RE: IEC1000-3-2: proposal for Class E?
Pat: Class E limits would be for equipment greater than 1000 watts. Class E limits are contained in IEC document SC77A/164/CD. It has been commented on by national committees and the results will be discussed at the next WG1 meeting starting on 24 April 1997. A previous draft from SC77A/WG1 contained a definition for professional equipment for the first time. It is repeated in the above committee document. The definition is equipment for use in trades, professions, or industries and which is not intended for sale to the general public. The application shall be specified by the manufacturer. This definition was modified by the last sentence because of the TC74/WG9 negotiations with SC77A. As additional information, TC74 will make a presentation at that meeting for limits specific for Information technology equipment. We are proposing a Class F. The limits proposed are contained in TC74/436/CDV. If you need additional questions you can call me on 610 648 3653. Dave George Convenor TC74/WG9 -- From: Pat Lawler To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC1000-3-2: proposal for Class E? Date: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 10:07PM From: Pat Lawler To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC1000-3-2: proposal for Class E? Date: 1997-04-15 22:07 Priority: 3 --- --- In the current issue of 'Compliance Engineering' magazine, the Newswatch column mentions a proposal to ammend IEC1000-3-2, adding another class of harmonic current limits known as 'Class E'. Equipment described as professional equipment powered by less than 1000 watts would be covered by these new limits. Does anyone know what 'professional equipment' is, and what the Class E limits would be? Pat Lawler plaw...@west.net
RE: Accredited Calibration Labs
Obviously the different accreditation clubs are pressuring us into compliance with their wishes. This should be opposed. Who is to say one accreditation system is better than the other? If we ignore their requests rather than jump to comply we would be better off. What is so wrong about using our ISO 9000 or NARTE ? How many accreditation clubs do we have to join? Dave George -- From: John Fessler To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Accredited Calibration Labs Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 3:29PM From: John Fessler To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Accredited Calibration Labs Date: 1997-03-28 15:29 Priority: 3 Message ID: 5E323CFA88A7D01195CA008029E127AA Received: from bbmail1.unisys.com by ea_ihx101.ea.unisys.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id H14DJ8V9; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:01:29 - Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by bbmail1.unisys.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22099; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:59:15 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA21971 for emc-pstc-list; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:28:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: 199703281528.aa07...@interlock.lexmark.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org From: John Fessler fess...@lexmark.com Date: 28 Mar 97 10:29:14 EST Subject: Accredited Calibration Labs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Fessler fess...@lexmark.com X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org --- --- Beginning in July, 1997, A2LA is requiring that accredited test labs must use an accredited calibration lab for instrumentation. I believe NVLAP has a similar requirement. Only labs accredited by A2LA, NVLAP, or A2LA MOU partners will be approved. We have spoken with several major equipment vendors and none of them are accredited and in fact have stated they have no plans to become accredited because no customers are asking for this. Can anyone provide me with any names of accredited equipment calibration labs in the US? Thanks, John Fessler EMC Lab Lexmark International, Inc.
Uncertainty
Rules are rules. Because we let NVLAP into the situation we now have a more ridged and rigorous certification system in the US than in Europe for some applications. If we are not careful how we implement the rules it will only get worse. There are many people in the government who have not been there and done that who want to design a system by which we all must live. Uncertainty is one of the issues. Michael Barge is on the ball and he has a good perspective. As I understand it most of you are applying Uncertainty too broadly. The rules should be applied only as they pertain to the certification requirements. For example, Europe has one application and the USA another. For minimum impact they should not be mixed. In the USA uncertainty only applies to calibration of test instruments and then only if you wish to become a NVLAP approved test lab. If we easily accept it for the entire EMC test protocol, NVLAP will gladly apply it to the entire certification procedure. Before we go off and rant an rave over this net, we should read the rules, understand what they say and know what the limitations are. Please read NIST Technical Note 1297 and note its applicability. It seems only the test labs are preaching accreditation, certification and Uncertainty while most of the producing companies just quietly integrate the testing into the quality process and leave it at that. I have news for the test labs. Trying to create a closed association with licensing and other impedances to block competition only raises the price of service. It does not improve quality of service and the competition will not be reduced. Why make it hard on yourselves? Dave George Unisys Regulatory Compliance
