.spen...@usa.xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:36 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Surge Applications
> 
> 
> Using the following references: IEC 61000-4-5:1995  and EN55024:1998.
> 
> I have to test a piece of ITE equipment which has an receive antenna (the
> antenna is connected to the EUT using 50 ohm coaxial cable).  Is the EUT's
> antenna cable subject to surge test per table 2 of EN55024?
> Note 2 specifies only cables which connect to outdoor cables. 
> This cable does that.
> Table 2's title is "Immunity, signal ports and telecommunications ports"
> I
> feel that an antenna fits under this category.
> 
> If so  (moving on from EN55024)
> 
> How do I perform the test?
> Figures 13 and 14 in IEC61000-4-5 illustrates the test set up for shielded
> lines.
> However, there really only seems to be one EUT. I suspect I could consider
> the antenna as EUT 2 and the actual unit as EUT 1.  In that case the
> testing
> is relatively straight forward.
> 
> If this all sounds correct, then this is just a sanity check.  If I'm
> incorrect or missed something...could you point me in the right direction.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> best regards
> David Spencer
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
> messages are imported into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

internal modem

2001-12-13 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Thanks to the group for the great information.  All the responses drew my
focus to two primary standards; UL60950 and TIA/EIA/IS-968.  After I have
had a chance to obtain and review them and to take some of the other
suggestions into consideration, I may have additional and more specific
questions, but for now, all of you have given me a clear direction to
follow.
Thanks again.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG, LLC


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

internal modem

2001-12-12 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Good morning group and Happy Holidays,
We are venturing into new territory and I need to accomplish the necessary
regulatory work.  We intend to build a 2400 Baud telephone modem into a new
ISM product.  We will conduct all tests for ISM applicable to our product
line, including FCC Part 15 and UL 508 and UL1604, but we are unfamiliar
with telephone line connectivity.  Can anyone tell me what FCC or other
requirements will need to be met for sale of this product in the U.S.; no
intention at this time to sell outside the U.S.
Thanks
Dan Kinney
Horner APG, LLC
Indianapolis, IN

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: Define Continuous DC Voltage

2001-11-13 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Does anyone know what voltage is used in electric chairs?  Just Curious.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG
Indianapolis

> -Original Message-
> From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:08 PM
> To:   gkerv...@eu-link.com
> Cc:   jrbar...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Define Continuous DC Voltage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Gregg:
> 
> 
> >   There was also a very good (but short) article by Tektronix in the
> 70's
> >   called The Lethal Current.
> >   
> >   It concluded that currents between 100 mA and 3 Amps were more lethal
> that
> >   currents of more than 3 Amps because those high currents tended to
> 'restart'
> >   the heart.
> 
> Hmm.  Having been the manager of product safety at Tektronix in 
> the '70's, I don't recall such an article.  At least not by that
> name.
> 
> Electric energy causes various injuries to the body depending 
> on the magnitude of the energy.  Only two of the injuries can 
> lead to a fatality.
> 
> The two injuries are fibrillation of the heart, and overheating 
> of internal organs, especially the liver.
> 
> Fibrillation is caused by ac current in the range of 50 mA to
> 500 mA (external connections) where the current pathway through 
> the body includes the chest (and the heart).  Above 500 mA, 
> fibrillation is not a likely consequence.  (And, I believe I
> am correct in asserting that dc cannot cause fibrillation.)
> 
> Overheating of internal organs is a function of power dissipated
> in the body, where the body impedance can be taken as 1000 ohms.
> The power required depends on the time of contact.  Electric
> utility linemen are subject to such injury.  Consider 1 ampere
> through 1000 ohms is 1000 watts!  (The electric chair kills by
> over-heating the internal organs, not by fibrillation.)
> 
> So, Gregg's statement that there is both a lower and upper limit 
> for fibrillation is correct (although I do not agree with Gregg's 
> values).
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
> messages are imported into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: Immunity standards equivalence?

2001-11-07 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Mr. Flanigan,
EN 50140:93 is really ENV 50140:93 and EN 61000-4-3:96 does replace it with
a dow of 1997-06-01 (as found in the forward of EN 61000-4-3:96).
Subsequently A1 was published in Aug 98.

There was a lot of good wordsmithing between ENV 50140:93 and EN
61000-4-3:96 but no significant change EXCEPT the requirement for 900MHz
pulse modulation at 200Hz was dropped.  If you have ENV50140:93, see
paragraph 5 and 8 where 900MHz is discussed.  Its gone from EN 61000-4-3:96.
EN 61000-4-3:96+A1 adds bits about testing/protection against RF emissions
from digital radio telephones throughout the document.  In all cases, tests
are conducted with an 80% modulated 1kHz sine wave (instead of pulse
modulation at 200Hz).  A1 was added to justify this.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG
  
> -Original Message-
> From: wmf...@aol.com [SMTP:wmf...@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 3:39 PM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Immunity standards equivalence?
> 
> 
> Has EN 50140:94 (EMC/basic; radiated RF EM field immunity) been replaced
> by EN61000-4-3('99)? Are they identical? At USD120, I want to confirm
> there's some difference 'tween the two. Under the auspices of EN61326:97
> (...measurement, control and laboratory equipment EMC), the former doesn't
> appear to be mentioned.
> 
> Wm Flanigan
> Standards Engineer
> Ameritherm Inc
> 39 Main Street
> Scottsville, NY  14546
> bflani...@ameritherm.com
> 1.716.889.9000
> 1.716.889.4030 (fx) 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
> messages are imported into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: Request for help RE: NEMA 7

2001-04-25 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Andy,
Supplement A of NEMA250-1997 contains information on NEMA Type 7.  It is
defined as "Enclosures constructed for indoor use in hazardous locations
classified as Class I, Division 1, Groups A, B, C, or D as defined in NFPA
70."  It goes on with more information than I am willing to type.  Give me a
call and I will read it to you.  I can be reached at (317) 916-4274
extension 462.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Wood [SMTP:andrew.w...@landinst.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:46 AM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  Request for help RE:   NEMA 7 
> 
> 
> Colleagues
> I have been contacted by one of our sales engineers who has a request to
> quote for supplying a product suitable for hazardous areas meeting NEMA 7
> rating. He has already spent some time surfing the web.
> My NEMA to IP rating conversion chart only lists NEMA 1, 2 3, 3R, 3S, 4,
> 4X, 5, 6, 6P then jumps to 12,12k & 13.
> 
> I have been unable to get any further myself on the web. It would be
> appreciated if anybody could tell me whether NEMA 7 is probably an error
> in the request, or is it a genuine but maybe little used rating that needs
> more searching to track it down.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help.
> Andy. 
> 
> 
> This e-mail and its contents may be confidential, privileged and protected
> 
> by law. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents 
> of this e-mail may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the 
> intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the 
> intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test

2001-04-24 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


I have a Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test question.  Paragraph 49.1.1(b) of
UL 508 says a product will withstand a potential between terminals of
opposite polarity with the contacts closed.  By contacts I assume they are
referring to On-Off switch contact and relay contacts so the potential will
be presented throughout the circuit.  Given that this is the intent of the
paragraph, the circuit is on and will pass current as intended in normal
operation.  

Paragraph 49.1.3 says "A transformer, a coil, an electronic part, or a
similar device normally connected between lines of opposite polarity is t be
disconnected from on side of the line during the test described in
49.1.1(b)."

This makes sense and is easy to do if you have a very simple circuit -
simply open the load and conduct your dielectric test.  But if you have a
more complex circuit things are more difficult to figure out.  Our immediate
situation is one in which a 24VDC source is fed to a voltage regulator.  We
can remove this component, but by doing so, we open the circuit and test
only the trace between the DC input and the regulator; the remainder of the
circuitry is unaffected by the potential and thus is untested.  Is the
proper method then to lift the ground leg of the regulator and then work on
down the line lifting each current conducting component to ground?

Dan Kinney
Horner APG
  

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

RE: ESD generators max Contact discharge level

2001-04-20 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


While we're on the topic, I have a question (actually a couple) regarding
air discharge.  Since contact discharge is the preferred method, as stated
in an earlier message and in EN61000-4-2, Paragraph 5, why would one perform
the Air Discharge method?  The same paragraph states "Air discharges shall
be used where contact discharge cannot be applied."  What conditions would
make it such that contact discharge could not be applied?

Thanks in advance.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: Douglas C. Smith [SMTP:d...@emcesd.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 2:54 PM
> To:   Terry Meck
> Cc:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: ESD generators max Contact discharge level
> 
> 
> Hi Terry and the group,
> 
> Besides the question of finding a generator that can reach the level you
> mention, I am not aware of any natural ESD event that approaches the
> interference potential of even an 8 kV contact discharge. The problem
> comes in that high voltage air discharges have relatively slow
> risetimes, for 16 kV on the order of tens of ns, whereas contact
> discharges maintain a better than 1 ns risetime at all voltages. This
> makes for a much smaller dt to go along with the greater di to make a
> di/dt that is much higher, more than an order of magnitude, than you
> will see for these voltages in nature.
> 
> Maybe if you were making atom bomb trigger mechanisms there would be a
> justification for this kind of testing, but not for real equipment.
> 
> On the other hand very low voltage (and energy) events, such as jinjling
> change have very high di/dt because of the tens of ps risetimes that
> occur at low voltage. The combination of high voltage (and energy) with
> fast risetimes is too severe and meeting such a test is a waste of money
> for most equipment.
> 
> Doug
> 
> Terry Meck wrote:
> > 
> > Hello again:
> > 
> > Does anyone recall if there were any standard called for or ESD
> generator that simulated as the case may be =>  +-10 kV CONTACT discharge.
> > 
> > We have a customer that is specifying passing +-16 kV ESD without
> referring to AIR or Contact discharge.  I am inclined to ask what they
> have in mind since I have not seen any generators that go that high in the
> Contact mode.
> > I suspect the writer of the SOW knows nothing and the engineering group
> only thinks Air Discharge.
> > 
> > What do you all think?
> > 
> > Terry J. Meck
> > Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
> > 
> > ---
> > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> > 
> > Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
> > 
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> >  majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line:
> >  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> > 
> > For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> >  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> >  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
> > 
> > For policy questions, send mail to:
> >  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> >  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> > 
> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> > http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
> 
> -- 
> ---
> ___  _   Doug Smith
>  \  / )  P.O. Box 1457
>   =  Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457
>_ / \ / \ _   TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799
>  /  /\  \ ] /  /\  \ Mobile:  408-858-4528
> |  q-( )  |  o  |Email:   d...@dsmith.org
>  \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org
> ---
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Heald

Application of equipment in U.S. aircraft

2001-02-26 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


We have a possible application of some of our equipment for engine control
of crop dusting aircraft.  We have never had our equipment used on aircraft
before (to our knowledge) thus don't know if there are any regulatory issues
we need to concern ourselves with.  The application is for use in the U.S.,
at least initially.  Our equipment presently complies with the EMC Directive
for ISM and is UL approved for Hazardous Locations. It would stand to reason
there would be additional requirements for any application involving
aircraft but we don't know if this might be an issue between the installer
and the FAA or an issue for us to be concerned and involved with.

My request might be a little off topic for this group, but if anyone can
point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.
Dan Kinney


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

RE: Interpretation of EN 61000-6-2/EN 61000-4-6 Requirements

2001-02-16 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Shaike,
I would interpret Note 3 of Table 3 of EN 61000-6-2 to have three separate
parts.  The first part pertains to battery powered devices (not applicable
for your product).  The second part applies to devices such as yours that
has an a.c - d.c power adaptor. And the third part applies to d.c. powered
devices that have permanent connectors and a d.c. power source within 3
meters (doesn't sound like your product applies here either).  The test is
not applicable if your product falls under parts one or three.  However,
based on what you have told us, the test is applicable to your product since
it has an a.c. - d.c. power adaptor and, I assume, a non-permanent, consumer
removable, d.c power plug.  Part two tells you to apply the stimulus to the
a.c. side of the adaptor.

If I were writing this document, I would make three separate bullets under
Note 3 and I would re-arrange the bullets so that the first two discuss what
products are excluded from the test and the third bullet would be the one
about the a.c. - d.c. adaptor.

I may be way out on a limb here but this is the way I'd interpret the
standard.  Hope you hear more from the remainder of the group.  Its always
good to receive multiple views and reassuring when several tend to tell you
the same thing. 

Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: S Raz [SMTP:ieee-...@itl.co.il]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 4:00 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Cc:   jim_bac...@monarch.com
> Subject:  Interpretation of EN 61000-6-2/EN 61000-4-6 Requirements
> 
> Hello Group,
> Your response to my following question will be greatly appreciated.
> 1. A product has a 2.5 m long cable including signal leads and DC power
> leads. The DC power leads are connected to the DC output of AC 230 VAC
> AC/DC adaptor.
> 2.  Question:
> Are the DC leads exempt from EN 61000-6-2/EN61000-4-6 test (cable
> shorter than 3 m)? Or should they be tested as table 3 of EN 61000-6-2
> requires for input and output DC power ports?
>  
> Thanks
> Shaike Raz

---
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: creepage distances (EN61131-2)

2000-12-21 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Ned, John, and EMC-Pstc
Thanks for your responses.  You almost convinced me (at least you started
to) but the standard is either so badly written that it still could be
interpreted multiple ways or it is using different terminology than the
standards you are using.  Let me elaborate a little more.

The table I am most concerned with (Table 23) will serve as an example of
the others and if I can come to a good understanding of it, I'll understand
the remainder of the document.  This may be old news to all of you but let
me quote paragraph 1.4.26 which defines the four levels of insulation:

1) basic insulation:  Insulation applied to live parts to provide basic
protection against electric shock.
2) supplementary insulation:  Independent insulation applied in addition to
basic insulation in order to ensure protection against electric shock in the
event of a failure of the basic insulation.
3)  double insulation: Insulation comprising both basic insulation and
supplementary insulation.
4)  reinforced insulation:  Single insulation system applied to live parts
which provides a degree of protection against electric shock equivalent to
double insulation under the conditions specified in this standard.

Table 23 is as follows:

Table 23 - Minimum creepage distances for printed wiring boards (Basic and
supplementary)

CIRCUIT Protective  UncoatedUncoated
VOLTAGE Coating Pollution   Pollution
Degree 1Degree 2

--
0-500.025   0.025   0.04
50-100  0.1 0.1 0.16
100-160 0.250.250.4
160-320 0/750.751.6

As you can see, there is only one value for "Basic and supplementary
insulation".  This clause is exactly as it appears in the definition of
double insulation.  The table does not provide one number for Basic
insulation and another number for supplementary insulation.  Thus I conclude
these numbers are for the combined Basic and supplementary insulation, which
is, by definition, double insulation.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  How
do these creepage numbers stack up against the standards you use for the
same voltages?  Shouldn't they be the same?

Also note, there is a column for protective coating and another for
pollution degree 1.  If they meant for these two to mean the same thing, I
would think they would have only one column for pollution degree
1/protective coating.  Furthermore, referencing the definitions for the
pollution degrees, pollution degree 1 says nothing about coating but does
talk about dry, non-conductive pollution - again, it says nothing about
coatings and nothing about hermetically sealed containers.  How does your
standards read regarding the degrees of pollution?

As you can see, I'm still confused.  Are the pollution degrees and types of
insulation intended to be universal within all European Norms?  If so, where
does it say so and where does it give the definitive reading of each?

Again, I appreciate your feedback.  I've seen many instances where members
of this group have commented on the extreme value they have received from
information gained within.  I too, have to tell all of you. I would be in
total darkness without your insight.

Thanks,
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: Ned Devine [SMTP:ndev...@entela.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 2:19 PM
> To:   Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: creepage distances (EN61131-2)
> 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> I don't have access to EN61131-2, but I think you may of misinterpreted
> the
> standard.  I believe that for double/reinforced insulation you will need
> two
> times the values in table for basic/supplementary insulation.  Also, your
> product is Pollution degree 2 and not 1.
> 
> In general, there is a table for Basic/supplementary and different table
> for
> double/reinforced.  But in some standards, they just say that the
> requirement for double/reinforced is twice the values in the table for
> basic/supplementary.  This comes from the fact that double insulation is
> defined as basic PLUS supplementary.  Therefore twice the value for a
> single
> basic/supplementary insulation.  
> 
> Pollution degree 1 is generally for potted or otherwise sealed components
> only.  Normal products are pollution degree 2.
> 
> Ned Devine
> Entela, Inc.
> Program Manager III
> Phone 616 248 9671
> Fax  616 574 9752
> e-mail  ndev...@entela.com 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Kinney (A) [mailto:dan.kin...@heapg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 12:03 PM
> To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
> Subject: creepage distances (EN61131-2)
> 
> 
> 
> I know most of you don&

creepage distances (EN61131-2)

2000-12-20 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


I know most of you don't use EN61131-2 (Safety for Programmable Controllers
but I'm hoping the questions I have can be answered in general terms.  And
if anyone does have/use EN61131-2, I provide paragraph and table reference
numbers.

This is a very convoluted and confusing standard but I think we have looked
at the creepage and clearance section long enough that we finally have it
figured out.  But before I commit to something, I'd like confirmation from
this group.  The standard provides definitions for basic, supplementary,
double, and reinforced insulation (paragraph 1.4.26).  It also provides a
general rule of thumb, worst case creepage and clearance table for basic and
supplementary insulation (paragraph 4.3 subparagraph 3) and its table).  I
interpret this to mean, if I use these very conservative creepages and
clearances, I more than meet anything presented later in the standard.  I
also interpret this to mean the numbers within this table provide double
insulation since the definition of double insulation is basic and
supplementary insulation combined.

The standard then provides several tables of creepage and clearances under
very specific conditions that includes material types and pollution degrees.
The one I'm most concerned with is the table for basic and supplementary
creepage distances for printed wiring boards (Table 23).  As with the
previous paragraph, I interpret this to mean double insulation.

The standard provides definitions for pollution degrees (paragraph 1.4.42).
It says:
Pollution degree 1: No pollution or only dry, non-conductive pollution
occurs.  The pollution has no influence.
Pollution degree 2: Normally, only non-conductive pollution occurs.
Occasionally, however, a temporary conductivity caused by condensation shall
be expected.
Pollution degree 3: Conductive pollution occurs, or dry, non-conductive
pollution occurs which becomes conductive due to condensation which is
expected.

Our products, are intended for industrial or commercial environments and are
specified to be mounted in a metal enclosure where pollutants are sealed
out.  Further our specifications clearly state our products work 5% to 95%
non-condensing relative humidity.  Thus I interpret the standard to mean our
products should be evaluated under pollution degree 1.

Lastly, paragraph 4.3.4 states creepage distances for reinforced insulation
"shall be double the value for basic insulation".  I interpret this
paragraph to be non-applicable to the work we are doing since all the tables
list basic and supplementary (double) creepage and clearance distances.  It
does not list basic creepage and clearances individually and thus I have
nothing to double.  But by using the values provided in the tables, I meet
double insulation requirements.

I apologize for this lengthy message.  And I apologize if I haven't provided
enough information to understand the situation.  As I said, this is very
confusing for we, the uninitiated.  My questions center around my
interpretations and can be distilled down to one question; have I
interpreted each point above correctly?  Any advice, general or specific,
will be greatly appreciated.

Happy Holidays all.

Dan Kinney
Horner APG


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Thermocouple issues

2000-12-15 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Joe,
UL uses super glue to attach the thermocouple.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Finlayson [SMTP:jfinlay...@telica.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:53 PM
> To:   'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'EMC PSTC'
> Subject:  Thermocouple issues
> 
> 
> 
>   I am in the process of performing a thermal evaluation and am using
> thermocouples to measure surface temperatures of IC's, etc.  I'm finding
> that the thermocouple tape that I'm using tends to experience a
> degradation
> of the adhesive as the temperatures increase (in the 80-100°C range)
> causing
> the thermocouples to separate from the surfaces.  I'd appreciate any
> advice
> that could point to a higher performing tape/adhesive for such an
> application.  Some of the IC's are quite small which doesn't leave much
> surface area for adhesion and I am using as many as 40 thermocouples per
> card.
> 
> Thx,
> 
> 
> Joe
> 
> *
>  <<...>> 
> 
> Joe Finlayson
> Manager, Compliance Engineering
> Telica, Inc.
> 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100
> Marlboro, MA 01752
> Tel:  (508) 480-0909 x212
> Fax:  (508) 480-0922
> Email:jfinlay...@telica.com
> Web:  www.telica.com
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: FCC Part 15 Class B

2000-11-28 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


47CFR Part 15 Subpart B, paragraph 15.101(a) would lead you believe so.
Within the table, under Type of device, it says Other Class B digital
devices and peripherals. - Verification.
Dan Kinney 

> -Original Message-
> From: Courtland Thomas [SMTP:ctho...@patton.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 1:20 PM
> To:   emcpost
> Subject:  FCC Part 15 Class B
> 
> 
> Hello Group,
> 
> I would like to know if it is permissible to self verify to Class B for
> ITE.
> I know it can be done for Class A, but I am not sure about Class B. The
> interesting thing is that I posed the question to a contact at the FCC and
> the answer I got was "No idea".
> 
> Courtland Thomas
> Patton Electronics
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: FCC Part 15 exempted devices

2000-11-02 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Thanks all for the enlightening feedback.  Most of the information was
consistent and helps me make a case.  This group continues to be one of my
best sources of professional information.

Dan Kinney
Horner APG

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: FCC Part 15 exempted devices

2000-11-02 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Great point Dave.  This and paragraph 15.29 are found under Subpart A -
General.  In my book, they're on page 615 and 619.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: David Spencer [SMTP:dspen...@oresis.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 7:25 PM
> To:   'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'Dan Kinney (A)'; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: FCC Part 15 exempted devices
> 
> Hi Tania, Dan, and Group,
> 
> Your quote brought up a nagging little question I had last time I was
> reading through part 15 in this section (I was looking for requirements
> relating to test equipment manufacturers...there are none) regarding the
> reference to section 15.5.  Where is it or where did it go?  My version of
> the CFR doesn't contain a 15.5, as it stops at section 15.407 in section
> E.
> Does anyone know if this is a typo or to what it refers?
> Thanks,
> Dave Spencer
> Oresis Communications
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 1:56 PM
> To: 'Dan Kinney (A)'; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: FCC Part 15 exempted devices
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> (For lack of a comma, they hung a guy.)   I actually checked to be sure
> that
> there is no comma in paragraph (b), since you could have inadvertently
> omitted it.   There is no comma.   Therefore..
> 
> ... your paragraphs b) and c) apply; however, I don't agree with your use
> of
> "only" at the end of your paragraph b).
> 
> Thus, digital electronic control devices and power systems used
> exclusively
> by a public utility, or the same devices and power systems used
> exclusively
> in an industrial plant are exempt from Rules Part 15, except for the
> general
> conditions of operation in 15.5 and 15.29.  (Thou shalt not emit; and if
> thou emits, thou will provide units for FCC inspection, and thou will
> cease
> operation.)
> 
> 
> Thus, thou is exempt up to a point.
> 
> Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
> Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
> Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Kinney (A) [ mailto:dan.kin...@heapg.com
> <mailto:dan.kin...@heapg.com> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 12:41 PM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: FCC Part 15 exempted devices
> 
> 
> 
> I need help with interpretation of one paragraph in FCC Part 15.  I have
> the
> 1 Oct 97 version.  Paragraph 15.103 (b) says a digital device is exempted
> from Part 15 if it is "used exclusively as an electronic control or power
> system utilized by a public utility or in an industrial plant."  One could
> interpret this several ways to include:
> 
> A digital device is exempted if it is used exclusively as:
> 1) an electronic control
> 2) an electronic control utilized by a public utility only
> 3) an electronic control utilized in an industrial plant
> 
> The first interpretation is pretty broad and would exclude a lot of
> equipment.  The third interpretation is broad but causes the manufacturer
> of
> control equipment to somehow make certain his products do not end up in
> use
> anywhere except in an industrial plant.  The second interpretation is
> narrow
> and might be the real intent of this exemption.
> 
> I would appreciate any advice on how any of you would interpret this.
> Thanks in advance.
> Dan Kinney
> Horner APG
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

---
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

FCC Part 15 exempted devices

2000-11-01 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


I need help with interpretation of one paragraph in FCC Part 15.  I have the
1 Oct 97 version.  Paragraph 15.103 (b) says a digital device is exempted
from Part 15 if it is "used exclusively as an electronic control or power
system utilized by a public utility or in an industrial plant."  One could
interpret this several ways to include:

A digital device is exempted if it is used exclusively as:
1) an electronic control
2) an electronic control utilized by a public utility only
3) an electronic control utilized in an industrial plant

The first interpretation is pretty broad and would exclude a lot of
equipment.  The third interpretation is broad but causes the manufacturer of
control equipment to somehow make certain his products do not end up in use
anywhere except in an industrial plant.  The second interpretation is narrow
and might be the real intent of this exemption.

I would appreciate any advice on how any of you would interpret this. 
Thanks in advance.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?)

2000-10-25 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Bravo Robert - you're right on the mark.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: Loop, Robert [SMTP:rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:58 AM
> To:   tgr...@lucent.com
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?)
> 
> 
> Hi Tania,
> 
> At Wyle Laboratories (one of the many NRTL's), we typically will accept
> test
> data from another NRTL.  Our assumption is that other NRTL demonstrated
> proficiency to OSHA requirements and probably many others (A2LA, NVLAP,
> ISO
> Guide 25, etc.), hence their test data is assumed to be valid.
> 
> It is not practical to retest every approved component or sub-assembly as
> if
> it had never been investigated by another NRTL.  The time and cost to the
> customer would put us out of the product safety business.  Each standard
> that we investigate a product to is done on a clause-by-clause basis to
> ensure nothing is missed.  And the test methodology is adequately
> described
> in the standard to ensure uniformity of testing.
> 
> As long as the COA's are reviewed and tested accordingly in the
> end-product
> application, we have done our job in ensuring the safety of the final
> assembly.
> 
> One of the complaints from industry that has lead to worldwide harmonized
> standards was that different countries were using safety marks as a trade
> barrier.  My personal opinion is that this holds true with any NRTL that
> will not accept test data from another NRTL without a signed MRA in place.
> It is not an easy accomplishment to achieve NRTL status, OSHA holds the
> bar
> pretty high up. Refusing to accept test data from another NRTL, is a way
> of
> saying that OSHA doesn't know its business on how to qualify a lab (again,
> my opinion).
> 
> UL has a stranglehold on component recognition by requiring retesting of
> any
> component approved by another NRTL.  The net effect is that this denies a
> large segment of business to its competitors.  Fair? Hardly.  Smart
> business
> strategy? Absolutely!
> 
> That is my not-for-profit opinion and not my employers.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Robert Loop
> Engineering Supervisor
> Wyle Laboratories 
> Product Safety
> ph - (256) 837-4411 x313
> fax- (256) 721-0144
> e-mail: rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com
> 
> 
> > --
> > From:   Grant, Tania (Tania)[SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com]
> > Reply To:   Grant, Tania (Tania)
> > Sent:   Tuesday, October 24, 2000 5:37 PM
> > To: 'duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject:RE: Got another beef about an NRTL
> > Importance: High
> > 
> > 
> > All right, let's get specific here and actually use some names!   UL has
> a
> > Mutual Recognition Agreement with CSA to accept each other's test
> reports.
> > This agreement also specifies details about how they conduct the various
> > tests (it used to be that earth leakage current measurements were
> > performed
> > differently by the two agencies).   The agreement also allows them to
> > "harmonize" standards, and many have been harmonized since the MRA was
> > first
> > signed.   Where the standards still differ, my understanding is that
> both
> > UL
> > and CSA will perform both sets of test to satisfy both agencies'
> > requirements.
> > 
> > I am not aware that MRAs exist between the different NRTLs.   And how is
> > one
> > NRTL going to know whether the test procedures are the same between the
> > different NRTLs?   In other words, there is no allegiance between them.
> > And yes, they do compete.   But so did UL and CSA, but now they sing the
> > same tune.   
> > 
> > Any NRTL mark is good, per OSHA and the U.S. NEC, for end-use product.
> > But
> > if you are incorporating components and other equipment into your
> systems,
> > you need to specify your expectations when you purchase parts.   We
> > specify
> > X NRTL and we get that.
> > 
> > Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
> > Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
> > Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [ mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com
> >  ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 3:58 AM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Group,
> > 
> >  What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's.
> > For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B'
> > 
> > Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are
> > deemed
> > 'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its
> conditions
> > of
> > acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL
> mark
> > they
> > are all of equal standing.
> > 
> > Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by
> NRTL
> > B.
> > The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no
> > proble

RE: Application of agency safety markings

2000-09-22 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Tania,
You correctly point out that field application is permitted by the NRTLs for
compliant equipment under the supervision of a NRTL representative.  In
other words, he/she will accompany you to a field site and watch you apply
the label but he/she is not allowed to assist you in the process.  And this
will cost you for their time and transportation.  If you have one or two
applications and you're dealing with large equipments, this might be a
viable option.  However, if your product is spread all over creation,
there's no way.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul J Smith [SMTP:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:57 AM
> To:   Grant, Tania (Tania)
> Cc:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  Re: Application of agency safety markings
> 
> Tania,
> 
> NRTLs,  including UL,  have allowed for application of their labels on
> compliant
> equipment after a field inspection for relevant standards compliance is
> conducted by the NRTL representative. I have personally been involved in
> such a
> field inspection on the west coast when I was with another east coast
> company
> some years ago.
> 
> I am including the following disclaimer which I got from an earlier
> unknown
> contributor to this bulletin board; but " you know who you are".
> 
> "The previous is just my opinion (humble or otherwise) and should not be
>   construed as the opinion of my employers (past, present, and future)
> ;
>   spouse,
>   offspring, or blood relatives; local, state, federal, international,
>   galactic,
>   or universal law, nor any entity of creation - living, dead, or
>   resurrected."
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,Paul J Smith
>Teradyne, Inc., Boston
>paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Grant, Tania (Tania)"  on 09/21/2000 09:52:22 PM
> 
> Please respond to "Grant, Tania (Tania)" 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
>   
>   
>  To:  "'emc-p...@ieee.org'"
>   
>  cc:  (bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne)
>   
>   
>   
>  Subject: Application of agency safety markings   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know whether NRTLs, other than UL, have the requirement that
> their labels must only be applied at the factory location?   And if so, is
> this an urban legend, or is this actually specified somewhere in writing?
> 
> I know and respect UL's position but I was wondering whether other NRTLs
> in
> this country have the same requirement.   Any replies or experience you
> might have had are welcome!
> 
> Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
> Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
> Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions
> 
>  << File: att1.unk >> 

---
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: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing

2000-09-20 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


This does seem like a misprint in EN 61000-6-2, especially when you compare
it with its predecessor, EN 50082-2.   EN50082-2 requires two distinctly
different reductions and durations (and two levels of performance criteria),
whereas the newer generic standard requires only one level of reduction and
two durations (and no discrimination in performance).
Dan Kinney
Horner APG
> -Original Message-
> From: rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 7:23 AM
> To:   david_ster...@ademco.com
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 61000-6-2 is not a normative standard, It is a Generic Standard for the
> industrial environment. I do not know of any reason why the two tests at
> 60% are
> required.
> 
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> david_ster...@ademco.com on 09/19/2000 04:52:55 PM
> 
> Please respond to david_ster...@ademco.com
> 
> 
> To:   plaw...@west.net
>   emc-p...@ieee.org
> cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US)
> Subject:  RE: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Requirements are product dependent.  Check the governing document, either
> generic or product-specific immunity requirements.  EN61000-6-2 is a
> normative reference, not a governing document, e.g.:
> 
> EN50130-4 Immunity requirements for Alarm systems calls out
> .5, 1, 5, 10 periods @ 60% reduction and
> 0.5, 1, and 5 periods @ 100% reduction
> 
> David Sterner
> Alarm Device Manufacturing Co.
> Syosset NY
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: plaw...@west.net [mailto:plaw...@west.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:05 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC
> Subject: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing
> 
> 
> 
> I was reviewing the voltage dip/interrupt requirements of BS
> EN61000-6-2:1999, and noticed that one test condition is a 60% dip for 5
> periods (0.1s at 50 Hz), while another is 60% for 50 periods (1s at 50Hz).
> Both tests require Performance Criteria C.
> 
> - Wouldn't a single test at 50 periods cover this requirement?
> - Is there a special operating condition or situation intended for this
> test that isn't mentioned in the standard?
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: 90 V gas-filled arrestors source?

2000-09-08 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Schaffner does.  They can be reached at 800-367-5566 or 732-225-9533.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: David Gelfand [SMTP:gelf...@memotec.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:07 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  90 V gas-filled arrestors source?
> 
> Hello group,
>  
> Does anyone know who makes gas-filled arrestors called for in IEC 1000-4-5
> coupling networks?  Would a MOV be ok?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> David.
>  
> David Gelfand 
> Regulatory Approvals 
> Memotec Communications Inc.
> Montreal Canada

---
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: Vedr.: ENV 50204

2000-09-06 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


I just reviewed my copy of EN 61000-4-3 and can see where it replaces ENV
50140 but no mention of ENV 50204.  What am I missing?
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: Gert Gremmen [SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 1:54 PM
> To:   Helge Knudsen; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; wo...@sensormatic.com
> Subject:  RE: Vedr.: ENV 50204
> 
> 
> Hello Helge, Richard and Group,
> 
> Any ENV is a temporary (pre) standard that immediately gets
> withdrawn on the publication date of the replacement standard :
> in this case the publication date of EN 61000-4-3.
> 
> It's existence is justified by the immediate need for a standard, where
> no suitable document is available.
> This of course is independent of the publication of any A1 documents !
> 
> Conclusion:  ENV 50204 is not applicable anymore.
> Regards,
> 
> Gert Gremmen, (Ing)
> 
> ce-test, qualified testing
> 
> ===
> Web presence  http://www.cetest.nl
> CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm
> /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/
> ===
> 
> 
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
> >>Of Helge Knudsen
> >>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 3:46 PM
> >>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; wo...@sensormatic.com
> >>Subject: Vedr.: ENV 50204
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi Richard and Group,
> >>IEC/EN 61000-4-3/A1 is dealing with "Radiated electromagnetic
> >>field from digital radio telephones", but ENV 50204 is not
> >>withdrawn yet. I beleive this will happen on dow for EN
> >>61000-4-3/A1: 2001-05-01.
> >>Regards
> >>Helge Knudsen
> >>EMC Engineer
> >>Jyske EMC
> >>Literbuen 16B
> >>DK 2740 Skovlunde
> >>Denmark
> >>
> >  05-09-00 20:20 >>>
> >>
> >>The Generic Immunity standard, EN 50082-1 references ENV 50204 for a
> >>radiated immunity test. The foreword of  the ENV says it will be
> withdrawn
> >>once an IEC/CENELEC standard has been published. Has this interim
> standard
> >>been withdrawn and replaced by an EN 61000-4 series standard? If so,
> which
> >>one?
> >>
> >>Richard Woods
> >>
> >>---
> >>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
> >>
> >> << File: Gert Gremmen.vcf >> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Job posting

2000-08-03 Thread Dan Kinney (A)




Engineering Position:  Product Safety Engineer
Desired Start Date:  ASAP

Horner Advanced Products Group, in Indianapolis, IN, is looking for a
Product Safety Engineer to join the Qualifications Department.  We provide
EMC/EMI, Product Safety, FCC Part 15 and product functional qualification
testing for a wide variety of industrial automation control equipment.

Job Description:
*   Evaluate and test equipment against international and domestic
product safety standards (EN 61131-2, UL 508, and UL 1604)
*   Coordinate overall UL program which includes local testing under the
Client Data Test Program and maintenance of the UL Service Procedure
*   Generate test reports based on evaluation and testing
*   Conduct product evaluation and report writing in conjunction with
safety agencies
*   Provide consultation to the hardware design division
*   Contributing member of a small, self-directed team; requires strong
personal initiative

Required Qualifications:
*   Four year  BS degree in Electronics Technology or EE
*   Basic experience with PC tools (Word, Excel, etc.)
*   Basic knowledge of Programmable Logic Controllers
*   Basis ability in ladder logic programming
*   Strong teamwork skills
*   Willingness to learn and expand experience base
*   Excellent interpersonal skills
*   Excellent communications skills (written and verbal)

Desirable Qualifications:
*   Background in Product Safety or other areas of Regulatory Compliance
*   Experience with UL

Competitive compensation and benefits.
Horner APG, LLC is an EOE.

Send Resume to:
Bob McFeely
Horner APG, LLC
640 N. Sherman Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46201

Or email: bob.mcfe...@hornerelectric.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: UL Recognized 24VDC PC Supply

2000-07-24 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


John,
We use a power supply in our products made by Converter Concepts, 100
Industrial Parkway, Pardeevile, Wisconsin 53954.  It's rated 90-240VAC,
50-60Hz, 1A.  And it is UL and CSA recognized.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG
Indianapolis, IN

> -Original Message-
> From: John Chambors [SMTP:john.chamb...@nematron.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 11:38 AM
> To:   'emc-p...@ieee.org.'
> Subject:  UL Recognized 24VDC PC Supply
> 
> 
> Does anyone know of a good source for a UL Recognized 24VDC PC Supply?
> It's
> not too difficult to find 24VDC input power supplies, but finding one that
> is UL recognized is another matter. I'm trying to get a product certified
> for use in hazardous locations.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John Chambors
> Senior Engineer
> 
> Nematron Corp.
> Tel:  (734) 214-2021
> Fax: (734) 994-8408
> 
> 
> ---
> 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: Line/Neutral to Earth MOVS

2000-06-13 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Why do you need the MOVs?  Why not just take the L & N to ground via a gas
tube each?
Dan
dan.kin...@heapg.com

> -Original Message-
> From: James, Chris [SMTP:c...@dolby.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 7:10 AM
> To:   'Peter Merguerian'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Line/Neutral to Earth MOVS
> 
> 
> You can use two MOV's in series between L & N and then take the mid point
> to
> ground via a gas tube.
> 
> One gas tube manfacturers data attached as pdf.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 11:50 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Line/Neutral to Earth MOVS
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> In Europe MOVs located between line or neutral to earth are not accepted.
> Does anyone know the rationale behind this? I believe it has to do with
> leakage.
> 
> on the other hand, gas discharge tubes are allowed in Euripe between line
> and neutral to earth. Does anyone know some reliable manufacturers for
> such
> gas discharge tubes?
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter Merguerian
> Managing Director
> Product Testing Division
> I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
> Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
> Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
> 
> Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
> e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
> website: http://www.itl.co.il 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
>  << File: Sankosha.pdf >> 

---
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

ground plane size for EN 61000-4-4

2000-06-12 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


List Members:
Paragraph 7.2.1 of EN 61000-4-4 (Electric Fast Transient/Burst Immunity)
states the minimum size of the ground plane will is 1m by 1m which of course
is 1 square meter.  All other EN 61000-4-X standards state the ground plane
will be at least 1 square meter with no mention of specific dimensions.  I
would appreciate any comment on the apparent requirement for a 1m by 1m
ground plane as our ground plane is 36 inches by 6 feet.  
Dan Kinney
dan.kin...@heapg.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Documentation required by EN 50081-2

2000-06-07 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


EMC Group,
How seriously does one need to take Para 7.1 of EN 50081-2 which says:

"The apparatus shall be supplied with a written warning indicating that the
apparatus shall not be used in the residential, commercial and
light-industrial environment unless the apparatus also conforms to the
relevant standard [EN 50081-1]?"

Dan Kinney
dan.kin...@heapg.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: OJ mystery

2000-05-16 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Chirs,
Everything you said sounds reasonable except EN61000-6-2 is not a product
specific standard; it is a generic standard.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG
(317) 916-4274

> -Original Message-
> From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:35 AM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: OJ mystery
> 
> 
> William,
> 
> I beleive that EN 50081-2 and EN50082-2 were among the "original"
> standards
> for CE marking.  When enforcement of the EMC Directive went in place on 1
> January 1996, these standards were already in place.  As such, it isn't
> any
> suprise to me that they don't supercede any other standards.  There wasn't
> anything before them to supercede. (As far as CE marking goes.)
> 
> However, since both standards are "Generic", they have covered a wide
> variety of equipment.  As enforcement of the EMC Directive has continued,
> more product specific standards are being ratified.   Much of the
> equipment
> covered by these new product specific standards used to be covered by
> Generic Standards.  This means that the Generic Standards are being listed
> as the "superceded" standards by a number of product specific standards,
> such as EN 61000-6-2.
> 
> So, there you have it.  The Generic Standards don't supercede anything
> because they were in place from the start of EMC Directive enforcement.
> Now,  whether a Generic Standard is "superceded" or "in effect" depends
> upon
> whether your product falls within the scope of a product specific
> standard.
> The Generic Standard may be "superceded" by a product family standard for
> one product while still being "in effect" for another product.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Your brother in compliance,
> 
> Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer
> GN Nettest Optical Division
> 109 N. Genesee St.  
> Utica, NY 13502
> PH:  315-797-4449
> FAX:  315-797-8024
> EMAIL:  chr...@gnlp.com
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   wmf...@aol.com [SMTP:wmf...@aol.com]
> > Sent:   Monday, May 15, 2000 6:47 PM
> > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:OJ mystery
> > 
> > 
> >  have been using the Generic Standards EN50081-2 and EN50082-2 for EMC 
> > conformity, but the Official Journal April2000 has got me flummoxed:
> > 
> > Each of the above are listed in column 2 under reference and title, with
> 
> > 'None' under column 4, 'Reference of the superseded standard...'.
> Doesn't 
> > this imply that they are valid and in-effect?
> > 
> > Later in the journal, under EN61000-6-2, the standard EN50082-2 appears
> as
> > 
> > the 'superseded standard', effective April2002.
> > 
> > Please explain how this seeming contradiction is to be interpreted; I am
> 
> > trying to determine the correct documents for my future compliance
> efforts
> > 
> > ---
> > 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: Immunity Port distinction EN 50082-2:1995

2000-03-27 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Mike,
Again - perfect clarification.  Thanks a million.
Dan

Sincerely,
Daniel C. Kinney
Lead Qualification Engineer

Horner APG, LLC
Advanced Products Group
640 N. Sherman Drive
Indianapolis, IN  46201
Phone:  (317) 916-4274 ext. 462
FAX:(317) 916-4287
Email:  dan.kin...@heapg.com
Website:  http://www.heapg.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Mertinooke [SMTP:mertino...@skyskan.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:36 AM
> To:   'Dan Kinney (A)'
> Subject:  RE: Immunity Port distinction EN 50082-2:1995
> 
> Yeah, no sweat.
> If the ports are for signal functions, and if unplugging the
> port will not change the process, then this is Table 2. If you
> unplug the cable and the process stops or goes whacky, then
> you are Table 3.
> 
> One example is if you have a programming panel for setup
> purposes, or if you have a port to monitor some process now
> and then. This is incidental usage and has no direct bearing
> on the safety or operation of the PLC system. So the more
> relaxed numbers apply. Sometimes, in fact, you can avoid test
> entirely (e.g. a blocked-off port that is only used for
> troubleshooting).
> 
> 
> 
> >Can anyone distinguish the difference between ports described in Table 2
> and
> >Table 3 and advise which category my ports apply.
> 
> See ya.
> Mike Mertinooke

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: EMC - Declaration of Incorporation?

2000-03-27 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Mike,
Wow - that helps a lot.  Thanks for the information.
Dan

Sincerely,
Daniel C. Kinney
Lead Qualification Engineer

Horner APG, LLC
Advanced Products Group
640 N. Sherman Drive
Indianapolis, IN  46201
Phone:  (317) 916-4274 ext. 462
FAX:(317) 916-4287
Email:  dan.kin...@heapg.com
Website:  http://www.heapg.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Mertinooke [SMTP:mertino...@skyskan.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:28 AM
> To:   'Dan Kinney (A)'
> Subject:  RE: EMC - Declaration of Incorporation?
> 
> Dan;
> Until 6 minths ago I was working for one of your competitors.
> All PLCs were shipped with Declarations of Conformity. The
> Declaration of Incorporation actually would be more appropriate,
> but we found our customers screaming for a DofC. So fine. We
> hired a Notified Body, set up TCFs, and went with DOCs. 
> 
> Also please note that the DOI is only mentioned in the
> Machinery Directive. This has often been interpreted to mean
> that it is only appropriate for mechanical parts. I'm not sure
> I agree with that. I think that the rules are not clear for
> something like a PLC, which has its own enclosure (and therefore
> is a "device") but which does not perform a complete standalone 
> action (and therefore is a "component"). In this case none of the
> rules fit exactly - so I am in favor of using whatever existing
> precedents you can find. In this case,  DOI would fit the situation
> perfectly: the device cannot be meaningfully tested all by itself,
> but you need to declare that when properly installed in accordance
> with user instructions, the device will meet all the declared
> requirements. 
> 
> One other point is the ongoing debate about random combinations
> of modular products. It is questionable whether the configuration
> you tested actually represents the real world. A DOI would sidestep
> this whole rathole, whereas a DOC is sort of a gamble. If you declare
> absolute conformity with a DOC, how do you know some customer won't
> put together a magic combination of modules that will violate 
> emissions or immunity requirements? Personally, I spent a lot of 
> test money proving to my satisfaction that I was really and truly
> testing the absolute "worst case" configuration for each test. 
> I shipped with a DOC and a clear conscience, but a DOI would have
> made life a lot simpler and cheaper.
> 
> See ya.
> Mike Mertinooke

---
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

Immunity Port distinction EN 50082-2:1995

2000-03-25 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


Greetings all.
There is little difference between Table 2 and Table 3 of EN 50082-2 but
there is some.  I don't know if the ports on my products are considered
"Ports for  signal lines and data buses not involved in process control,
etc." (Table 2) or if they are "Ports for process, measurement and control
lines, and long bus and control lines" (Table 3).  As such, we test to the
higher levels of Table 3.  We manufacture PLCs and I/O cards.  Our ports
include discrete low voltage, analog low voltage, analog low current, R/S
232 and 485 communications, etc. 

Can anyone distinguish the difference between ports described in Table 2 and
Table 3 and advise which category my ports apply.

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,
Daniel C. Kinney
Lead Qualification Engineer

Horner APG, LLC
Advanced Products Group
640 N. Sherman Drive
Indianapolis, IN  46201
Phone:  (317) 916-4274 ext. 462
FAX:(317) 916-4287
Email:  dan.kin...@heapg.com
Website:  http://www.heapg.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: EMC - Declaration of Incorporation?

2000-03-24 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


I too have a problem with application of DOC or DOI.  We produce
Programmable Logic Controllers and associated Input/Output cards.  I've been
told I should use the DOI since the PLC will be incorporated into some
larger machine that it will control and that the I/O cards will be
incorporated into the PLC.  But we sell our goods as independent products.
In the limited amount of literature I've read, I find no mention of a DOI
and none mentioned in the Directives and Standards we use.  Can someone
direct me to a source document that spells out the difference?  Should I use
a DOC or a DOI?

Sincerely,
Daniel C. Kinney
Lead Qualification Engineer

Horner APG, LLC
Advanced Products Group
640 N. Sherman Drive
Indianapolis, IN  46201
Phone:  (317) 916-4274 ext. 462
FAX:(317) 916-4287
Email:  dan.kin...@heapg.com
Website:  http://www.heapg.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Lacey,Scott [SMTP:sla...@foxboro.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 12:47 PM
> To:   'Russell, Ray'
> Cc:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  RE: EMC - Declaration of Incorporation?
> 
> 
> Ray,
> The answer depends on whether your compressor is a component or a finished
> product. Component = yes, product = no way.
> 
> Scott Lacey
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   Russell, Ray [SMTP:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com]
>   Sent:   Friday, March 24, 2000 10:14 AM
>   To: 'IEEE PSTC'
>   Subject:EMC - Declaration of Incorporation?
> 
> 
>   Greetings,
> 
>   We sell an air compressor with a DC motor. This motor requires a
> capacitor
>   across the DC supply lines to meet the EMC requirements. Of course
>   management does not want to supply the capacitor, they want to
> describe it
>   in the documentation, and add a note on the Declaration of
> Conformity that a
>   capacitor is required. Is this acceptable for European customers?
> 
>   In that scenario, I would like to issue a Declaration of
> Incorporation, but
>   after reviewing the directives, I can only find a reference to the
>   Declaration of Incorporation in the Machinery Directive. Can this be
> used
>   for the other directives?
> 
>   Thank you once again for your assistance,
> 
> 
>   Ray Russell
>   Regulatory Compliance Engineer
> 
> 
>   ---
>   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

ENV 50141 vs EN 61000-4-6

2000-03-21 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


EMC Group,

I am testing some ISM equipment to EN 50082-2 Heavy Industrial Immunity
standards.  For conducted RF immunity, it cites ENV 50141.  My understanding
is that an ENV a prestandard meaning the final standard has not yet been
approved.  We have EN 61000-4-6, which an approved conducted immunity
standard.  Is there any differences between ENV 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 and
why isn't EN 61000-4-6 cited instead of ENV 50141.
Sincerely,
Daniel C. Kinney
Lead Qualification Engineer

Horner APG, LLC
Advanced Products Group
640 N. Sherman Drive
Indianapolis, IN  46201
Phone:  (317) 916-4274 ext. 462
FAX:(317) 916-4287
Email:  dan.kin...@heapg.com
Website:  http://www.heapg.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Negative logic IO

2000-03-08 Thread Dan Kinney (A)


All,

I have been told negative logic Input/Output devices are not allowed in
Europe.  I have found the following in EN61131-2:1994 (IEC 1131-2) Page 28,
Para 3.3, note 1

"Current souring inputs and current sinking outputs which may be required
for certain applications are not covered in this standard.  Special care
should be exercised in their uses."

This says current sinking outputs are permitted. Can anyone point to
anything that prohibits them?
 
Dan Kinney
Horner APG

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

42 matches

Mail list logo