RE: Earthing of conductive floor tiles

[David Spencer]

Hi Arno,
John gave you the short answer...the MFG should have installation
instructions.  In all of the installation I have been party, there is a grid
of copper tape laid down in the conductive adhesive.  This keeps the
adhesive from getting excessively resistive over large areas.  Surface
resistance tests run anywhere from 100k-400k ohms when it's all done.  Note
that if you are installing relay racks or metal benches that you can run
into ground loops.
Have a Great Day,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications


-Original Message-
From: Arno van Kesteren
To: Arno van Kesteren; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: 3/18/02 1:48 PM
Subject: Earthing of conductive floor tiles


Dear Group,

Do conductive tiles in floors for ESD prevention have to be connected
together (e.g. through a low impedance earth bond) ?

Arno van Kesteren
ESO
Munich, Germany
e-mail: avkes...@eso.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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Pencil erasers for pre-EMI cleaning?

[David Spencer]

Hi Dave,
Those were the days.  Computer not working, pull out all the cards and take
an eraser to the gold fingers.  Put it back together and Voila! everything
works.

In a perfect world, my opinion coincides with those previously expressed.
We should be testing with pristine equipment, as a customer can expect to
receive.  This means items direct from the manufacturing process.  Perhaps
many of the esteemed members of this group are in positions that afford them
these resources.  My personal experience has been one of receiving the
latest prototype that has been passed around through many hands and has
little cosmetic resemblance to that shipping to customers.  In these
situations, I believe that it is of mandatory importance, if your equipment
is a card slot type or has removable parts/panels, to try to return the item
to as pristine a condition as you can prior to test.  There is just as much
probability of connection debris preventing a ground loop that would have
increased emissions/susceptibility as there is for it reducing them.

To the specific question of the eraser: I heard a couple of eons ago that
pencil erasures leave a contaminating residue and they should not be used,
especially on gold flash, leading me to seek alternatives to the Good 'ol
Days mentioned above.  I use contact cleaner made for noble metals on edge
fingers and frequently use a 50:50 mixture of denatured alcohol and
distilled water to clean gasketing materials to remove oil and dust
deposited by handling.

One other design type note: If you are using steel, think about zinc
plating.  It is well worth the money.  Your finish should not be so fragile
if expected to stand up to normal wear and tear.

Have a Great Day!
Dave

-Original Message-
From: David Heald [mailto:davehe...@mediaone.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:44 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Pencil erasers for pre-EMI cleaning?



All,
  I'm preparing for an emissions test and I had started cleaning some of
my chassis mating surfaces with a pen/pencil eraser then alcohol to
ensure the surface to surface contact was good.  A friend then told me
that using an eraser would also remove the anti-corrosive coating that
was on the metal (Thanks Paul!).  So I would end up with a very short
term benefit, then rust.  What I am trying to determine is if maybe
light rubbing with a pencil eraser might only remove surface
contaminants and leave the metal and coatings intact. (the pencil eraser
is much less abrasive than the pen side)

So the real question is... Does anyone have direct good or bad
experience with the aftereffects of using a pencil eraser to clean
mating edges (card faceplates in a telco box for example)?  I have both
steel and aluminum surfaces to worry about so info for either type is
welcome.  (and don't worry the different metal types are not adjacent).

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as the system is really dirty
right now.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Dave Heald

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: Downloadable CENELEC Standards

[David Spencer]

Ooops
Correction on the price...The one I quoted below was for the TRF.
The standard runs 275 CHF or ~163.25 USD.
Thanks for the heads up.
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:01 AM
To: richwo...@tycoint.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Downloadable CENELEC Standards



Hi All,
For the cost conscious, don't forget about the IEC website,
http://www.iec.ch/  You can download most of the EU and International
standards in PDF or Word format.  With the current exchange rate it is quite
a bargain.  The same EN60950:2000 costs 159 CHF (Swiss Franc) or ~94.50 USD
at today's rate. The download is in Word format.  With any luck, the days of
paying through the teeth for badly reproduced copies of standards is over
and purchasing departments everywhere can delete Global from their vendors
list. :-)  My opinion...gouging is a painful thing.

Good Luck!
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications


-Original Message-
From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:42 AM
To: richwo...@tycoint.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Downloadable CENELEC Standards




Hi Richard,

Have you tried:

Global Engineering Documents at:
http://global.ihs.com
or

ANSI at:
http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/find.asp?

IMO, ANSI is generally less expensive than Global and all documents from
ANSI are downloadable in
PDF. For instance, doing a quick search for EN60950:2000 yielded ANSI = $210
(PDF) and Global = $384
(paper only). Please note that this is not a promotion of one over the
other.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com




 

richwo...@tycoint.com

Sent by:   To:
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org  
owner-emc-pstc@majordomcc:

o.ieee.org Subject: Downloadable
CENELEC Standards  
 

 

02/11/02 07:17 AM

Please respond to

richwoods

 

 






Other than the following agencies, does anyone know of other web sites where
English language CENELEC standards can be ordered and downloaded at a
reasonable cost? I am especially interested in sites where the amendmends
are available. SIS is the only site that I have found that has the
amendments in English. BSI only has the ammended standards available - just
what I wanted to do - pay over and over again for the original standard.

BSI - http://www.bsi-global.com/group.xalter

SIS (Sweden) - http://www.sisforlag.se/katalog/eng_default.asp



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...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:  

RE: Downloadable CENELEC Standards

[David Spencer]

Hi All,
For the cost conscious, don't forget about the IEC website,
http://www.iec.ch/  You can download most of the EU and International
standards in PDF or Word format.  With the current exchange rate it is quite
a bargain.  The same EN60950:2000 costs 159 CHF (Swiss Franc) or ~94.50 USD
at today's rate. The download is in Word format.  With any luck, the days of
paying through the teeth for badly reproduced copies of standards is over
and purchasing departments everywhere can delete Global from their vendors
list. :-)  My opinion...gouging is a painful thing.

Good Luck!
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications


-Original Message-
From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:42 AM
To: richwo...@tycoint.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Downloadable CENELEC Standards




Hi Richard,

Have you tried:

Global Engineering Documents at:
http://global.ihs.com
or

ANSI at:
http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/find.asp?

IMO, ANSI is generally less expensive than Global and all documents from
ANSI are downloadable in
PDF. For instance, doing a quick search for EN60950:2000 yielded ANSI = $210
(PDF) and Global = $384
(paper only). Please note that this is not a promotion of one over the
other.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com




 

richwo...@tycoint.com

Sent by:   To:
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org  
owner-emc-pstc@majordomcc:

o.ieee.org Subject: Downloadable
CENELEC Standards  
 

 

02/11/02 07:17 AM

Please respond to

richwoods

 

 






Other than the following agencies, does anyone know of other web sites where
English language CENELEC standards can be ordered and downloaded at a
reasonable cost? I am especially interested in sites where the amendmends
are available. SIS is the only site that I have found that has the
amendments in English. BSI only has the ammended standards available - just
what I wanted to do - pay over and over again for the original standard.

BSI - http://www.bsi-global.com/group.xalter

SIS (Sweden) - http://www.sisforlag.se/katalog/eng_default.asp



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...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: T1/E1 compliance requirements

[David Spencer]

Hi Bob,
Couple of things, mostly semantics, from my understanding:
T1 and T3, are, by definition, outside plant interfaces.  It has been
suggested to me that the "T" stands for "Transport".  That being said, I
haven't heard of anyone running T3, but if they did it would probably need
to meet the requirements for broadband interfaces in GR1089 section 4.6.

For your application, it would be descriptive to call them DSx1 and DSx3,
indicating that these signals are terminated at a digital cross-connect
panel, which would provide any necessary protection/isolation to outside
plant hazards.  If you use cables that are shielded and the shield is
grounded at both ends, you do not need to meet the intrabuilding lightning
requirements in GR1089 section 4.5.9, et. al.  However, your equipment (and
customers grounding scheme) must be set up as a common bonding network as
opposed to an isolated bonding network.

As to the 12mil traces, I believe you have that figure because the circuit
was laid out to be an outside plant interface.  That is a typical minimum
trace width expected to pass Part 68 surge and power line cross tests.

Good Luck
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications


-Original Message-
From: Bob Patel [mailto:whizpla...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:57 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: T1/E1 compliance requirements



Hi! I had recently posted a question to SI on the
testing requirements for T1/E1 i.e. EMC requirements
and I wanted to get some more feedback from this list
to make some decisions.
For our current T1/T3 products we don't for any
lightning tests since our product sits in the CO and
presumably we will not be connected to the outside
world. Is this a correct statement?
ALso, in this design our signal traces were made
12mils wide from the connector to magnetics and
magnetics to connector. Why 12 mils? Is it for over
current condition or to pass some specific tests?
Because we never did any tests to test this?
Thanks
Bob

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

---
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: 60950 - Insulation between mains and secondary with capacitor s

[David Spencer]

I think it can work.  But I don't think you will like the size of the parts
you will need to pass hi-pot.  I think you will find it cheaper to create
the barrier with a transformer than the size those capacitors will need to
be.
Good Luck!
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Nick Rouse [mailto:nickjro...@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:07 PM
To: emc; Pierre SELVA
Subject: Re: 60950 - Insulation between mains and secondary with capacitors


Yes, I see a problem , Lightning spikes and the full peak mains
voltage when the mains is switched on at its voltage peak will
pass straight through your capacitors causing a safety hazard
and may destroy the insulation of the transformer if it is
not rated for this voltage.
Nick Rouse 

- Original Message - 
From: Pierre SELVA   
To: Forum Safety-emc   
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 5:18 PM
Subject: TR: 60950 - Insulation between mains and secondary with capacitors

Hi forum members,

 
I would like to know your meaning on the following :
 
The concerned product is in the 60950 scope (EN, UL or IEC). I would like to
make the insulation between the mains and the secondary without transformer,
but only with capacitors (X rated). In fact, I need to use only the high
frequency signals transmitted on the mains. In this case, the capacitors are
considered as short circuit, and the 50 (or 60) Hz is cutted by caps. 
 
The circuit is as follow :
  C   T1
---| |-+  +-
Mains  +  +   Secondary part
---| |-+  +--
  C
 
C are X rated capacitors
T1 is only a signal transformer (not use for galvanic insulation)
 
My questions are :
 
- Is this insulation correct according to reinforced insulation requirements
?
- May I use only one caps for C, or 2 serial caps (in case of first default)
?
- Do you see other critical points regarding 950 requirements ?
 
Thanks a lot for your contribution,
Best regards, 
Pierre

 
eLABs  (emc, safety and radio labs)
Pierre SELVA 
18 Rue Marceau Leyssieux 
38400 SAINT MARTIN D'HERES - FRANCE 

Phone : 33 (0)6 76 63 02 58 
Fax : 33 (0)6 61 37 87 48 
e-mail : e.l...@wanadoo.fr   
ps.el...@laposte.net   
== 

 

RE: internal modem

[David Spencer]

Hi Dan,
You will need part 68 testing for US.  A fairly large number of labs do this
now.  The requirement to file for a license has been simplified in the last
couple of years.  Make sure the design team knows that they must pass the
key tests:  The 600V AC power cross test (UL1459) and the
metallic/longitudinal surges (Part 68).  The surge testing requires the
modem survive the low current stress without damage and that under no
circumstances will a damaged modem ever hold the line off hook.  It is very
difficult to pull this off without a fuse element and it is a bit of a
juggling match to make sure that the fuse and crowbar device work together
to meet the criteria. If you want to sell in Canada, you will need to file
for an Industry Canada registration number and provide the appropriate
French text in your manual.  The same lab that does you Part 68 should be
able to handle this for you.
Good Luck!
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications 

-Original Message-
From: Dan Kinney (A) [mailto:dan.kin...@heapg.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:25 AM
To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
Subject: internal modem



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.

---
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.

A Case For NEBS

[David Spencer]

Hi All,
I was asked to forward this story on to the group.  If you are on the NEBS
list server, this is a duplicate.  From the perspective of a
telecommunications equipment manufacturer, it is good to be reminded that
the extra effort and design constraints one must face to meet NEBS
requirements has a real world result.
Best Wishes,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications


Wednesday September 12, 10:58 am Eastern Time
AT&T equipment survived trade center collapse


PHILADELPHIA, Sept 12 (Reuters) - AT&T Corp. (NYSE:T - news), the No. 1
U.S. long-distance telephone and cable television company, said its
communications network carried a flood of heavy calling volume on
Wednesday, but remained unharmed after its equipment survived the collapse
of the World Trade Center.


Calling volume on ``the network is running about about 20 percent above a
typical Wednesday morning,'' AT&T spokesman Dave Johnson said. ``There's
heavy inbound surge to the New York and Washington areas and some network
congestion, but nothing like yesterday.''


AT&T handles about 300 million voice telephone calls a day. It carried 431
million calls on Tuesday as customers flooded the telephone lines in the
wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, making it the
heaviest business day in the company's network history, Johnson said.


AT&T's local network switching equipment, which routes telephone calls, was
located in the basement of the World Trade Center towers and survived the
implosion of the buildings, Johnson said.


``It appears the equipment has survived .. It was up and alive and still
providing dial tone by 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. Once the back-up
batteries ran out, we took them offline, but the equipment is still
working,'' Johnson said.


``We were amazed,'' he said. ``It was several stories under ground and all
I can say is that they must have built up that basement very sturdy.''


The switching equipment handled calls for AT&T business customers in Lower
Manhattan. The company rerouted calls and suffered no network outages,
Johnson said.


AT&T will retrieve the equipment once it gets approval from New York City
and disaster teams to approach the rubble of the World Trade Center. The
New York-based company said none of its employees were injured or killed in
the attacks.


---
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: Burn-in methods

[David Spencer]

Hi Massimo,
Doug and Tania have the right idea.  Basically, you want to find a
combination of operational and non-operational temperature excursions that
identify early life failures and manufacturing defects.  This is going to be
very specific to your product.  A successful burn-in programs has three key
areas:

1.  Degrees of separation.  You want to cycle the equipment over a range as
close to 100C as the parts you have permit.  Part of this may be done in a
non-operational state.
2.  Ramp rate.  I cannot speak to medical, but if your reliability is
expected to be anything like telecom, you want a minimum of 10C/minute.
3.  Repetition.  Depending on the time you have available, you should look
for at least 3 ramps with enough dwell (soak) at each extreme to allow your
product to reach that temperature.

I would like to reiterate Tania's suggestion to perform temperature cycling
on PCB's.  This is not only great for hi-pot testing, but is an excellent
way to find via defects if you have multi-layer boards.  Have your fab
perform temperature cycling prior to bare board continuity checking.

Good Luck!
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@gte.net]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:40 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Burn-in methods



Massimo Polignano wrote: 
>
> What kind of thermal cycling (temperature limits and test duration) to
> accelerate one year of life?

Accelerate one year of normal life to what - a month, a week? 

Very difficult to say.  And highly statistical to get 
sufficient confidence level. 

All based on the Arrhenius equation, look that up 
and then start looking into reliability engineering. 

The following is exceedingly rough but I've done it 
this way:  Basically, for every 10C increase in temp, 
your failure rates double.  For every 10C decrease, 
your failure rates halve. 

So, let's assume that at normal temp 20C, your 
product goes along at a normal pace and its 
normal life expectancy/MTBF is 6 years. 

Increase ambient by 10C to 30C, now you've halved the 
life expentancy of your product to 3 years.  Or, to 
put it another way, you've compressed each year of 
normal operation into 6 months.  Increase another 
10C to 40C ambient and you've compressed one year 
to 3 months.  50C and you've compressed one year 
to 6 weeks ... etc.  

BUT, you're upper limit may be only 40C! 

There's only so high you can go before you exceed 
the normal operating temps of the devices internal 
to your product.  And that's all determined by very 
careful measurements of the normal operating temps 
of the product. 

It is obviously much more complicated and involved 
than what I've presented here.  The semiconductor 
people have this down to an art. 

- Doug McKean 


---
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.

ITU K.41

[David Spencer]

Hi All,
I am hoping that someone has had some experience the interface definitions
covered in the ITU K series recommendations.  My question is regarding the
interface references given as T1 and T2 in Table 1 of K.41.  This
is referring to the telecommunications interface, but it is not clear if the
surge should be applied in common mode to all of the connections or if the
reference is to a table of connections  for 2 and 4 wire interfaces.  Thanks
in advance.
Regards,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

RE: Is 36-72VDC power supply input still valid?

[David Spencer]

Hi Paul,
I am assuming that you are speaking about telecommunications switching
equipment.  The upper end of -72 volts supports -60V battery plant found in
a few German offices with (I believe) Siemens switches.  There is every
indication that these systems will not "spread" to other offices and global
standardization on a -48V battery plant will occur through attrition.  Many
companies start down the road of supporting -60V plant equipment until they
realize the additional cost involved in manufacturing/design of a system
with TNV2/Hazardous Secondary (depends who you talk to) input voltage.
Hope this answers your question.
Regards,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Denomme, Paul S. [mailto:paul.deno...@viasystems.com]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:37 AM
To: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" <
Subject: Is 36-72VDC power supply input still valid?



I have recently had a discussion with someone who stated that people are no
longer specifying a 36-72V input, and that they are specifying 42-56V
because it is more standard for todays applications?  Does anyone know where
the 36-72V input requirement originated and where and when we still need to
design to the old specification of 36-72V?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Paul S. Denomme
Viasystems



---
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,"

RE: NEBS/telco LED alarm color

[David Spencer]

Hi Dwight,
>From GR499:Dec 1995:
"
R12-2 [313] The following color conventions shall be adhered to:
RED To indicate critical or major failure, error, or danger
YELLOW  To indicate a minor failure, caution, warning, or temporary
malfunction
GREEN   To indicate satisfactory operation, completion of a
process,or proceed
WHITE   To indicate a neutral condition that implies nothing about
the success or failure of system operations (e.g., status of a switch).
"

Have a Great Day!
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Dwight Hunnicutt [mailto:dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:51 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Cc: 't...@world.std.com'; 'n...@world.std.com'
Subject: NEBS/telco LED alarm color


All-
Our system test guys are concerned that we don't vary our T1 card indicator
LED color to distinguish between minor, major, and critical alarms. I recall
a Bellcore spec that says we have to do this. Can anyone help me track down
the spec reference for this? thanks
Dwight


---
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: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core

[David Spencer]

Hi Chris,
The correct response to this question is: Check with your prospective
customers.  Each RBOC and CLEC has a different bent on who's tests they will
accept and there are always exceptions to the hard and fast operating
procedures proclaimed at the annual conferences.  There are many labs that
are not OSHA certified that perform NEBS tests and write reports accepted by
all the principle players.  A very good "for instance" is the Telcordia
(Belcore) lab itself, which is not an NRTL lab.  The most important part of
the whole experience is to make sure the lab you use has previous experience
writing NEBS test reports or is in very close communications with your
customers SME's in the various NEBS areas BEFORE testing begins.
 
Rule of thumb, from my perspective:  Meeting the requirements of Verizon and
SBC will take care of 95% of your prospective customers.  AT&T has a couple
more hoops, accounting for the last 5%.
 
One last thing, you should be aware that there is a separate list serv for
NEBS questions.  You can sign up on the RCIC web site.  Although many
members of the EMC-PSTC list are members of both lists, it is always a good
idea to avoid leaching bandwidth from those who have little interest in US
telephony compliance.  Let me know if you need contact information and have
a Great Day!
 
Best Regards,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications
 
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:54 AM
To: 'John Juhasz'; 'daniel.sic...@marconi.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core


As I posted earlier, in theory any OSHA certified lab should qualify as
a NRTL. I find it interesting that they don't even have to have NEBS items
listed in their accreditation standards just be a OSHA NRTL. I don't have
the exact web address but you can check this who has what on the WEB. The
last time I did it I believe it was pretty straight forward with a search
reference to OSHA rather than some horrible governmental acryonym.
There is another method you can consider, if you have a NRTL oversee the
test the environmental lab itself doesn't necessarily have to be an OSHA
NRTL. Choose with care and shop around.
At the last symposium there was some generally reluctant acceptance of
non-NRTL's because of a recent crunch in available time at the labs, but
this would be my personnal last resort.
There are more labs out there than one might first suspect, but if
you're doing this for the first time you want somebody with experience
giving you a solid hand.
Gary

[Gary McInturff]  -Original Message-
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'daniel.sic...@marconi.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core



If I may add to that . . . 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my past NEBS experience (prior to 1998) 
taught me that you can't just use any lab 
in the US either (I don't know if that's changed since 1998). 
The RBOCs are fussy in this regard. 
In addition to Telcordia themselves, there are a couple of large ones that
advertise 
that their NEBS data is accepted by the RBOCs . . . 

John Juhasz 
Fiber Options 
Bohemia, NY 


-Original Message- 
From: daniel.sic...@marconi.com [ mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com
 ] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:09 PM 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: Re: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core 





Chris, 

>From what has been said during the NEBS 2000 Conference held 
in Baltimore at the beginning of October.  The only report 
acceptable to the RBOCs are those issued by a Test House located 
in the United States. 

Thus if your intended market is the United States, which I think 
is the cases, than you will have to test in a US based facility. 


DISCLAIMER:  The above opinion is mine and does not necessarily 
 reflects that of my employer. 

Daniel Sicard 
Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification 
Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp 
Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631  Fax: 514-822-4077 
E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com 

Web: http://www.marconi.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: Zo

[David Spencer]

Hi William,
This is a dynamic quantity dependent on the size of the wire, number of
twists, and frequency range of interest.  You can get a lot of good
information from the web pages of various twisted pair cable manufacturers.
The normal impedance for twisted pair sold as CAT 3 and CAT 5 (and others)
is 100 ohms for a given frequency range, 1-16 MHz for CAT3 and 1-100MHz for
CAT5.  There are others available (E1 telephony @ 120 ohms.)  New flavors of
twisted pair are extending the frequency range up to 350MHz.  If you have
access to a network analyzer, you can probably characterize a given
twist/inch of xxASG wire for your frequency range of interest.
Hope this helps, 
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:49 AM
To: EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: Zo



Does anybody know the characteristic impedance of a twisted pair?
Thanks in advance,

 <<...OLE_Obj...>> 

William D'Orazio
CAE Electronics Ltd.
Electrical System Designer

Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
Fax: (514)340-5552
Email: dora...@cae.ca


---
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

EN60950 Creepage/Clearance/HiPot

[David Spencer]

Hello Group,
Happy 19101.  Sorry this is so long.  I thought it would be easier for
replies if the categories and numbers where already written out.  I am at
the end of my tether trying to find out what creepage, clearance, and hipot
apply to our products application.  I originally tendered this request to
the NRTL that is slated to do our testing (this is now questionable) and was
told that it would take 10+ hours to determine the requirements and we would
need to compensate.  I was a little shocked and surprised that this would
take so much time from folks that use 60950 all the time.  Granted, my head
begins to swim as I go through it and try to figure out where our piece of
DC powered telecommunications equipment falls in the tables.

Complicating the mix is the recent release of UL/CSA 60950 with a couple of
statements regarding central office DC power plant (this is hearsay, as I
have not yet received a copy of the standard).  It has been reported that
there are North American deviations that state the -48VDC power plant in
central offices is treated as SELV and -60V battery plant as TNV2.  Our
European affiliated test lab, testing to IEC EN60950 says we can use SELV
for the -48VDC with manual additions requiring the user to connect the
equipment to SELV -48V plant.  However, the -60V application must be treated
as hazardous primary voltage.  For my own personal education, I would like
to find out two very important things:

1.  Have I correctly applied IEC EN60950 in the sections below for the 4
possible power plant inputs.
2.  What is currently being applied in the field in North America and Europe
for this type equipment.

Input power: 48V Plant (-40.5 to -57VDC) as SELV or Primary
 60V Plant(-50 to -72VDC) as TNV2 or Primary
Reference for power plant range from ETSI ETS 300-132-2

(A)  Assuming SELV for 48V Plant
Must meet one of the following: 1) Creepage and clearance, OR 2) Electrical
Stress Testing, OR 3) Short circuit testing, e.g. abnormals.

(1) Creepage...
I still have some confusion here.  Creepage is measured over the insulation
depending on material and pollution degree.  I understand that most
everything is pollution degree 2.  However, what category does FR4 fall into
for material type?
If I assume category 1 material, I would need 0.7mm of creepage between
input 48V plant Pos&Neg pads and any ground or SELV connections.  Is this a
correct assumption?

Clearance...  Air gaps(not through insulation), standard with no
hipot/quality
This includes trace/pad to trace/pad, trace/pad to chassis.
0.4mm   (.016inch) between the following:
1) Neg and Pos power input
2) Neg or Pos Input and adjacent signal lines
3) Neg or Pos Input and chassis ground connection
4) Chassis ground and adjacent signal lines
With regular board hipot (I am assuming 500V), the clearance can be reduced
to 0.2mm (.008")

(2) Hipot of Board Construction
Pass 500V Hipot applied between:
1) Neg and Pos power input
2) Neg&Pos Input and adjacent signal lines
3) Neg&Pos Input and chassis ground connection
4) Chassis ground and adjacent signal lines


(3) Short circuit testing to determine if a single fault can cause an unsafe
voltage.

(B) Assuming 48V Plant as Primary
Must meet ALL of the following: 1) Creepage and clearance, AND 2) Electrical
Stress Testing, AND 3) Short circuit testing, e.g. abnormals.

(1) Creepage...
This is where creepage gets ugly and it is the item causing the most grief.
We would need to apply the greater clearance distances instead of the 0.7mm
creepage called out in the table.  This would be the same as listed below,
2.0mm and 1.0mm, or 1/2 with hipot.

Clearance...  Standard with no hipot/quality checks
This includes trace/pad to trace/pad, trace/pad to chassis.
2.0mm   (.079 inch) between:
1) Neg and Pos power input
2) Neg or Pos Input and ungrounded signal lines
And 1.0mm (.039") between:
3) Neg or Pos Input and grounded signal lines
4) Neg or Pos Input and chassis ground connection
With regular board hipot (I am assuming 1025V for 1&2, 641V for 3&4), the
clearance can be reduced by half.

(2) Hipot of Board Construction
Pass 1025V Hipot applied between:
1) Neg and Pos power input
2) Neg&Pos Input and ungrounded signal lines
Pass 641V Hipot applied between:
3) Neg&Pos Input and grounded signal lines
4) Neg&Pos Input and chassis ground connection

(3) Short circuit testing to determine if a single fault can cause an unsafe
voltage.

I believe this takes care of both scenarios for 48V plant.  On to 60V plant.

(C) Assuming 60V Plant as TNV2
Must meet ALL of the following: 1) Creepage and clearance, AND 2) Electrical
Stress Testing, AND 3) Short circuit testing, e.g. abnormals.

(1) Creepage...
Same as above, I would still need 0.7mm of creepage between input 48V plant
Pos&Neg pads and any ground or SELV connections.

Clearance...  Standard with no hipot/quality
This includes trace/pad to trace/pad, trace/pad to chassis.
0.4mm   (.016inch) between the following:
1) Neg and Pos pow

RE: FCC Part 15 exempted devices

[David Spencer]

Hi Dan and Group,
Many thanks to Dan and others who squared me away on the numbering scheme.
It is a little humbling when I consider the dozens of times I have read
through the standard.  However, on a positive note, I have found  that
nothing sets a memory like public embarrassment! ;-)  Thanks for addressing
the less than intelligent questions and take heart in the knowledge that the
lessons are learned.  I'm sure to come up with others...
Best Regards,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Dan Kinney (A) [mailto:dan.kin...@heapg.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 6:41 AM
To: David Spencer; 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; Dan Kinney (A);
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: FCC Part 15 exempted devices


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
> 
&

RE: FCC Part 15 exempted devices

[David Spencer]

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
 ]
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

RE: NEBS web site

[David Spencer]

Guy,
You can get NEBS information from the NEBS list server by signing up on the
RCIC website
http:\\www.rcic.com in the virtual conference hall under NEBS.  While most
of the members of the EMC group are also on the NEBS group, it is good to
send requests to the right list.

To start, you will want to get a hold of the following 3 documents:
SR 3580 Defines the test levels
GR 1089 COREElectrical Criteria
GR 63 CORE  Environmental Criteria

If you will be doing much in the way of network equipment, you will need
others.  I would suggest getting FR-2063-CD instead, as a minimum.  Check
out the family lists and see what fits your application.  FR-2063 has the
three documents mentioned above and GR 78 CORE.

All Telcordia/Bellcore documents are available from the Telcordia store at 
http://telecom-info.telcordia.com/site-cgi/ido/index.html

Try not to get sticker shock!

You will find that Level 3 is everything in GR-63-Core and GR-1089-Core that
applies to your equipment, i.e. if you have analog lines or connect to
outside plan wiring, you will need to do everything.  

Best Regards,
Dave Spencer
Compliance Engineer
Oresis Communications, Inc.
14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR  97006
(503)533-0717 Dir: (503)466-6289  Fax: (503)533-8233
http://www.oresis.com  dspen...@oresis.com



-Original Message-
From: Guy Story [mailto:gst...@iphase.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:57 PM
To: EMC Newsgroup
Subject: NEBS web site



Does anyone have a url for a web site that lists the NEBS Standards,
specifically level 3?

Thank you in advance.

Guy Story, KC5GOI
Compliance Technician
Interphase Corporation
Dallas Texas
phone: 214.654.5161
fax: 214.654.5406


---
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: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile

[David Spencer]

Hi Jeffrey,
Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we
would least expect them.  GR63 is no exception.  For altitude, the limits
called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general
temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure.  The
application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour
profile.

It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5,
unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground
over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of
change, and duration.  If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature
rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet
R4-8.  The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier
who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he
purchases you equipment.  I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if
you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m.

Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective.  The tests must be
performed and the results documented.  It is by this means that decisions
are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road.

Good Luck!
Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer
Oresis Communications, Inc.
14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR  97006
* dspen...@oresis.com  * http://www.oresis.com
* (503) 466-6289  * (503) 533-8233  



-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org '
Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile



Group,

GR-63 sections 4.1.3  &  5.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for
Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use?
Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be
definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have
to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude
environment.  Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for
this test?

Points to be considered are:

*  Max Altitude
4000m

*  Temperature at max Altitude
Profile in Table 4-5

*  Relative Humidity
Profile in Table 4-5

*  Length of time at Max Altitude
182 hrs


Thanks in advance,


Jeffrey Collins 
MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
Ciena Core Switching Division
jcoll...@ciena.com
www.ciena.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: PDF file copy method

[David Spencer]

Derek,
Resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated.  Walk away from the Sun.
Come back to the fold of the one true office suite god.
;-)
Dave

-Original Message-
From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 5:09 PM
To: barry...@altavista.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: PDF file copy method



Barry,

your using MS word! A pathetic piece of software. I've changed to Star
office 
from SUN Microsystems. It beats MS word in just about everything!

I did work for SUN, briefly, so I'm biased But it's free, so I'm not 
commercially motivated;-)

Derek Walton

---
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: AS/NZS 4251.1.1.1999

[David Spencer]

Hi All,
Thanks Laura for excellent directions!  To help the direction impaired, the
direct link is http://www.sma.gov.au/standards/emcbook/index.htm if you
don't want to make the journey on foot ;-)

Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Laura Leyba-Newton [mailto:lnew...@hach.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 3:01 PM
To: 'Maxwell, Chris'; 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
Subject: RE: AS/NZS 4251.1.1.1999



I found what I am quit certain is the handbook Chris was talking about.

Go to the www.sma.gov.au   site, once you are in do a
search for "handbook for suppliers".  There will be over 200 results, go
down and click on ACA: Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC). An index will
appear, click on Index to Relevant Documentation.  Under the information
index click on HTML, this will put you in the Electromagnetic Compatibility
Framework.  Appendix A contained the information cross referencing the
Australian standards to the European Standards.

Chris, if you would could you please look at this document and let us know
if this is indeed the handbook you were talking about.

Thank you,
Laura Newton
EMC Engineer
Hach Company

-Original Message-
From:   Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com]
Sent:   Thursday, June 01, 2000 3:01 PM
To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
Subject:FW: AS/NZS 4251.1.1.1999


Guys,

Kazimier replied to me saying that he had trouble finding
the handbook.
(see his attached email)

Apparantly, I sent Kazimier (and possibly others) on a wild
goose chase.  My
humble apologies (bow).  The document that I downloaded was
called "The
Australian Spectrum Management Agency Handbook for
Suppliers." or simply the
"Handbook for Suppliers"

Once upon a time, the Australian Spectrum Management Agency
(SMA) managed
the Australian Framework for EMC.  Their website contained
the link to the
document.  Since the time that I downloaded that document,
the Australian
Communications Authority (ACA) has taken over administration
of the
Australian Framework for EMC.  

So, I too have gone back to re-visit the links that I once
used only to find
that they all point to the ACA.  I can no longer find the
link that I used
to download this very handy document.  Too bad.  I
considered it a shining
example of why I admired the Australian implementation of
compliance.  At
one time, all you had to do was download the handbook,
follow it and start
shipping product.  I'm disappointed.  I would hope that the
ACA still
produces the handbook, perhaps under another name.  I have
not found it yet.

I'll wait until my Document Control office opens tomorrow
morning and look
at my hardcopy of the handbook, I believe that it will point
me to a
European equivalent to AS/NZS 4251.1.  

Talk to you tomorrow...

Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer
GN Nettest Optical Division
6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4  
Utica, NY 13502
PH:  315-797-4449
FAX:  315-797-8024
EMAIL:  chr...@gnlp.com



> -Original Message-
> From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal [SMTP:k...@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 2:55 PM
> To:   'Maxwell, Chris'
> Subject:  RE: AS/NZS 4251.1.1.1999
> 
> Hi Chris, 
> 
> Can you tell me if "Handbook for Suppliers" is the full
name of the doc
> you referred to?.can't seem to find it on the aca
website(all the
> links you've kindly supplied point to the aca site).
> 
> Cheers, 
> k...@nortelnetworks.com 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Maxwell, Chris [ ] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:34 AM 
> To: EMC-PSTC 
> Subject: RE: AS/NZS 4251.1.1.1999 
> 
> 
> 
> Laura, 
> 
> I have found three websites to be useful. 
> 
> www.sma.gov.au 
> 
> www.aca.gov.au 
> 
> www.austel.gov.au 
> 
> In particular, the SMA  (Australian Spectrum Management
Agency) website
> used 
> to have a "Handbook For Suppliers" which you can

Fanning the Flames

[David Spencer]

Hi All,
I'm not sure where this question fits, so I'm sending it to all.  Excuse the
redundancy, as I'm sure many of you receive mail from all of these lists.

An interesting question came up today regarding a fantray design and using a
thermal shutdown to turn off power to the fans when it is presumed obvious
that there may be a fire.  It sounds like a great idea to me.  However, it
will be a lot easier to sell if there is a requirement somewhere to support
it.

Question: Does anyone know of a specific requirement to control fans in the
event of a fire?  This can from any source, i.e. ETSI, ANSI, or Telcordia,
etc.

Thanks and have a great weekend!
Dave Spencer
Compliance Engineer
Oresis Communications, Inc.
14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR  97006
(503)533-0717 Dir: (503)466-6289  Fax: (503)533-8233
http://www.oresis.com  dspen...@oresis.com

RE: Safety: Hi-Pot Suppression for TNV lines

[David Spencer]

Chris,
Clear away the ground plane to give you the proper clearance.  You need to
be able to pass the tests without an external protector.  You didn't mention
Part 68 in your message.  You do need that as well, plus an FCC Registration
Number (although what you have to do to file for it may be changing very
soon), manual verbiage, etc.

If all else fails, you could supply a remote modem "switch" that would
control power to your product.  There are a few manufacturers but they can
be a little pricey.

Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications  

-Original Message-
From: Eric Petitpierre [mailto:eric.petitpie...@pulse.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 10:14 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Maxwell; Chris
Subject: Re: Safety: Hi-Pot Suppression for TNV lines



 Chris,
 
 Usually the hi-pot tests done during the safety evaluation are meant 
 to verify spacings and insulation.  The hi-pot tests I have seen 
 usually allow intentional paths to ground to be disconnected.  It is 
 the trace separation,etc, you are interested in, not how well the MOV 
 conducts.  Both MOV's are considered intentional paths to ground.
 Both should  to be disconnected at the ground side during the test.
 If only one is disconnected, you may still have a path, whether it is 
 direct, or through the contacts (open or closed) of the hookswitch.
 
 Eric Petitpierre
 Pulsecom
 Herndon, VA
 eric.petitpie...@pulse.com
 
 


__ Reply Separator
_
Subject: Safety:  Hi-Pot Suppression for TNV lines
Author:  chr...@gnlp.com (Maxwell; Chris) at smtp
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:5/22/00 10:33 AM


Group,
 
Is there an in-line adapter that we can install on a TNV line (in our case, 
a typical RJ12 phone line) to our product that will provide a second layer 
of hi-pot protection?  The whole explanation follows for those who think 
they can help.  Others can press delete right now and get on with their day.
 
We produce a piece of fiber optic test equipment that is rack mounted and 
operates from 48VDC.  Most of our typical equipment does not have TNV 
connections, however this does.  We have designed a "remote reset" option. 
The remote reset consists of an RJ12 jack on the back of the unit.  The user

can plug a phone line into this jack.  Once installed, the user can perform 
a 5 second power down on the unit by dialing the unit's "phone number" and 
letting the line ring 5 times.
 
This has proved valuable to customers because the units are designed for 
remote installation.   If the unit hangs up, they don't have to drive, fly, 
hike or swim out to where the unit is installed to perform a hard re-boot.
 
This remote reset line only takes in the "TIP" and "RING" signals (the RJ12 
only has pins 3 and 4 populated).  Both TIP and RING have MOV's going to 
chassis ground.  We have had the unit safety tested.  During safety testing,

the MOV's were cut (creating a single fault condition).  When the MOV's were

cut, the hipot test caused an arc to ground on a circuitboard within the 
unit.  This arc was considered a failure.  My guess is that the arc is 
caused by the fact that the tip and ring signals run close to a piece of the

ground plane on the top layer of the board.  My first stab at fixing this 
would be to clear out the ground plane so that it is furthur away from tip 
and ring.
 
Now, even minor changes to circuitboards can cost thousands.  It can also 
mean scrap.  This unit is a very low volume product (hundreds annually).  It

may be more cost effective for us to add some sort of in-line suppressor 
external to the unit as opposed to revising the circuitboard.  Given that
the 
unit is rack mounted, I am assuming that there would be room in the rack to 
mount such a device, if it existed.  Hence my question.
 
Anybody have any ideas?
 
Thank you for your time.
 
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
 
 
 
---
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:
 Ji

RE: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment

[David Spencer]

Kurt,
Tania is right on the money.  There are other items covered in EN60950 that
need to be addressed, such as lithium batteries, flammability hazard from
abnormals, and bonding safety (what happens when you hook 115V up to the
-48VDC input?)  Also, do you supply the SELV supply?  If not, you must
provided standard documentation in the manual and on the equipment stating
the equipment must be connected to an isolated SELV supply.  If you draw
more than 200Watts, you also need to include warnings about high energy
hazards.

As the saying goes, pay now or pay later (the interest rate is very high!)
He knows how to deal with EN60950 for -48V devices, as he has done a couple
for me in the past.  Send it up to Brad at the Vancouver CSA office.  You
get really good service out of CSA (when it's not hockey season ;-), they
don't screw up the reports (repeatedly) the way UL does, and their factory
inspection/inspectors do a fine job.

Best of luck,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications


-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 11:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC; 'Andrews, Kurt'
Subject: RE: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment



Kurt,

Be careful.The LVD might exempt your equipment; however, if your 48 Vdc
ITE has TNV connections, then you need to meet, per the old Telco or the new
RTTE Directive,  the "essential requirements" of safety, which are presumed
to be met by compliance to EN60950.   Alternatively, you can provide other
proof that you meet the "essential requirements."Believe me, it is
easier to comply with EN60950 than provide this alternate proof!If your
48Vdc ITE equipment is NOT connected to TNV circuits then, by the book, you
can consider it as falling outside the scope of the LVD.However, I
believe that this is a foolish position to take;-- you should take a look at
the European liability laws and then decide whether you want to hide under
LVD dc limit exemption.
 
The EN60950:1992, incorporating Amendments 1 through 5,  states that it is
applicable to mains-powered or battery-powered ITE,  "...with a rated
voltage not exceeding 600 V." Note that there is no mention of a minimum
voltage, whether ac or dc.

Thus, the ITE standard does not exempt you, however, the LVD does, assuming
you want to take up this exemption.

Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com  
Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit
Messaging Solutions Group


--
From:  Andrews, Kurt [SMTP:kandr...@tracewell.com]
Sent:  Friday, May 19, 2000 10:04 AM
To:  EMC-PSTC
Subject:  Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment


I'm looking for information as to what is required as far as safety testing
for a piece of 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment. All outputs will be 12 VDC or
less. This is a commercial unit and will not be sold to consumers.

In Europe it would fall outside the scope of the LVD as it starts at 75V for
DC powered equipment and this will be powered by 48 VDC. 

Does anyone know if there any other safety standards required in Europe for
this type of equipment?

It does appear that safety testing and listing is required by OSHA for use
in a U.S. workplace. According to OSHA Standard 1910 Subpart S all "electric
utilization equipment" is required to be "approved" which in most cases
means Listing by a NRTL. In 1920.399 OSHA defines "electric utilization
equipment" as equipment which uses electrical energy for mechanical,
chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purpose. My interpretation of
this is that any equipment which uses electricity, AC or DC, would need to
be tested and Listed.

Is my interpretation of the OSHA requirements correct?

What about requirements for Canada?

Any insights into these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer
Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Dr.
Westerville, OH 43081
Ph. 614-846-6175
Fax 614-846-7791
Email: kandr...@tracewell.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

RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard

[David Spencer]

Filed under "Things that make you go hmmm."
Was this a major Product Verification screw up?
Or a carefully crafted marketing plan to increase demand for RDRAM?

Have a Great Day,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Paul J Smith [mailto:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:21 AM
To: Barry Ma
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard



Barry,

Thanks for the heads-up. Article was also published by AP in today's Boston
Globe. The following excerpt is from the site you noted 

Regards,  Paul J. Smith
Teradyne, Boston


Chip maker will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise
caused
by simultaneous switching of
 signals.

 Intel Corp. has acknowledged another setback for PCs using its 820 chip
set.

 The company announced Wednesday morning that it will replace motherboards
using
 its 820 chip set that are exhibiting
 symptoms of a problem with a related component -- called a memory
translator
hub, or MTH -- with synchronous dynamic
 RAM (SDRAM).

 While the hub is not part of the 820 itself, it is
required
 on a motherboard that uses SDRAM. It
 enables the chip set, which was designed to work with
Rambus dynamic RAM (RDRAM), to use
 less expensive, more readily available SDRAM.

 "We have found that some systems ... may be sensitive
to
system board noise," an Intel
 spokesman said.

 Hangs and reboots

 The MTH problem, which manifests itself by system hangs
and
 intermittent system reboots, is due
 to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals on
the
 MTH buses, Intel officials said.

 Intel is working with PC and motherboard makers to
notify
computer users of the problem and to
 offer a replacement motherboard. Intel plans to replace all the 820
motherboards with SDRAM support that it sold directly
 to customers with an Intel 820 chip set motherboard with RDRAM memory.

 Computer users who believe they are affected should
contact their manufacturers, or they can
 check Intel's Web site, where they can download the
MTH
 ID Utility to test for the presence
 of the hub.

 The MTH support site also includes additional
information on the problems.

 "We believe less than 1 million boards with the MTH have been shipped to
customers," an Intel spokesman said. However,
 "since we have determined no root cause on this issue, we have decided to
offer
 a replacement."




Barry Ma  on 05/10/2000 07:12:33 PM

Please respond to Barry Ma 

To:   EMC-PSTC 
cc:(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne)
Subject:  Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard





http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_produ
ction_1.html


INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused
by
simultaneous switching of signals.


Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC
language?

Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long -
five
months from field failure report to recreating the problem inside INTEL? See
quotation below:

First noted in November
"Intel began shipping the MTH last November. The problem was brought to
light by
an Intel customer who observed the problem Intel followed up on the
report
and observed the problem in its own tests earlier this month."



Barry Ma
b...@anritsu.com

___

Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now!
http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go

___


---
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 Safe

RE: Receivers and spectrum analyzers

[David Spencer]

Hey Jim,
It is my sincere wish to get "god" results from my test equipment.  Alas,
regardless of equipment cost, I usually wind up somewhat lower.  The 8593EM
is now on the top of my wish list. ;-)

As to the price issue, it is very conceivable that a relatively small
investment in a single feature piece of add-on equipment can yield the
equivalent performance of a unit costing magnitudes more in that single
feature area.  Sophisticated, feature rich systems, pile on the sprinkles to
justify the high price tag.  If we want or need enough of those features, we
buy the system.

There aren't too many instances where you cannot find a relatively low tech,
less expensive, way to accomplish a given test goal if you are willing to
put in the time to integrate the system yourself and understand the science
involved.  On the other hand, who has the time.  

Hope you have a sense of humor!

Dave Spencer
Compliance Engineer
Oresis Communications

P.S.  I wish the tooth fairy didn't exist...up here he's giving it away
faster than any of us can make it.
 
-Original Message-
From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jk100...@exchange.sandiegoca.ncr.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:10 AM
To: Colgan, Chris; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Receivers and spectrum analysers



Chris,

I am experienced in performing pre-compliance measurements with a spectrum
analyzer and preamp.  I use a Hewlett Packard 8593EM Spectrum Analyzer and
an HP 8447D Pre-Amplifier with god results.  As mentioned by another
responder, the spectrum analyzer is designed to function as an "EMI
Analyzer," not just a spectrum analyzer and allows storing of the preamp's
gain factors to allow direct reading of the signal magnitude.

If noise floor is a problem in some band, you always have the option of
decreasing the bandwidth of the measurement to increase signal-to-noise.
This is usually very effective, in my experience.

The new Agilent EMI analyzers (digital, rather than analog) come equipped
with an internal preamp.  I hope to buy one.

Since I no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy,  I find it hard to come to
grips with statements to the effect that the addition of a $2-20K add-on to
a $20-40K spectrum analyzer yields the equivalent of a  $100-$250K receiver.
Nevertheless, you can do quite well with the spectrum analyzer.  Since you
are interested in pre-compliance, you can measure at conditions that are not
standard and gain the understanding of the product that you desire.

Good Luck,

Jim

Dr. Jim Knightene-mail: jim.knigh...@ncr.com
 
Technical Consultant - Design
NCR
17095 Via del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com   
Tel: 858-485-2537
Fax: 858-485-3788


-Original Message-
From:   Colgan, Chris
[mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent:   Friday, March 24, 2000 1:34 AM
To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject:Receivers and spectrum analysers


Greetings all

I have an Advantest spectrum analyser with a quasi peak
detector that I use
for pre compliance work.  I am having trouble with the high
noise floor and
I am concerned about my measurements reading low due to
overloading the
detector (no input attenuation due to the high noise floor
etc etc).

I have been told (mainly by sales reps) that by using a
preamplifier (cheap,
not a problem to buy) and a preselector (expensive, could be
a problem) I
can obtain results that are virtually equivalent to a
receiver (very
expensive).

Has anyone tried the analyser/preselector approach and if
so, how have you
got on?

Regards

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com

=
Authorised on 03/24/00 at 09:35:59; code 37f48bf3B1A8A7D9.



**
The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the
exclusive use of the intended recipient.
If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from
your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax.
You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the
E-mail.

TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)

**

---
   

RE: Lightning Surge Equipment

[David Spencer]

Joe,
If you are only going to do intrabuilding, you can get away with just about
anything capable of the 1.2/50uSec wave form (see the provision in the GR
for using this waveshape with series resistors).  I am just now setting up a
lab here and decided to go with Schaffner NSG2050, because it would be an
easy module addition should we decide to do outside plant in the future.
With the CDN, mainframe, module and 1089 box it was ~34K.

Again, if you only want intrabuilding, Keytec makes a product called the CE
master for about 17K that will do the waveshape.  Keep in touch off line and
I will let you know how it all works out once I have played with it (oops, I
mean, executed some test plans ;) for a while.
Dave Spencer
Compliance Engineer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 6:16 AM
To: 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'EMC PSTC'
Subject: Lightning Surge Equipment



I am trying to gather information on equipment capable of
performing, at minimum, the lightning tests of Bellcore GR-1089-CORE 4.5.9,
Intrabuilding Lightning Surge.  I am specifically interested in opinions of
different equipment, cost and extent of functionality (is there a cost
savings for equipment whose functionality is limited to this test?).  Any
input on used equipment would also be helpful.  I am initially interested in
pre-test if that makes a difference.  Any input would be greatly
appreciated.

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

RE: Re[2]: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's

[David Spencer]

Hey All,
Keep in mind that although Bell Atlantic is often the pickiest, they are not
the only RBOC that flip-flops on the NRTL data issue on an annual basis.  I
believe US West has taken their place on the "NRTL Wagon" this year.  Bell
South weighs in on the issue regularly as well.  I would not be surprised if
it is not one of those things that keeps the larger switch players on top of
the short list for new equipment rollouts.
Personally, I cannot justify the risk of having official NEBS tests done by
a lab that is not a NRTL.
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Jay Johansmeier [mailto:jay_johansme...@mw.3com.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 6:24 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's





Thanks Eric.
If you read on you see that Bell Atlantic must give 'prior' approval for
'alternate' test facilities.
Jeffrey was asking for documentation from a lab that has this 'prior'
approval
and at the moment
DLS is the only one, I haven't checked for others, that I know that have a
letter of approval.
I'm sure there are others.
My guess is that Jeffrey could ask the lab(s) in question to contact Bell
Atlantic to receive this type of prior approval.

Regards,

Jay Johansmeier
Regulatory Engineer
3Com Corporation
jay_johansme...@3com.com





"Eric Petitpierre"  on 03/17/2000 07:55:00 AM

Sent by:  "Eric Petitpierre" 


To:   "emc-pstc @ieee.org" , Jay Johansmeier/MW/US/3Com
cc:
Subject:  Re[2]: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's



 Jeffey and Jay,

 Bell Atlantic  Specification RNSA-NEB-95-0003, Rev, 10 Issued January
 26,2000 has removed the NRTL requirement,( see sections 1.6.1 and
 3.1.2)

Regards,

Eric Petitpierre
Pulsecom
Herndon,VA
eric.petitpierre

__ Reply Separator
_
Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Author:  jay_johansme...@mw.3com.com (Jay Johansmeier) at smtp
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:3/17/00 7:49 AM


Jeffrey,

DLS, here in Illinois, claims to have a letter from Bell Atlantic stating
that
their EMC data will be accepted.
You can email Steve Grimes at DLS and ask him if they will give you a copy.
(
sgri...@dlsemc.com )

Regards,

Jay Johansmeier
Regulatory Engineer
3Com Corporation
jay_johansme...@3com.com





"Collins, Jeffrey"  on 03/17/2000 03:56:40 AM

Please respond to "Collins, Jeffrey" 

Sent by:  "Collins, Jeffrey" 


To:   "'emc-pstc @ieee.org'" 
cc:(Jay Johansmeier/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's




Group,


Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has agreed to
accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's?
If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know
a customer is going to want to see it)


Thanks in advance,

Jeffrey Collins
MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
Ciena Core Switching Division
jcoll...@ciena.com
www.ciena.com


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

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

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

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







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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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


---
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: ESD wrist strap

[David Spencer]

Daniel,
Just about every switch (class 4 and 5) I've ever seen has had a banana plug
available.  There is usually an  opportunity to connect to the safety ground
post, if you happen to have an alligator clip on your strap instead of the
banana jack.
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com
[mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:31 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: ESD wrist strap





Hi Group,

I have been asked  by the design group if there is an industry standard in
the telecom business (North America) for the connection of ESD protective
wrist strap (banana plug,  snap type, ...) used for maintenance operation
on equipment containing static sensitive assembly.

We are presently using banana plug type.

The views expressed are my own and not necessarily that of my employer's.

Daniel Sicard
Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification
Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp.
Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631  Fax: 514-822-4054
E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.ca
Web: http://www.marconi.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: EMC Test Conditions

[David Spencer]

Derek,
I would like to add to Scott's comment.  You are probably not going to
experience any benefits from the large metallic structure.  If anything, it
will act as an antenna, increasing your radiated emissions and decreasing
your immunity.  Your concerns regarding installation are valid and you may
want to do on-site testing to determine the real world RF signature.
Good Luck,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Lacey,Scott [mailto:sla...@foxboro.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 8:17 AM
To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'
Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: EMC Test Conditions



Derek,
The points you make are extremely valid. Product testing should not be
merely a "paper chase", with a certificate as the only goal. I agree that if
your product always gets bolted to a large metal structure, it should be
tested in a simulated condition. However, and I am guessing here, if the
structure is outdoors and painted, ground bonding through the structure may
be poor in an actual installation. I guess it depends on what you are trying
to accomplish. If the product will not pass without the metal structure, I
would be highly skeptical of results obtained by the simulation. If, on the
other hand, you are trying to simulate the worst case, I say press your case
with the test lab. It has been my experience that problems experienced in
testing, especially immunity, ALWAYS show up sooner or later in the field.
That is why we try to bias tests towards failure.

Scott Lacey

-Original Message-
From:   lfresea...@aol.com [SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:EMC Test Conditions


Folks,

the testing of a product at a MAJOR Compliance lab has me concerned.
I have 
two main concerns, they are:

1)   The test item is designed to be bolted to a large metallic
structure 
which cannot be part of my set-up, it costs way to much ( $2,000,000
each ). 
So I have a fixture, which mounts all the components as they would
be 
mounted, using wiring as it would be wired etc. etc. etc. Because
this 
fixture is only about a cubic metre, the lab is telling me I should
test as 
table top equipment. I don't think this is correct.

IMHP, table top equipment is meant to be EUTs like PC, printers,
coffee 
makers, TVs etc. In most cases, the location in which they reside
has very 
little metal in the proximity. OTOH, control systems like ours, are
almost 
always fastened to metal objects. It is important to have this
metal, or a 
simulation of it present, because I've found that otherwise, there
is little 
correlation to the final installation. I also feel strongly that
lifting this 
metal structure 80 cm off the ground plane is a stupid thing to do.

So, my opinion is that there needs to be a third testing
consideration added 
to table top and floor mounted equipment, that of simulated
installation 
testing. OK, so this would require additional work. But if this is
not 
considered, then results from all these system will vary
dramatically. We 
worry at great length about the setup for table top equipment, and
floor 
equipment. But if systems don't fit in this category, it's open
season!

2)   Since my device can be installed almost anywhere, it is
supplied with a 
3 foot length of flying lead. The intent is for final customers to
extend 
this cable as needed. Here the lab tells me I'm OK testing with just
3 feet 
of lead My product standard is EN 61326,  which allows me if my
cables 
are under 10' in length, to blow away FTB and CI testing. This is
ludicrous! 
I know now how some of my competitors can claim EMC compliance when
they fail 
in my lab.

I feel very strongly about issue 1, enough that I would offer to
draft 
guidelines to present to whoever makes the rules. On issue 2, there
has to be 
some education, at the moment the playing field is not level. I do
not want 
to play the same games as others, because I feel the EMC protection
we 
incorporate is really needed.

Anyone got any constructive comments?

Derek Walton

---
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

RE: Demo Units Sent to EU w/o CE ?

[David Spencer]

Jim,
I have always used a label that states:
"Demonstration Equipment Only"
"Not Tested for Compliance"
Regards,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications
Compliance Engineer

-Original Message-
From: Lyons, Jim [mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 2:29 PM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: Demo Units Sent to EU w/o CE ?



Can anyone tell me if there are provisions for sending prototype electrical
equipment to Europe before it has been CE approved? This equipment would
normally be subject to the LVD and EMC directive, and would be used at shows
to demonstrate the equipment. It is possible that attendies at the show
would touch or operate the equipment.

Thanks for any comments or insight.

Jim Lyons
Mgr - Product Compliance
GTECH Corp.


---
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: Web Sites

[David Spencer]

How True!
Self certifying declarations of conformity have created a world wide
nightmare for the compliance and quality professions.  The tendency Gert
kindly termed "Selective Unawareness" is really an out right attempt to
deceive!  At a previous employer, we had a terrible time finding AC-AC power
adapters that had any type of regulatory documentation beyond the claim of
the CE mark!  We had a similar situation with a modem manufacturer who did
not have UL/CSA but claimed CE compliance...through the mystical process of
self certification they didn't need access to EN60950.

I believe this falls in line with the topic of TCF's.  There should never be
a question about providing documentation dealing with test reports and it
should be a REQUIREMENT to do business when marketing  materials hawk
products as compliant.

I wonder if instances like those Duncan mentioned are not subject to
litigation under the truth in advertising laws?

My two cents,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications
Compliance Engineer

-Original Message-
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 1:18 PM
To: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com; s_doug...@ecrm.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Web Sites 




I want to agree very very much with this...

Companies are too reluctant in issuing safety certificates, and
this is not always because they don't understand, but because they actually
DO.

Many many times components are not really tested, just one in a list of
related types. A switch using snap-on contacts may be approved , the one
with solder joints is not. The approval mark above the table may mislead
you.
Possibly both switches are safe, but only one was submitted for testing.
Of course the manufacturer will not send you a approval certificate
if there is none !!

Those who are doing electrical safety tests and electrical components must
all
be familiar with this selective unawareness !

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 duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com
>>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 10:57 AM
>>To: s_doug...@ecrm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re:Web Sites
>>
>>
>>
>>Scott and group,
>>I agree this is a well thought out site. I'm doing a similar
>>exercise at the
>>moment and trying to get hold of all of the approval certificates
>>for components
>>within one of our products. This can be hard work owing to the
>>variation in the
>>quality and quantity of information available.
>>
>>One site that I believe stands out above all others is
>>www.wickmannusa.com.
>>Again this is not an advert for the company but for the common
>>sense layout of
>>the site, and... get this
>>ON LINE APPROVAL CERTIFICATES! (downloadable in PDF form)
>>
>>Its interesting how the ease of obtaining these certificates varies. Some
>>companies you call know exactly what you mean and send the
>>details stright away,
>>whereas others are clueless or send you copies of their ISO9000
>>certificate of
>>approval or technical specs. One manufacturer of removable
>>storage devices I
>>recently contatcted has even refered my request to its head
>>office as the lady I
>>spoke to didn't know what I was asking for and believed that
>>safety related
>>documentation was 'company confidential'
>>Another one of my annoyances is manufacturers who quote 'flame retarded to
>>UL94-V0' Is it listed? sometimes it is sometimes it is not so why
>>dont they say
>>either 'UL listed Exx or 'manufactured from UL94-V0 material
>>Exx' or
>>manufactured from non UL listed material that has passed a UL94-V0 test'
>>
>>The point I am trying to make is that I wish that all
>>suppliers/manufacturers
>>were as good as the best ones and have an organised system for
>>retaining and
>>issuing these certificates and give clear and concise information
>>on approvals
>>and listings. Some companies you call, you would think that you
>>are the first
>>and only person who has ever asked for the certificates. Surely
>>others must ask
>>for these on a regular basis? A stark contrast from the best ones
>>where they
>>know what you require and have it ready to hand.
>>Regards,
>>Duncan
>>
>>
>>Reply Separator
>>Subject:Web Sites
>>Author: "Scott Douglas" 
>>Date:   3/1/00 9:22 AM
>>
>>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>I have been traveling the internet for the past several weeks
>>tracking down
>>agency approval information for the various components we use in our
>>products. Of the more than 30 sites I have visited, one stands out
>>particularly well. It is a good example of how a well designed web site
>>could function, navigation was always clear, th