RE: Test Equipment ...

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Doug,

You meant to say FCC exempt.  
Also, keep in mind that if equipment includes any additional functions other
than measurement than it shall be tested.

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Consultant   Direct: (818) 678-3840
Main:   (818) 718-6300
FAX:(818) 678-3740
e-mail: vgorodet...@canoga.com
 

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject:Test Equipment ... 


Why or what is the reasoning behind test equipment 
being exempt from all sorts of testing that's required 
for other pieces of equipment? 

- 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:
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: Typing Shortcuts

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Thanks, Chris.  This opens another can. The SWMBO is a perfect example of
National (UK) deviations. 
The Compliance Acronym Dictionary, CAD, may soon outnumber OED, Oxford
English Dictionary (about 500,000 entries).

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Dept.Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   cdup...@cs.com [mailto:cdup...@cs.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:51 PM
To: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com; rehel...@mmm.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:Re: Typing Shortcuts


Hi Bob et al.

One TLA (FLA) seems to be missing, one which implies such
awesome influence 
and power, the ultimate reason for everything., that is the
SWMBO.

This is the TLA that justifies all manner of actions,
expenditure, or the 
lack thereof...

It stands for  'She Who Must Be Obeyed'.   No further
explanation needed...  
:-)

Chris Dupres
Surrey, UK.

---
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: Typing Shortcuts

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

This link may be useful, too

http://www.acronymfinder.com/  

I agree with my boss, IAWMB, (surprise?), and my favorite acronym is IHA, I
Hate Acronyms, too.

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Dept.Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Allan, James [mailto:james_al...@milgo.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:20 PM
To: 'Andrews, Kurt'; rehel...@mmm.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:RE: Typing Shortcuts


This link will take you to enough chat abbreviations to keep
you busy for
weeks

http://www.kelseypub.com/irc/abbrev.shtml

Jim Allan
Manager, Engineering Services
Milgo Solutions LLC
1619 N Harrison Parkway
Sunrise, FL, 33323
E-mail james_al...@milgo.com
Phone (954) 846-3720
Fax (954) 846-5693

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrews, Kurt [SMTP:kandr...@tracewell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 1:04 PM
> To:   rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Typing Shortcuts
> 
> 
> Here are a few,
> 
> BTW - by the way
> IMO - in my opinion
> IMHO - in my humble opinion
> IOW - in other words
  

---
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: Poland and CE and Harmonics

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

John,

I have consulted with Woody Strzelecki on this.  Not being an expert in
Polish I would not venture to discuss the differences between
"Bezpieczenstwo" and "Bjezopasnost".   FYI:  Russians have different word
for Safety (if I am not mistaken, Bjezopasnost' in Russian has different
connotation and better translated as Security - well, these linguistic
nuances...).

As to the core of the original question, the national safety mark "B" is
still required in Poland as far as I know.  Correct me if I am wrong.  I
would only speculate that they would have to give up on this mark once they
join the EU.  On the other hand, there are other safety national marks in
Europe marketing people still love. 

Regards,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com <mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com>  

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   jradom...@clare.com [mailto:jradom...@clare.com]
Sent:   Thursday, June 07, 2001 1:12 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Poland and CE and Harmonics



For those who are interested in linguistic aspects of
Compliance, the
safety mark "B" stands for "Bezpieczenstwo". The word
pronounced as
"Bjezopasnost" means "Safety" ... but in the Russian
language.


As far I know, test reports and certificates of conformity
with
pan-European standards issued by accredited testing
laboratories are
accepted in the approval process in Poland.


    John Radomski





"Gorodetsky, Vitaly"


, emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent by:   cc:

owner-emc-pstc@majordomSubject:
RE: Poland and CE and Harmonics  
o.ieee.org





06/07/01 12:47 PM

        Please respond to

"Gorodetsky, Vitaly"










Thanks, Richard

For those who are interested in linguistic aspects of
Compliance, Polish
mandatory safety mark "B" stands for "Bjezopasnost" which
means "Safety".

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Dept.
Direct:
(818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:

(818)
718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:
(818)
678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008
e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com <mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com>

The suitability of this information for making decision is
solely with the
reader





---
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:
 Ric

RE: Poland and CE and Harmonics

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Thanks, Richard

For those who are interested in linguistic aspects of Compliance, Polish
mandatory safety mark "B" stands for "Bjezopasnost" which means "Safety".

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Dept.Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader



-Original Message-
From:   wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent:   Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Poland and CE and Harmonics


Jim, here is something from my archives from 1998.

--
From:   Krzysio S [SMTP:krzys...@polbox.com]
 
Sent:   Monday, May 11, 1998 9:12 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 
Subject:Re: EMC & SAFETY REQUIREMENTS -
Poland

Hello to Pryor McGinnis and those who are interested in the
topic
(and
also who are not),
Example of ITE in Poland:
For mandatory "B" certification of ITE in Poland you have to
carry
out 
tests according to two Polish standars:
PN-93/T-42107: (idt IEC 950 (1991) = Amd.1 (1992) + Amd.2
(1993))
(SAFETY)
PN-EN 55022: 1996 (idt. CISPR 22: 1993) (RF DISTURBANCE
EMISSION)
EMC testing will be extendet to immunity and the way of
certification 
will change as the process of Polish Law approximation to
Eauropean Community one continues. 
For details about ITE testing contact:
Laboratory of Automatic Identification Techniques
fax +48 61 8526376
For other EMC and Safety questions about common products in
Poland contact Polish Centre for Testing and Certification in Warsaw:
Director of the Centre:
tel. +(48-22)-8471071, 8470742, fax -8471222 Director of
Testing Department:
tel. +(48-22)-8471722, fax -8433209
Best regards.
Krzysztof Sieczkarek
Laboratory of Automatic Identification Techniques
Institute of Logistics and Warehousing
Poznan, Poland
fax +48 61 8526376
http://www.ilim.poznan.pl/la/index_E.html
 


Richard Woods

---
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: ITE Laser Markings

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

These are all fine.  However, I could not find a requirement for adding to
neither the label nor "the statement in the information for the user"  for
Class 1 Laser Product the word "Warning, Waarschuwing, etc."   In fact,
"Caution" is recommended for radiation in excess of the AEL for Class 1.
Warning is a very strong safety term and I would not advise to use it unless
it is required.

Best Regards,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent:   Sunday, April 29, 2001 11:56 AM
To: Peter Merguerian
Cc: 'mike harris'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:Re: ITE Laser Markings



<2d1037012914d4118db8204c4f4f502026b...@itlltd01.barakitc.co.il>, Peter
Merguerian  wrote:
>Warning Class 1 laser product.
English
> 
>Waarschuwing   Klasse-1 laser produkt.
Dutch
>
>Varoitus   Luokan 1 lasertuote.
Finnish
>
>Attention   Produit laser de classe 1.
French
>
>Warnung   Laserprodukt der Klasse 1.
German
>
>Avvertenza   Prodotto laser di Classe 1.
Italian
>
>Advarsel   Laserprodukt av klasse 1.
Norwegian
>
>Aviso   Produto laser de classe 1.
Portuguese
>
>Advertencia!   Producto láser Clase I.
Spanish
>
>Varning!   Laserprodukt av klass 1.
Swedish.

I don't see Danish or Greek there. The Danish may be nearly
identical
with the Norwegian or Swedish.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44
(0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not
call a vertically-
applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar
chernozem-penetrating and 
excavating implement a SPADE?

---
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: Job Description

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Doug -

Quoting our new President, you are "misunderestimate" yourself in item 15
particularly. 

Also, I believe it is relevant to quote one of  Scott Adams' refreshing
observations (11/5/00).  
" - Starting today, the Job requires a Ph.D.
-   Whew!  Luckily, I have a Ph.D.
-   You do?  Well, the Job also requires an Olympic Gold Medal."

Best Regards,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@gte.net]
Sent:   Saturday, April 21, 2001 12:17 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Job Description


Oh, something like 

This person SHALL 

1. Address any compliance/agency issues during the 
   entire life cycle of a product starting with 
   product development, maintanence of approvals 
   through product release, and finally with product 
   obsolescence. 

2. This will require someone to be proactive in 
   both design and manfacturing phases of a product. 

3. Perform any prelimenary testing where possible. 

4. Manage product compliance testing with the appropriate 
   test labs and agencies. 

5. Maintain all documents of product approval. 

6. Manage sustaining compliance issues during the life 
   cycle of a product after manufacturing release. 

7. Be involved in the ECR/ECO process where changes 
   could compromise agnecy approvals of products. 

8. Will expected to work either independently or 
   within groups. 

9. Must have a working knowledge of the following: 
   the pertinent standards to which the product is 
   being tested,  EMC to include printed circuit 
   board design techniques, safety issues to include 
   any possible liability issues with said product, 
   any possible National Electrical Codes within 
   said country, bills of materials, ECR/ECO processes 
   used by this or any other company with which this 
   companies does OEM arrangements. 

10. BS expected.  
MS preferrred.  
PE desired. (any state license is sufficient but 
 all of them is desired ...) 

11. Multi-lingual in at least 5 languages. 

12. Be able to correct hardware design in a blink. 

13. Have enough brass to call a "stop ship" at any time. 

13. And then once hired, expect to be generally ignored ... 

14. Must be willing to work lots of overtime without 
being asked. 

15. Pay approx  $35K max ...  

Regards, 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:
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: Compliance Statement per TCAM Recommendation

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

I would like to thank everyone, particularly Richard Woods, who took time to
respond.

Best Regards,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky



-Original Message-
From:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly [SMTP:vgorodet...@canoga.com]
Sent:   Thursday, February 22, 2001 2:27 PM
To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
Subject:Compliance Statement per TCAM Recommendation 


Dear members and colleagues in EU:

As you are aware, TCAM has recently advised to include in user
manuals a conformity statement in the languages of every country of EU/EFTA
targeted for sales (potentially 11 languages).
I would greatly appreciate if you would help by translating the
following statement in those languages.  Everyone here dealing with
Telecommunication Terminal & Network Equipment would greatly benefit from
your contribution.
"Hereby, {name of manufacturer} declares that this {type of
equipment & Model Number} is in compliance with the essential requirements
and other relevant provisions of Directive 99/5/EC.  This product is
intended for use in all EU and EFTA member states".
NOTE:  The German, French, Spanish, and Finnish translations are
already available - courtesy of Richard Wood.  Thanks, Richard.
Best Regards and THANKS in advance,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Sr. Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com <mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com>
<mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com <mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com> >
The suitability of this information for making decision is solely
with the
reader

---
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 <mailto: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
<mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com> 
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
<mailto:pstc_ad...@garretson.org> 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Calibration of test equipment

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Schleppers of the world, unite !

Vitaly  

-Original Message-
From:   Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
Sent:   Monday, February 26, 2001 7:37 AM
To: 'Brian Harlowe'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject:RE: Calibration of test equipment


Brian:

I calibrate my spectrum analyzer after every time I drop it.

Ed 


-Original Message-
From: Brian Harlowe [mailto:brian.harl...@vgscientific.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:54 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: Calibration of test equipment



I seem to have hit a raw nerve by suggesting that emc test equipment
should
be NAMAS calibrated. But surely some cost for calibration should
come into
the equation. Surely no professional test engineer would use test
equipment
that had not been calibrated at least annually!!!

Brian Harlowe
Thermo V.G. Scientific
Tel +44 (0)1342 327211
Fax +44 (0)1342 315074



Ed  Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (Fax)
Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis

---
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: Compliance Statement per TCAM Recommendation

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Correction: the 2nd sentence in the Compliance statement should be
"This product is approved for use
in all members of EU and EFTA".

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com <mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com>  

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly [SMTP:vgorodet...@canoga.com]
Sent:   Thursday, February 22, 2001 2:27 PM
To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
Subject:Compliance Statement per TCAM Recommendation 


Dear members and colleagues in EU:

As you are aware, TCAM has recently advised to include in user
manuals a
conformity statement in the languages of every country of EU/EFTA
targeted
for sales (potentially 11 languages).

I would greatly appreciate if you would help by translating the
following
statement in those languages.  Everyone here dealing with
Telecommunication
Terminal & Network Equipment would greatly benefit from your
contribution.

"Hereby, {name of manufacturer} declares that this {type of
equipment &
Model Number} is in compliance with the essential requirements and
other
relevant provisions of Directive 99/5/EC.  This product is approved
for use
in all EU members of EFTA".

NOTE:  The German, French, Spanish, and Finnish translations are
already
available - courtesy of Richard Wood.  Thanks, Richard.

Best Regards and THANKS in advance,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Sr. Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com <mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com>  

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely
with the
reader


---
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

Compliance Statement per TCAM Recommendation

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Dear members and colleagues in EU:

As you are aware, TCAM has recently advised to include in user manuals a
conformity statement in the languages of every country of EU/EFTA targeted
for sales (potentially 11 languages).

I would greatly appreciate if you would help by translating the following
statement in those languages.  Everyone here dealing with Telecommunication
Terminal & Network Equipment would greatly benefit from your contribution.

"Hereby, {name of manufacturer} declares that this {type of equipment &
Model Number} is in compliance with the essential requirements and other
relevant provisions of Directive 99/5/EC.  This product is approved for use
in all EU members of EFTA".

NOTE:  The German, French, Spanish, and Finnish translations are already
available - courtesy of Richard Wood.  Thanks, Richard.

Best Regards and THANKS in advance,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Sr. Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


---
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: Iceland

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

I realize that my Question has nothing to do with the original inquiry.  

Nevertheless, I am wondering why UL 60950 is referring in its 1.7.12 to any
Language other than English.  An attempt to harmonize does not make UL
standard identical to IEC 60950 - that would be CB scheme with appropriate
language allowance (or, in the case of EN 60950, the Languages of the EU'
members).

Best Regards,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky


The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Gary McInturff [SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent:   Monday, February 05, 2001 8:11 AM
To: 'am...@westin.org'; wo...@sensormatic.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:RE: Iceland


UL60950 in 1.7.12 "Allows" the following.
Instructions and equipment marking related to safety shall
be in a
language which is acceptable in the country in which the equipment
is
installed.
Note 1 - Documentation intended for use only by Service
personnel is
permitted in the English language only.
Note 2 - Germany, safety related information also for
service
personnel has to be in the German language.
So if Iceland accepts the harmonized standards they should accept
just those
two. I didn't say I recommend it, but space becomes an issue after
awhile.

As a minimum I put the stuff in English, French, and German, then as
marketing identifies new countries and translate the manual further
they end
up adding additional translations for the safety markings as well.

Someone earlier asked about finding translators. Generally, speaking
you can
find them at nearby universities. They along with some of the
professional
translations services sometimes have problems translating technical
documents, I assume because of the acronyms and industry-centric
vocabulary.
Gary

-Original Message-
From: am...@westin.org [mailto:am...@westin.org]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:02 AM
To: wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Iceland



Richard,


Is the official language in Iceland "Icelandic"? 

Being a member of the EFTA,I understand that they adopt the EU
Declarations
and 
harmonized standards. .

In cases where a directive or harmonized standard requires
information to be
in the national language, is Icelandic the only acceptable language?
.

I previously understood that Norwegian was accepted, but now I am
not sure.
.

Amund Westin
Oslo, Norway




-- 
Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at
http://Nameplanet.com/?su

---
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: EU/EFTA Members and Languages

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Richard,

What about countries of the former Eastern European Block which have applied
for the EU membership: Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic,
etc.?  Some of them are expected to join the EU this year (I believe).

To my knowledge, they are adopting EU Directives (isn't it one of the
prerequisites for joining the EU?)


Vitaly Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent:   Friday, February 02, 2001 6:40 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:EU/EFTA Members and Languages


Here is information I have found from various sources. Is French the
official language of Luxembourg? Let me know if there are any errors
in this
table. Are there any other countries that are adopting EU
directives?

CodeCountry EU/EFTA Official Languages  

AT  Austria EU  German  
BE  Belgium EU  Dutch, French   
DE  Germany EU  German  
DK  Denmark EU  Danish  
FI  Finland EU  Finnish 
FR  France  EU  French  
GB  United Kingdom  EU  English 
GR  Greece  EU  Greek   
IE  Ireland EU  English 
IS  Iceland EFTAIcelandic   
IT  Italy   EU  Italian 
LI  Liechtenstein   EFTAGerman  
LU  Luxembourg  EU  French? 
NL  Netherlands EU  Dutch   
NO  Norway  EFTANorwegian   
PT  PortugalEU  Portuguese  
SE  Sweden  EU  Swedish 
SE  Switzerland EFTAGerman, French, Italian 
SP  Spain   EU  Spanish 

Richard Woods

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Product Marking

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Joe -

It is the other way around: you can mark your product only if it's NRTL
Listed.  Manufacturers are supposed to obtain Authorization to mark from an
NRTL Lab which performed safety evaluation.   There's no Mutual Agreement
allowing arbitrary mark alternation: you can't use UL mark if, let's say,
you obtained Authorization from ITS (all marks were born equal but some
marks are more equal than others).  Product Listing results in Follow up
Service, it is required for continuous use of the mark. 

Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Joe Finlayson [SMTP:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:45 PM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject:RE: Product Marking



My understanding of the NRTL marking is that if you don't
mark it,
it is not considered Listed.  It doesn't matter if it has been
tested or
not.  I believe the issue is that if the NRTL is performing a
factory audit,
they will only review marked product.  Therefore, if you do not mark
it, you
can not claim NRTL Listing.

-Original Message-
From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject: Product Marking



Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL
and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for
example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with
having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo
such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which
doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and
CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to
have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


---
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: Approvals for Russia

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Ken -

I am afraid, you've been misled: stepping on mother Russia soil for EMC
testing purposes could be avoided.
(Telecom is a different story).
 
Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Matsuda, Ken [SMTP:matsu...@curtisinst.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:43 AM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject:RE: Approvals for Russia


I believe it may require the GOST mark in Russia.  There are
definately
EMI/EMC requirements, and subsequent EMI/EMC testing requirements
(on mother
Russia soil at a Russian lab) after a certain period of time.  


Regards,

Ken


-Original Message-
From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:07 AM
To: emcpost
Subject: Approvals for Russia



Hello Group,

I am interested in knowing if there are any special types of
approvals
required for Russia concerning IT equipment. We typically test our
products
to, and label them with CE, FCC Part 15, UL and where required BABT.
We also
self verify to CTR's 12,13 ad 14 when applicable. Is there anything
else
required.

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


---
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: Approvals for Russia

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Thomas -
 
There are many additional requirements.  First, your product has to be
approved for GOST-R mark; telecom homologation has to be evaluated by a
Russian Telecom Certification Center.  In some cases, additional, what
Russians call "hygienic" (ergonomic), requirements are applicable.  Good
news is that Russia is a member of IEC and that they accept CB scheme
Reports and, in many instances, EMC Reports for CE mark (FCC is not
sufficient).  Also, to my knowledge, they require annual follow-up
inspections.  For details, contact TUV Rheinland, UL, ITS (and few others)
which have been accredited to do Russian ITE certification. 

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Courtland Thomas [SMTP:ctho...@patton.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:07 AM
To: emcpost
Subject:Approvals for Russia


Hello Group,

I am interested in knowing if there are any special types of
approvals
required for Russia concerning IT equipment. We typically test our
products
to, and label them with CE, FCC Part 15, UL and where required BABT.
We also
self verify to CTR's 12,13 ad 14 when applicable. Is there anything
else
required.

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: EMC LAW IN RUSSIA

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Being a member of the IEC, Russia has a very complex EMC standardization
system.  Try BSI Foreign Standards, 389 Chiswick High Rd London W4 4AC,
Fax: 0181 996 7121

Also, if my memory serves me well, contact Milton Keynes of the BSI, Phone:
(0908)220022

Best Regards and a Happy New Year,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
[SMTP:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com]
Sent:   Thursday, December 28, 2000 12:22 PM
To: Henrion; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Re:EMC LAW IN RUSSIA


forwarding for 

Reply Separator
Subject:EMC LAW IN RUSSIA
Author: "Henrion" 
Date:   12/27/00 4:07 PM

Can someone tell me if the equivalent EN standard is mandatory in
Russia :
EN50 130-4
Thanks a lot
Best regards
Marcel Henrion
Stds & Cert. Office
marcelhenr...@henrion.fr
Tel.+33 47887 9748
Fax.   +33 47887 9136
Mobile +33 60795 1996

---
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: EN61000-3-2 A14

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Chris,

If my memory serves me well, EN60555-2 required measurement of THD vs.
complete/individual 40 harmonics' signature with individual limits required
by  -3-2.  This results in the mandatory re-testing.

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Colgan, Chris [SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 19, 2000 1:51 AM
To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject:EN61000-3-2 A14


Sorry for another post about this amendment but

Can anyone confirm that the limits for class A equipment are the
same as
those in EN60555-2 and that the measurement techniques are the same?

That is, if I have equipment (not TV or PC) conforming to EN60555-2
can I
say that it conforms to EN61000-3-2 + A14 without any further
testing?

Have a great holiday

Regards

Chris Colgan
Compliance Engineer
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
*Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627
*Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159
* Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
* http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com



**  
   Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com
**

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, PE29 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)

**  
   Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.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

Shielded Room

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Dear Colleagues,

I have been asked to comment on the scope of use/capabilities of shielded
rooms (2-3m x 2m).  I would appreciate if you would share your opinion on
the usefulness of Radiated Emissions tests, validity of data, effectiveness
of establishing an emissions baseline information of approved products for
future design changes.  Any recommendations for improving the usefulness?
Please do not limit yourself to the above and feel free to expand.

Any comments, advice will be greatly appreciated.
 
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


---
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: Passive fiber optic components

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

The IEC has circulated for comments 86B/1385/FDIS, Fiber Optic
Interconnecting Devices and Passive Components - Basic Test and Measurement
Procedures for Attenuation and 86B/1386/FDIS, Fiber Optic Interconnecting
Devices and Passive Components - Basic Test and Measurement Procedures for
Attenuation and Return Loss.  I believe these documents cover performance
evaluation procedures rather than "components compliance".
 
Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com]
Sent:   Monday, November 27, 2000 1:11 PM
To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
Subject:Passive fiber optic components


All,

I was asked by one of my colleagues here if there are any compliance
requirements for passive fiber optic components such as:
patchcords,
connector adapters ... 

My quick answer was "no";  however, the cautious side of me says
that there
may be some EN standard governing these types of components.

Has anyone seen or heard of standards that regulate passive fiber
optic
components?

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



---
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: FW: Compliance of a USB telephone

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Chris -

The following quote from your message addresses, I believe, the essence of
the debate:
 
So, if we assume that the device already meets ITE standards for EMC
and
Safety?  What more testing would the R&TTE directive require?  I'm
just
wondering if the device would be subjected to the same technical
standards
and tests no matter which compliance path is chosen.

There is a demarcation between Telecommunication Network Equipment and
Telecommunication Terminal (Peripheral) Equipment.  According to this
demarcation, EMC testing should be performed correspondingly per EN 300386-2
or CISPR 22 & 24.  These standards (requirements) are not identical (the
former is a Family Product Standard and the latter are "generic" : some
standards are more equal than others).  The key problem here is to determine
particular applicability of the EMC standards.

Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, November 14, 2000 8:34 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: FW: Compliance of a USB telephone


My company doesn't have any USB products (yet), so I'm just an
innocent
bystander.  But sometimes a bystander can provide a "mediating"
point of
view. (or maybe stir things up a little)

What if I were to play devil's advocate? What if we assume that the
R&TTE
directive did apply?  What if we also assume that the product has
been EMC
tested in accordance with ITE EMC standards and meets EN 60950 for
safety?

What more could the R&TTE directive want?  Since the USB connection
is so
indirect, I can't see where there will be any problems with
isolation from
TNV circuits, or with ringer equivalence ratings, or with power
cross ,
power induction, surge ...  The modem card would take all of this
responsibility.  Actually, in modern times we have to assume that
there is
any electrical connection between the PC and the network.  It's very
possible that this USB device could be connected to a computer with
a
wireless or cellular modem.  

 It doesn't sound like the product is an intentional radiator, so I
can't
see any reason to consider the "radio" portions of the R&TTE
directive.
Even in the cellular case mentioned above.  All of the radio
requirements
would be taken care of by the cellular modem's approval.  

So, if we assume that the device already meets ITE standards for EMC
and
Safety?  What more testing would the R&TTE directive require?  I'm
just
wondering if the device would be subjected to the same technical
standards
and tests no matter which compliance path is chosen.

I'm also wondering how the term "indirectly" is interpreted.  For
instance,
my electric table saw uses the same Earth ground as my phone.  Are
they
indirectly connected?  A computer monitor displays the information
that is
transmitted over the internet to the computer.  Does this mean that
the
monitor is indirectly connected?  It's just as connected as the USB
phone,
isn't it?  What about the computer's speakers that can play sound
bites that
are delivered over the internet?  There has to be a cutoff
somewhere.  I'm
sure that there must be a "guideline" document that defines this
some more.
If there isn't, there should be.

By the way, Gary, what is the UL flame rating of asbestos underwear?
I
think maybe Nomex would be more comfortable :-)

The opinions expressed in this email are the result of my genetic
background
combined with the environment in which I grew up.  My employer (and
my
parents) cannot be held liable.

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: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 8:23 AM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: FW: Compliance of a USB telephone
> 
> 
> Let's think about this logically. I have a PC with a microphone
and
> speakers
> that allows me to speak with persons using the internet. Does that
mean
> that
> my PC, monitor, keyboard, microphone and/or speakers form part of
a
> telecommuncations terminal. I don't think so.  Now I get smart and
replace
> my speaker and microphone with a headset. Has anything changed? I
don't
> think so. Now I decide to change out my headset for a handheld
device that
> inc

RE: FW: Compliance of a USB telephone

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Allan -

Thanks for your efforts in summarizing the discussion.  

Adding to the final segment of your conclusion a term "Peripheral" (applies
to Network equipment not to Terminal/Peripheral equipment) would, I believe,
further clarify the demarcation between applicability of the EN 300 386-2
vs. CISPR 24.   

Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Allan G. Carr [SMTP:e...@agctel.co.uk]
Sent:   Monday, November 13, 2000 7:07 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: H.T. Hildering
Subject:Re: FW: Compliance of a USB telephone


Theo
I thought I should post the consensus of our discussion on the
applicability of the R&TTE Directive for the avoidance of doubt by other
readers of this newsgroup.
The R&TTE applies to TERMINAL equipment - that is equipment
connected on the subscribers side of the NTTP (Network Test and Terminal
Point).  Therefore a modem in a users home is covered by the R&TTE as would
a modem used by a company that does not have a telecommunications operators
licence.
It does not apply to NETWORK equipment - that is equipment on the
network side of the NTTP which is owned by the PTO (licensed Public
Telecommunications Operator).   Therefore an ISP's (Internet Service
Provider's) modem, typically rack mounted and sited in the local exchange,
is Network equipment and is not within the scope of the R&TTE.
This difference may seem academic as there are no Telecommunications
Terminal Equipment specifications designated under the R&TTE Directive and
safety to EN 60 950 applies on both sides of the NTTP but the EMC
specifications are slightly different.
EN 300 386-2 "Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum
Matters (ERM); Telecommunication network equipment; Electro-Magnetic
Compatibility (EMC) requirements; Part 2: Product family standard" applies
to Network equipment but not to Terminal equipment.

Hope this helps

Allan
__

In article mailto:EDFA411E5E4AD2118D6F00A0C99E4BAC01DF752E@FLBOCEXU02> >,
wo...@sensormatic.com   writes
>
>Forwarding a reply
>
>--
>From:  H.T. Hildering [SMTP:h.t.hilder...@ktl.com]
 
> > 
>Sent:  Friday, November 10, 2000 11:49 AM
>To:wo...@sensormatic.com 
 > 
>Subject:   RE: Compliance of a USB telephone
>
>Sorry for my late reply.
>For applying the R&TTE directive, the intended use is the
crux.  I wander or
>it is possible nowadays - if computers are connected to the
internet- , to
>deny that it is not intended for communication using the
internet;   for
>example using Voice over IP!
>I would say that every computer (and connected equipment),
that can
>communicate to the internet is falling under the scope of
the R&TTE.
>Consider for yourself what is stated in the R&TTE
directive:
>"telecommunications terminal equipment" means a product
enabling
>communication or a relevant component thereof which is
intended to be
>connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to
interfaces of
>public telecommunications networks (that is to say,
telecommunications
>networks used wholly or partly for the provision of
publicly available
>telecommunications services);
>Only when it is IMPOSSIBLE to reach a public network, the
R&TTE is not
>applicable.
>The consequence for the USB telephone is that there are no
restrictions on
>the power voltage (as stated in the LVD), so the telephone
must fully comply
>with all the requirements as mentioned in the safety
directive(for example
>acoustical shock)
>
>Best regards,
>Theo Hildering
>KTL
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From:  owner-emc-p...@ieee.org
   >
>[mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

 >
>On Behalf Of
>wo...@sensormatic.com 

RE: ETSI standards vs NEBS

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Dear Ed,

Thanks for your clarification and a copy of revised  "An overview of the
current Approval for the Russian Federation", Issue 2.

Let us not forget that NEBS documents specify set of requirements
(occasionally procedures)and refer to applicable US testing standards not
necessarily harmonized with international standards.

Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Edward Fitzgerald [SMTP:edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com]
Sent:   Friday, September 29, 2000 2:30 AM
    To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly'; 'Dave Wilson'; 'n...@world.std.com';
'emc-p...@ieee.org'; 't...@world.std.com'
Subject:RE: ETSI standards vs NEBS


Dear Dave / Vitaly,

In general terms throughout Europe (West [EU] - Central - East
[incl.
CIS]) the ETS 300 019/119 series tends to take precedence [over
NEBS]
where required by customers (e.g. Network Operators).

There are no regulatory requirements in the EU and strictly speaking
there are only environmental & reliability requirements to be met
for
the Russian Federation's Elektrosviaz (Telecom) Certification.

As US manufacturers tend only to test for NEBS, I have had to use
the
relevant NEBS or HALT test reports to support the TT&C [Technical
Terms
& Conditions] document presented to the State Committee.  In terms
of
test reports demonstrating compliance with Safety and EMC, NEBS
reports
would not be accepted albeit that they are now closely aligned with
International standards.

Best regards,

Edward Fitzgerald
Director
Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
Mobile Tel. : +44 7768 53 31 00 
European Technology Services (EMEA)
Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy
Regional/Associate Offices in Australia, Canada, Russian Federation
and
the UK. 
GLOBAL INtelLIGENCE Site < http://www.ets-tele.com > pssst ...
spread
the word 


-Original Message-
From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:01 AM
To: 'Dave Wilson'; 'n...@world.std.com'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org';
't...@world.std.com'
Subject: RE: ETSI standards vs NEBS



Dave,

I am quite familiar with LONIIS (in St. Petersburg) and I am rather
surprised.  Typically, GOST-R mark would be satisfactory.  LONIIS is
one
of
Russia Telecom Certification Centers.  NEBS has nothing to do with
homologation and LONIIS's scope of evaluation, as I see it.  Did
they
take
NEBS tests results as a substitute for all other relevant safety and
EMC
tests?

Could you elaborate?
Thanks,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely
with
the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Dave Wilson [SMTP:dwil...@alidian.com]
Sent:   Thursday, September 28, 2000 1:45 PM
To: 'n...@world.std.com'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org';
't...@world.std.com'
Subject:ETSI standards vs NEBS

Does anyone have a feel for the degree of acceptance of
GR-63/1089
in
Europe? I can remember at a previous company we got LONIIS
in
Russia
to
accept NEBS test results with minimal additional assessment
against
ETS 300
019/119.

Anyone else have any stories to tell, other than the obvious
spatial
differences?

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks

---
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:
 major

RE: ETSI standards vs NEBS

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Dave,

I am quite familiar with LONIIS (in St. Petersburg) and I am rather
surprised.  Typically, GOST-R mark would be satisfactory.  LONIIS is one of
Russia Telecom Certification Centers.  NEBS has nothing to do with
homologation and LONIIS's scope of evaluation, as I see it.  Did they take
NEBS tests results as a substitute for all other relevant safety and EMC
tests?

Could you elaborate?
Thanks,
Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Dave Wilson [SMTP:dwil...@alidian.com]
Sent:   Thursday, September 28, 2000 1:45 PM
To: 'n...@world.std.com'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org';
't...@world.std.com'
Subject:ETSI standards vs NEBS

Does anyone have a feel for the degree of acceptance of GR-63/1089
in
Europe? I can remember at a previous company we got LONIIS in Russia
to
accept NEBS test results with minimal additional assessment against
ETS 300
019/119.

Anyone else have any stories to tell, other than the obvious spatial
differences?

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks

---
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: RTTE Notification Acknowledgments

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

I am wondering whether members of this group are aware of dramatic
consequences due to unauthorized use of a frequency by a US TV company
during the Olympics Opening Ceremony?
 
Vitaly  Gorodetsky


-Original Message-
From:   wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:56 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: RTTE Notification Acknowledgments


I have read conflicting information in this regard. One camp says
that you
are free to market if there is no response. The other camp says that
you are
free to market but you are still responsible for ensuring that the
equipment
complies with the state's requirements.

At least you are not receiving rejections after 5 months!

Richard Woods

--
From:  Wismer, Sam [SMTP:wisme...@lxe.com]
Sent:  Wednesday, September 27, 2000 8:21 AM
To:  EMC Forum (E-mail)
Subject:  RTTE Notification Acknowledgments


Hi Group,
From http://www.radio.gov.uk/:  
"Article 6.4 of the Radio Equipment and Telecommunications
Terminal
Equipment (R&TTE) Directive 1999/5/EC requires that radio
equipment
using
frequency bands whose use is not harmonised throughout the
Community
shall
be notified to the relevant national spectrum management
authorities
at
least four weeks before it is placed on their market."
Although not specifically stated above or in the Directive,
it is my
understanding that upon acknowledgment of the notification
or after
4 weeks
has elapsed since the notification with no response,
whichever comes
first,
the manufacturer is free to place the product on the market.

If my understanding is correct, why then am I getting these
acknowledgments
5 months after making the notification?



~
Sam Wismer
RF Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654

Visit Our Website at:
http://www.lxe.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

RE: Testing of product per en60825-1

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Bharat,

Also, TUV Rheinland of North America performs evaluation of laser products
per EN60825/IEC825.  

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Dept.Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Kevin Newland [SMTP:kevin_newl...@yahoo.com]
Sent:   Monday, September 25, 2000 1:54 PM
To: bharat_s...@logitech.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:Re: Testing of product per en60825-1


Bharat,

Nemko do this type of test. They have offices
worldwide. 

Thanks
Kevin
--- bharat_s...@logitech.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello,
> Is there any independent laboratory who can conduct
> the test per EN60825-1
> ?
> Thank you,
> Regards,
> Bharat Shah
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.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: Red LED's

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

If my memory serves me well, the relevant color requirements could be found
in the product family standard EN 50130-4 covering EMC (Immunity) of Alarm
Systems. 

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Kazimier Gawrzyjal [SMTP:k...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent:   Friday, September 22, 2000 8:24 AM
To: 'Mark Schmidt'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Red LED's

Hi, 

I'm not familiar with any requirements disallowing the use of red
leds (at least per IEC 60950 and derivatives) but you'll need to ensure the
LEDs (and the application) meet EN 60825 laser class 1 requirements (ref. to
cl. 0.2.6; 4.3.13 and Annex P)..

My opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC. 

Regards, 
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. 
Sr. Product Safety Engineer 
-- 
Sanmina Canada ULC 
Wireless Development Centre 
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758) 
fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758) 
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com 


-Original Message- 
From: Mark Schmidt [ mailto:mschm...@xrite.com
 ] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 7:59 AM 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Subject: Red LED's 



Is the use of Red LED's acceptable for I.T.E. equipment in the EU in

accordance with LVD and EMCD? All comments welcome. 
Thank you. 

Mark Schmidt
X-Rite Incorporated 
U.S.A. 
mschm...@xrite.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: EN 55022 Conducted Emissions

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

For the folks interested in the subject of EMI Emissions Test on Telecom
Ports (according to EN55022:1998/CISPR 22: 1997), I would recommend an
excellent Article by Dr. R. Gubish in the April 2000 issue of the T&M World.

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com   

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader



---
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: Euro English

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Three years old jokes should be dropped from the discussion (and any other)
list of the EMC-PSTC.

Regards,
VG
The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent:   Monday, July 31, 2000 8:23 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Euro English


The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has
been
reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European
communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility.
As
part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that
English
spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year
phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).
In
the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly,
sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c"
will
be replaced with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but
typewriters kan have one less letter.
There will be growing publik emthusiasm in the sekond year, when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will make words like
"fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted
to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.
Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have
always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the
horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they
would
go.  By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing
"th" by z" and "w" by v During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be
dropd from vords kontaining "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be
aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.
After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be
no
mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand
ech
ozer.  Ze dreem vil finali kum tru.



---
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: Re- Implanted IC in brain.- humour for Friday

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Eric,

Quite DEMONic: you are opening a Pandora's box.

-Original Message-
From:   Eric [SMTP:intert...@safety.demon.co.uk]
Sent:   Friday, July 14, 2000 4:21 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Re- Implanted IC in brain.- humour for Friday


Hi folks.

I think I've already met some individuals that have been fitted 
with IC chip implants.

It would certainly explain some of the situations I've come 
across in business meetings.

blank proposals (screens), 
communication impasses (system lockups), 
people talking rubbish (software corruption) 
discussions going down a black hole (power failure)
people falling asleep (brown-outs)
unfulfilled commitments (insufficient memory)
unrepresentative meeting notes (keyboard input error)
people not up to speed (device not plugged in)
people at the wrong meeting (wrong software loaded)
people not understanding (obsolete software )
fingers up noses (looking for the reset button)

Regards  Eric.

*  Your best support in "TESTING" situations   *
*   INTERTest Systems UK   *
* International Product Certification  *
*ONE-STOP-SHOP for ALL testing *
*PO Box 321 - Bucks HP9 1XJ - England  *
*   ++44 (0)1494 673438  Fax 678868*
* INTERTest Systems UK is the trading name of  *
*  the test laboratory of E M Consulting Ltd.  *

---
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: German to English Translation

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

WOW

Horst, I am impressed with your flawless and impeccable translation.  I have
always believed that the expertise of subscribers goes well beyond EMC,
safety and any other relevant interdisciplinary subjects.  

Best Regards 

> -Original Message-
> From: Horst Dierich [SMTP:dier...@ibm.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:02 PM
> To:   wo...@sensormatic.com
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: German to English Translation
> 
> 
> Hi Richard,
> in your case "Becken" is to be translated as "pelvis". See also 'Elvis
> the pelvis' referring to Elvis Presley who was shaking his pelvis in a
> most admirable way.
> 
> 
> > Um die Vergleichbarkeit der Messergebnisse für identische Anlagen zu
> gewähr-
> > leisten, sollten einheitliche Messpunkthöhen über der Standfläche
> > entsprechend
> > den ergonomischen Maßen für Sitz- und Steharbeitsplätze (jeweils Kopf-,
> > Brust-
> > und Beckenhöhe) verwendet werden. Bei Steharbeitsplätzen wird empfohlen,
> in
> > Höhen von ca. 1,90 m, 1,55 m, 1,20 m und 0,90 m und bei
> Sitzarbeitsplätzen
> > von 1,20 m, 0,90 m und 0,45 m über Standfläche zu messen.
> > 
> I would translate your text as follows:
> In order to provide comparable measuring results for identical
> equipments you should utilize the same distance over standing plane for
> the measuring points. The standardized hights for the measuring points
> should be used according to the ergonomic distances for sitting and
> standing workplaces (each head-, breast- and pelvis-hight). For standing
> workplaces it is recommended to measure in altitudes of approx. 1,90 m,
> 1,55 m, 1,20 m and 0,90 m and for workplaces for sitting position in
> altitudes of 1,20 m, 0,90 m, and 0,45 m above standing plane. 
> -- 
> Kind regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen
> 
> Horst Dierich
> 
> ---
> 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: A modest proposal.

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Tanja,

A bit off the subject, but relevant to questions you've raised.  To my
knowledge, there were 60,000 esperantists in the world before the WW2.
20,000 Russian esperantists disappeared in the Soviet Gulag.  Those
idealistic linguists were trying to create a new way of international
communications without dominant single language.  Stalin (you would expect)
was promoting Russian language.   


> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 4:33 PM
> To:   Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Lou Gnecco'
> Subject:  Re: A modest proposal.
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> --
> >From: "Grant, Tania (Tania)" 
> >To: emc-p...@ieee.org, "'Lou Gnecco'" 
> >Subject: RE: A modest proposal.
> >Date: Sun, Mar 26, 2000, 4:32 PM
> >
> 
> >
> > Lou,
> >
> > Esperanto (the language) had international backing.   Where is it now?
> Who
> > is using it?   The trouble with language is that it is a thought process
> and
> > a cultural thing.   Changing a language artificially has not worked in
> the
> > past;-- I doubt that it would work today or in the future.   The EMC
> > community at large has enough peculiar idioms which are understood
> > world-wide.   However, creating something artificially would probably
> > confuse more people.
> >
> > The reason we are using English here is that the IEEE EMC-PSTC
> (EMC-Product
> > Safety Technical Committee) was started here in California, in the good
> old
> > U.S.A.However, if something like this were started in France or
> Germany,
> > you and I would be out of luck!!!   We should be thankful that so many
> > people world-wide share their knowledge with us, even if the English
> grammar
> > is not always perfect.As long as I understand the point they are
> making,
> > I am very very grateful.
> >
> > Danke shoen;  Merci; Aciu Jums; Muchas Gracias;  Spasibo!
> >
> >  (And forgive my spelling/pronunciation"!)
> >
> > Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com 
> > Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group
> >
> >
> > --
> > From:  Lou Gnecco [SMTP:l...@tempest-inc.com]
> > Sent:  Saturday, March 25, 2000 5:15 PM
> > To:  emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:  A modest proposal.
> >
> >
> > Group:
> > Having subscribed to this group for over a year now, I am really
> > impressed by how easily we hold  technical "bull sessions" with emc
> > engineers from all over the world. This is a fabulous service of the
> ieee.
> > There is only one problem with it: ya gotta speak english.
> >
> > If an engineer  can't speak english, he or she is really
> handicapped
> > nowadays. Like it or not, it has become the "de facto" world language.
> > But english is a very hard language to learn. Linguists rank it
> up
> > there among the most difficult in the world. Our spelling is really
> screwy,
> > for one thing.
> > I hate to see some of our overseas clients - smart people and
> good
> > engineers - having to struggle with the inconsistencies of the language.
> > Many of our own college graduates have problems with grammar and
> spelling.
> > As a communications engineer, i can tell you that this is not a good
> > situation.
> >
> > I think we ought to simplify it. If we can virtually eliminate
> the
> > word "he" and erase the suffix "-man" due to political correctness, we
> > certainly can substitute "thru" for "through" and "enof" for "enough"
> and
> > make a few simple changes like that.
> >
> > Maybe there ought to be a new European Standard: a simplified
> > version of English for international use.  Sort of a "CE-Mark" version
> of
> > English to make life a bit it easier for the rest of the world, and to
> > encourage more smart people to participate in valuable forums like this
> one.
> >
> > Comments welcomed.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > LOUIS T. GNECCO M.S.E.E., PRESIDENT
> > TEMPEST INC. 112 ELDEN ST. HERNDON VIRGINIA 20170
> > (703)"TEMPEST" (836-7378)
> > CERTIFIED ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY ENGINEER CERT. # EMC-000544-NE
> > CERTIFIED ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE CONTROL ENGINEER: CERT.# ESD-00143-NE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > 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
> > 

RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Dear Cris,

Sorry, your company seems to have unlimited resourses.  It could have spent
much less by doing diligent search and getting in touch with some U.S.
companies accredited by the Russian GOSSTANDART (in fact, some NRTLs) or
directly working with Russian Cerification Centres.  Those labs' CB reports
and Factory Inspection Reports would be fully acceptable (no reevaluation).

Telecom certification is a different issue.

Best Regards


> -Original Message-
> From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 1:05 PM
> To:   'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
> 'geor...@lexmark.com'
> Subject:  RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
> 
> 
> I started this thread with a question regarding Certifications in Russia.
> 
> 
> Thank you to all those who have replied.
> 
> Let me just summarize what I have learned.  For instance, it appears that
> the NVLAP certification of the test lab that performed our EMC and Safety
> testing probably won't help us.  It would cost us approximately the same
> to
> go through a CB or NRTL to "re-certify".  We are going through with the
> direct "re-certification" through Gosstandart for the eight products in
> question.
> 
> I have had many people recommend to me that I get my products certified by
> a
> CB in the future in order to preclude this cost.  Back when I first
> compliance tested the products, I sent out for competitive quotes.  The
> ones
> that I received back from CB's were $3,000 to $7,000 higher and included
> longer delays.  At the time, our major concern was CE for Europe and
> C-Tick
> for Australia.  Australia has MOU's signed that accept NVLAP and A2LA
> accreditation.  CE marking for Europe allows the manufacturer  to  CE mark
> with a Declaration of Conformity.  Along with this freedom goes the
> responsibility of facing stiff penalties if we make non-compliant product.
> (I am by no means telling people not to use a CB, I am just saying that
> there are monetary, time and quality trade-offs in any purchasing
> decision.)
> 
> So, I went with a lab that was NVLAP accredited.  I didn't pick them soley
> for cost.  I had quotes from some labs that were even lower.The main
> partners in the lab have been involved extensively with contributing to
> and
> writing US and IEC EMC procedures.  I thought that I got the best quality
> of
> data per dollar spent with this lab.   We then documented our test results
> and made our Declarations of Conformity.
> 
> For some time, we were able to sell into Russia with the Declaration of
> Conformity.  Now, we are facing the re-certification effort. 
> 
> Even with the re-certification cost included, we will probably break even
> (cost-wise) by not going to a CB in the first place.   However, there may
> be
> increased hassle.  I believe that we have been caught in a true "pay now"
> or
> "pay later" scenario.  We're just paying later.  
> 
> Now, however, I just have to hope that another country doesn't decide to
> flex its regulatory muscle by enforcing requirements without accepting
> NVLAP
> certification.  Would they accept the data collected by the Gosstandart
> certification?   I just have to hope so.  I have also learned that, even
> if
> I had used a CB in the first place, it may cost me on the order of a
> couple
> thousand dollars to have my CB interact with this new regulatory regime in
> order to get my CB's data accepted.
> 
> After this experience, I really appreciate the efforts of the Australian
> Communications Authority and CENELEC. Using Australia as an example, when
> they instituted the Framework for EMC, they did their homework by having
> MOU's in place BEFORE the implementation date of regulations.  They also
> based their standards on existing IEC standards to minimize re-testing for
> CE marked products.  They then put a "Handbook for Suppliers" on the
> world-wide web.  I was able to download this handbook, follow it and meet
> their requirements.  I felt welcome to bring a quality, well-tested
> product
> to Australia.  
> 
> We are already doing business in Australia. Australian citizens that we
> employ there as our reps and distributors are making a living off of
> selling
> our product.  The Australian communications system is getting the benefit
> of
> being tested by our high quality test equipment.  It's good for us, It's
> good for Australia.   I think its an  example of how the IEC standards can
> be used to improve product quality and safety while allowing the free flow
> of goods.  I hope that other countries follow suit and only implement
> their
> own wrinkles on the regulatory requirements if they can justify it on the
> technical grounds of increasing product quality and/or safety.
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, March 22, 2000 5:26 PM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'geor...@lexmark.com'
> > Subject:   

RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Mike,

2 1/2 years ago I suggested 2 ambient antennae.  I have not heard any
response from CASSPER (they have filed for patent with a single ambient
antenna configuartion).  Further, they have been so evasive in disclosing
the DSP algorithms/function, that I am no longer enthusiastic about this
rather promising technique.

Regards,
VG

> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Murphy [SMTP:mmur...@alesis.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 3:44 PM
> To:   'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
> Subject:  RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS
> 
> 
> Jerry and the group,
> 
> I've had the demo as well (two actually...one at my office and one at an
> OATS). It's an exciting product in theory and in some cases it performs
> amazingly well. In other cases it's very finicky and would require
> multiple
> ambient antennae and/or adjustment of those antennae in order to give the
> receiver the differential it needs to perform the DSP. If the CASSPER
> system
> jumps the one hurdle of excessively strong ambient signals, then it can't
> handle multipath problems at some other frequency (or vice-versa or, once
> again, the possible answer is to tediously finesse the positions of the
> antennae).
> 
> My questions to you and the group are:
> 1. Did the system perform to your satisfaction?
> 2. Were you convinced enough to purchase it?
> 3. Was it worth the asking price?
> 
> Mike Murphy
> Compliance Engineer
> Alesis Studio Electronics
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> 

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

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

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

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

RE: Russian Certification of Products

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Dear Edward,

I concur with your comments regarding central differences between sales and
compliance expertise.  It is clear to me that Russians have learned to speak
with sales people in their own language.  However, I respectfully disagree
with your opening statement.  The better one gets familiarized with the
rooles of the game, the easier to deal with players.  The Russians have not
invented any new wheels, so to say.  In my opinion, their standardization
system and certification procedures are somewhat cloning European,
particularly, German.  Do not forget that they have always participated in
the work of all International Standardization Committees.  It has resulted
in IEC publishing all documents in four languages including Russian.

In fact, many of us here have heard foreign experts' criticism of U.S.
certification processes and interpretation confusion.  Let us be objective.

Again, in my humble opinion, Russians are relatively cooperative (compare
with Korea, Taiwan, and how about Japan where you have to pay annual
$2,500.00 VCCI membership fee to obtain a VCCI certificate).  As always,
dealing with right people is more productive and less painful.  As an
alternative, U.S. companies should diligently look for independent
laboratories here, in the U.S., who have been accredited by GOSSTANDART.
These enterprises have for years participated in the U.S.-Russia Business
Development Committee and, particularly, the U.S.-Russia Standards Working
Group.

Best Regards


> -Original Message-
> From: Edward Fitzgerald [SMTP:edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 3:14 AM
> To:   'Maxwell, Chris'
> Cc:   EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: Russian Certification of Products
> 
> 
> Dear Chris,
> 
> Only one rule is common throughout this region (and you should keep
> reminding yourself of it)...
> ... and it is that there are no rules!
> 
> Well okay, there is a framework of rules and Laws that you must operate
> within, but these are loosely interpreted and the game is how you
> operate within that framework.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to
> paint a negative picture or sell anyone my firm's services - I'm just
> saying it how it is.
> 
> Do not be mistaken that any amount of test data you already hold will
> reduce the certification costs payable to the labs/test centres in
> Russia, this will just make life a little easier for you (well
> relatively) as it is a documentation intensive.
> 
> I must concur with Vitaly's comments and also add that you should not
> let your sales people do the negotiation for you!  They may be shrewd
> when closing deals with customers, but they are negotiating within their
> own field of expertise - approvals and certification is completely
> different.  They may get what they perceive is a good deal, but it'll be
> more than you should be paying.
> 
> Please also note that the contracts will state that the visiting Russian
> Engineers must be paid around 100 USD per day for expenses - in reality
> this is pocket money, as your company will already be paying for
> flights, accommodation, other travel costs, entertainment and
> subsistence in addition to the contract price! So the number of
> engineers and the length of their visit(s) also have the potential of
> the overall costs.
> 
> I've produced an explanatory overview for our clients, let me know if
> you'd like a copy.
> 
> Best regards, Edward
> 
> Edward Fitzgerald
> Director
> Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
> GSM Tel. : +44 7768 53 31 00
> European Technology Services (EMEA)
> Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy
> Regional Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK.
> GLOBAL INtelLIGENCE Site < http://www.ets-tele.com/tics > psst ...
> spread the word !
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:54 PM
> To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
> Subject: Russian Certification of Products
> 
> 
> 
> Our sales people in Russia have started the process of "Certifying" our
> equipment to sell in Russia.  The two agencies that they are working
> with
> are "Gosstandart" and the "Ministry of Communication".  
> 
> According to them, the certification will consist of an inspection of
> all of
> our existing Compliance Documentation including ISO-9000 certification,
> EMC
> Test Data (for the products of interest), Safety Test Data (for the
> products
> of interest), Environmental Test Data including heat, frost, moisture,
> vibration, and blow (what is that?) along with other inspections of our
> calibration equipment and methods.  We are also being asked to pay for a
> trip to the US for 3 people from the Ministry of Communication and
> Gosstandart (6 people total) for 7 days each.  
> 
> The total is a staggering $44,000 (either cash or wire transfer).   Note
> that all of the actions being performed for this are "inspections" of
> existing documentation, not actual testing.   So in the end, th

RE: Russian Certification of Products

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Chris,
I know very little of the category of your product, "light industrial test
and measurement equipment".  But I have been through numerous product GOST-R
certifications.  My clients included Compaq, Applied Materials, HP, etc.  I
am afraid that few things have changed since I got out of this business. 

Your reps in Moscow should have worked with neither GOSSTANDART nor the
Ministry of Communications.  All should be done through Certification
Centers accredited/appointed by GOSSTANDART, National Administration for
Standardization, according to product category (and HB Tariff Code).  The
Telecom certificates can be obtained from Telecom Certification Centers
(about 30 of them) appointed by the Ministry of Communications, GOSSVIAZ.
Selective appointments, again, are based on category of equipment (terminal
or wireless).  For test and measurement equipment, there are metrological
aspects which are, typically, handled by Metrology Centers (such as
Mendeleev Institute in St. Petersburg).

Russians are very smart and shrewd negotiators who have learned capitalistic
principles of making profit, especially, when they realize that customers
are not aware of available options.  Russians are much better familiar with
US certification system than we are familiar with GOST-R or any other
Russian certification procedures.

GOOD LUCK,
Vitaly Gorodetsky

> -Original Message-
> From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:54 PM
> To:   'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
> Subject:  Russian Certification of Products
> 
> 
> Our sales people in Russia have started the process of "Certifying" our
> equipment to sell in Russia.  The two agencies that they are working with
> are "Gosstandart" and the "Ministry of Communication".  
> 
> According to them, the certification will consist of an inspection of all
> of
> our existing Compliance Documentation including ISO-9000 certification,
> EMC
> Test Data (for the products of interest), Safety Test Data (for the
> products
> of interest), Environmental Test Data including heat, frost, moisture,
> vibration, and blow (what is that?) along with other inspections of our
> calibration equipment and methods.  We are also being asked to pay for a
> trip to the US for 3 people from the Ministry of Communication and
> Gosstandart (6 people total) for 7 days each.  
> 
> The total is a staggering $44,000 (either cash or wire transfer).   Note
> that all of the actions being performed for this are "inspections" of
> existing documentation, not actual testing.   So in the end, they will
> decide to certify our products based upon existing documentation,
> testing...
> I have never experienced this before.  It appears to be a great deal of
> expense for not much substance.  Is this typical?  Has anybody else out
> there certified products with these agencies?  
> 
> By the way, we typically classify our product as "light industrial test
> and
> measurement equipment" and already have solid testing and documentation to
> to EN 61326-1 (EMC), EN 61010-1 (Safety) and EN 60825-1 (Laser Safety).
> Does this give us any kind of out?
> 
> 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:
 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: Grunpundt..

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Indeed, You better check with TUV Rheinland:  (800) 283-5411 and,
particularly, Stefan Braun of San Francisco Office of TUV.

The interest still exists, though, limited.  I know of few reputable
companies who are very proud of this TUV mark: Compaq, for instance.  

> -Original Message-
> From: E Eszlari [SMTP:bosesaf...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 6:37 AM
> To:   george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Grunpundt..
> 
> 
> Hi George,
> 
> Many years back TUV Rheinland was involved in the "Green Dot" program. I
> the 
> past few years there has not been too much interest in the program by TUV
> or 
> the public.
> 
> You may want to check with them.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ed
> 
> Edward Eszlari
> Bose Corp.
> 
> >From: George Sparacino 
> >Reply-To: George Sparacino 
> >To: "'emc-pstc'" 
> >Subject: Grunpundt..
> >Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:10:40 -0500
> >
> >Hello All,
> >
> >Is anyone familiar with Germany's "Green Point" marking for recyclable
> >packaging materials?  I need to know if this a (soon to be mandatory)
> >environmental requirement in Germany.  And what is required to obtain the
> >marking ?
> >
> >Also, if anyone knows of a web site, please post the URL.
> >
> >Thank You,
> >George
> 
> __
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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: Technical Construction File

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

I'll  second.

I would only add that it is the Article 10.2 of the EMC Directive which
outlines the applicability of the TCF route.  Also, item 7 of Nicks
otherwise the best clarification so far should include broader scope of
applicability.  For example, if equipment integrates numerous options, TCF
streamlines testing by suggesting reduced number of selected configurations
of EUT.  How about a case when relevant standard exists but it is not useful
due to a) excessive dimensions of a EUT (consider some machinery) or b)
equipment operating conditions cannot be recreated in an EMC test lab, etc.
This dictates testing at a customer site with inevitable deviations from
required setups.

> -Original Message-
> From: John Juhasz [SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 8:46 AM
> To:   'Nick Williams'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Technical Construction File
> 
> Bravo to Nick for a clear & concise clarification . . . 
> 
> John Juhasz 
> Fiber Options 
> Bohemia, NY 
> 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Nick Williams [ ] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 6:58 AM 
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
> Subject: Re: Technical Construction File 
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be come confusion on the matter of technical files and 
> technical construction files, and referring to the text of the CE 
> mark directives, it's not difficult to see why since there is no 
> consistency in the way in which the terms are used. My understanding 
> is as follows. 
> 
> 1.With the exception of the EMC Directive, all CE mark directives 
> require the Responsible Person to compile a file of documentation 
> which demonstrates how the manufacturer justifies their claim of 
> compliance with the requirements of the relevant directive. 
> 
> 2. This collection of documentation is known variously as a Technical 
> File or a Technical Construction File. Except in the EMC Directive, 
> these terms seem to be used interchangeably to mean the same thing. 
> 
> 3. There is no provision in any directive to require that the 
> information relevant to compliance with one directive need be kept 
> separate from that for any other and therefore in most cases a 
> combined technical file which covers compliance with all directives 
> (and lots of other information) makes sense from an organisational 
> point of view. 
> 
> 4. Under the EMC Directive, a manufacturer has three options for 
> compliance. These are the Standards route, the Technical Construction 
> File route and the Type Approval route. 
> 
> 5. Under the Standards route, the manufacturer simply claims 
> compliance with the requirements of the relevant harmonised 
> standards, and thus with the requirements of the directives. While he 
> would, in most cases, be foolish to do this without having some 
> documentary evidence that tests have been completed and passed, this 
> is not mandated under the Directive. 
> 
> 6. Under the Type Approval route, the manufacturer gives the product 
> to a suitably qualified test house who test it and issue a 
> certificate of compliance. This method of complying with the 
> directive is primarily intended for communications (transmitting) 
> apparatus and therefore the new R&TTE Directive will have a major 
> bearing on much equipment which has formerly followed this route. 
> 
> 7. The Technical Construction File (TCF) route to compliance with the 
> EMC Directive is intended for use in those situations where the other 
> two routes do not apply. This will be either because the apparatus is 
> not transmitting apparatus, or because there are no appropriate 
> harmonised standards. 
> 
> 8. Under the TCF route, the manufacturer creates a justification for 
> a claim of compliance with the requirements of the EMC Directive 
> based on such factors as the location and use of the equipment, the 
> results of any tests which have been done and the requirements of any 
> standards which are relevant, if only in part. 
> 
> 9. The key point about the EMC directive's TCF is that for it to be 
> used as the basis of CE marking a product, the file must be submitted 
> to a Competent Body (a term defined in the directive and distinct 
> from a Notified Body) who must examine it and agree to the logic used 
> to justify the claim of compliance. Thus, the TCF route to complying 
> with the EMC directive is NOT a self-certification process. 
> 
> 10. To cloud the matter even further, there is a (complicated) 
> provision within the Machinery Directive which allows for a 
> manufacturer to involve a notified body in the creation and storage 
> of the Technical File for certain machinery. This really only has 
> relevance in the context of annex IV machines which require type 
> approval (etc.). I don't know of any situation where such a provision 
> has been applied, and it's a mystery to me and to several other 
> people I have spoken to about this subject as to quite wha

RE: Chamber and OATS Correlation

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Don,

I would not use 1dB as the correction factor.  You have not collected
sufficient statistics to consider this 1dB as "systematic error", it is
rather within the accuracy of your measurements.

> -Original Message-
> From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 12:19 PM
> To:   umbdenst...@sensormatic.com; barry...@altavista.com
> Cc:   mmate...@foxboro.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Chamber and OATS Correlation
> 
> 
> I see I omitted an important phrase in my previous response -- EUT
> emission.
> 
> 
>  I tested a small EUT in the chamber and found the correlation to be off
> by
> as much as 7 dB when measured again at the OATS.  When I compared the
> REFRAD
> data of the OATS to the REFRAD data of the chamber, I found a 6 dB
> variation
> at the same frequencies where the EUT emissions were off by 7 dB.  Thus if
> one were to compare the emissions of the EUT to the correction factor of
> the
> REFRAD, there would be a 1 dB variation. 
> 
> Of course this is a small EUT with 4 cables.  As the evaluation has just
> begun, I can only assume that the correlation will fall off as the size
> and
> complexity of the EUT increases.
> 
> Don
> 
> > --
> > From:   Barry Ma[SMTP:barry...@altavista.com]
> > Reply To:   Barry Ma
> > Sent:   Wednesday, January 12, 2000 1:00 PM
> > To: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com
> > Cc: mmate...@foxboro.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject:RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation
> > 
> > 
> > Is it possible that the correction factors you got from RefRad* cannot
> > give the same good results when measuring real EUT? In other words,
> > different EUT would probably need different correction factors. I'm just
> > curious. 
> > 
> > *RefRad is a comb generator produced by EMCo - a part of ETS now.
> > 
> > Barry Ma 
> > ---
> > On Wed, 12 January 2000, umbdenst...@sensormatic.com wrote:
> > 
> > Barry,
> >  
> > Thank you for your comment.  What we are trying to do is establish
> better
> > correlation between the chamber and OATS so we minimize our time in the
> > heat, humidity, rain and bugs (South Florida) at the OATS.  We are not
> > trying to replace the OATS with the chamber.  
> >  
> > We have recently been evaluating a REFRAD for correlation purposes.  So
> > far  the results with the REFRAD factors have been very good.  The
> > emission in  the chamber was 7 dB off from the OATS value, but this
> > correlated to within  1 dB of what was predicted by the REFRAD.  I admit
> > our sample universe is  small at this time with only a handful of
> > emissions to compare to.  But  these first results are promising.
> >  
> > Don Umbdenstock
> > Sensormatic
> >  
> >  --
> >  From: Barry Ma[SMTP:barry...@altavista.com]
> >  Reply To: Barry Ma
> >  Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:55 PM
> >  To: mmate...@foxboro.com
> >  Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> >  Subject: RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation
> >  
> >  
> >  Mirko,
> >  
> >  I happen to have a copy of CISPR 16-1 at hand. Clause 16.6 "Open area
> > site  validation procedure" reads:
> > 
> > ... The deviation between a measured NSA value and the theoretical value
> > shall not be used as a correction for a measured EUT field strength.
> This
> > procedure shall be used only for validating a test site. ...
> >  
> >  The above statement is not followed by any explanation. What do you
> think
> > the reason is? My guess is that there are lot of factors causing
> > inaccurate E-field measurement. The collective result of those factors
> > cannot be simply corrected by changing antenna factors. 
> >  
> >  At the end of your message, however, you stressed on "for a specific
> test
> > setup". May we try this "illegal" correction procedure with caution only
> > "for a specific test setup" and for a specific frequency range?
> Hopefully
> > it might be worthwhile to try.
> >  
> >  Barry Ma
> >  Anritsu Company
> >  Morgan Hill, CA
> >  ---
> >  On Tue, 11 January 2000, "Matejic, Mirko" wrote:
> >  
> >  Richard,
> >   
> >  You could improve correlation by adjusting chamber antenna factors for
> a
> > correlation differences which you can get from NSA measurements one at
> > OATS the other in the chamber with a fixed antenna height. You could
> also
> > determine correlation differences by comparing measured field strength
> > levels from battery powered comb generator. 
> >   
> >  Fixed vs. 1-4m antenna height among other factors will always create
> > unpredictable correlation for a specific test setup. 
> >   
> >  Mirko Matejic
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > __
> > 
> > Free Internet Access from AltaVista: Get it, share it & win! 
> > http://freeaccess.altavista.com/pika/www/initweb.jsp
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to 

RE: TCF & DOC

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

How about further simplification by referring to 89/336/EEC, Article 10.2 in
the "Application of Council Directives" section.  It is not required to
refer to a Competent Body but you still have to list all relevant "Standards
to which conformity is declared" for Safety and Telecom, if applicable.  It
is appropriate to refer to the TCF Number and date under EMC in this
Section.

Best Regards,
Vitaly Gorodetsky 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Hulbert [SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 7:22 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: TCF & DOC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DOC should include "reference to the standards" used to determine
> compliance.   However, a TCF by definition means you are not declaring
> compliance via the standards route.  Rather,  compliance is declared after
> assembling a technical construction file and having it assessed by a
> competent
> body.   What we do in that case on the DOC is reference the TCF title and
> number
> along with the name and address of the competent body that assessed the
> TCF.
> 
> Jim Hulbert
> Senior Engineer - EMC
> Pitney Bowes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wo...@sensormatic.com on 12/20/99 08:21:33 AM
> 
> Please respond to wo...@sensormatic.com
> 
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> cc:(bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI)
> 
> Subject:  TCF & DOC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On all of our previous DoCs, we have declared compliance using harmonized
> standards. However, we now have a set of products where some harmonized
> standards exist and some do not. Therefore, we will use a Technical
> Construction File is used to support compliance with the particular
> essential requirements not covered by harmonized standards. What
> additional
> statements and information should appear on the DoC to support compliance
> by
> the TCF route for only some of the essential requirements?
> 
> Richard Woods
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

WOW
If one could interpolate this for 10mm.
What was the old European limit for field strength?

> -Original Message-
> From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:33 PM
> To:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
> 
> 
> Ralph:
> 
> A few months ago, I did an RF ambient survey on the San Francisco BART
> stations. I found that the strongest fields (between 300 KHz and 18 GHz)
> inside a typical station came from cell phones, PCS phones and public
> service transceivers carried by system personnel and the public. At a two
> meter distance, these sources create a 5 to 10 V/M field strength.
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-
> )
> Ed Price
> ed.pr...@cubic.com
> Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
> Cubic Defense Systems
> San Diego, CA.  USA
> 619-505-2780 (Voice)
> 619-505-1502 (Fax)
> Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
> Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
> :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-
> )
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Ralph Cameron [SMTP:ral...@igs.net]
> > Sent:   Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:04 PM
> > To: Edward Fitzgerald; 'Robert Macy'
> > Cc: mkel...@es.com; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> > Subject:Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
> > 
> > 
> > Edward:
> > 
> > There was a medical assessment donw in a paper entitled," Mdeical
> > Equipment
> > Interference: "Risk and Minimization", by Bernard Segal.   This was
> > published in Scientific Progress, under Wireless Phones and Health,
> pages
> > 283-295, (Kluwer Academic Publishers , Boston)
> > 
> > What the article does is make the very studies of internal reflections
> in
> > the hospital environment .e.g  hallways with and without obstructions
> and
> > certain types of material walls and inside rooms to show where the
> > radiation
> > from cell phones is concentrated.   From this, planning for isolating
> > certain hospital areas has been designed so tht cell phone radiation
> > minimizes the impact on radiosensitive equipment.
> > 
> > In my view, at no time has there been a consideration that designers of
> > sensitive equipment play a role in the issue. What is perceived as
> > "interference" could eaually be argued that it is lack of immunity.
> From
> > studies done in Canada in 1983, the ambient radiation in large cities
> such
> > as Toronto and  Montreal was deemed to be about 1v/m.  Some hospital
> > equipment malfunctioned when exposed to one tenth of that amount.
> > 
> > The other concept that seems to prevail is that  that only certain
> popular
> > communication bands such as CB ( 27Mhz), public service (  150- 170Mhz )
> > and
> > 450-470Mhz) could cause disturbance to such devices.  In fact, reference
> > to
> > allocation charts will show many "interfering" sources so that in
> > designing
> > for freedom from such undersireable effects a swept frequncy approach
> will
> > uncover anomalies that can and do occur. Such effects become more
> > pronounced
> > as  the physical device size or elements approach resonance in any given
> > frequncy range.
> > 
> > The point I'm trying to make is safety can be compromised unless both
> the
> > emitter and receiving device are designed with this in mind.   This is
> an
> > opinion based on suppressing many devices after they have entered the
> > market.  Current devices bearing the CE mark have almost total immunity
> to
> > current users of the spectrum.
> > 
> > Ralph Cameron
> > EMC Consultatnt and Suppression of Consumer elelctronic equipment
> > (After Sale)
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Edward Fitzgerald 
> > To: 'Robert Macy' 
> > Cc: ; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) 
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:49 AM
> > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Back in 1991/2 I worked with a design engineer in the UK who had
> > > developed (privately) a test meter for measuring the EM fields in open
> > > environment.
> > > One of his studies was the variations and concentrations of EM fields
> > > within buildings. I don't have any of the papers or results he
> prepared,
> > > but I do recall that a sweep of our office unit (which included
> > > manufacturing, test lab, R&D, purchasing and stores) one evening
> showed
> > > a high EMF concentration level in one stairway linking R&D and the
> > > manufacturing floor.  There were hiVoltage power lines within 500
> > > meters, but we could only conclude that the modern reinforced concrete
> > > construction had some effect on the concentration levels.
> > > Digital mobile phones were not around at that time and there wasn't a
> > > particularly high density of analogue cellphones in use within the
> > > building.
> > >
> > > On another point, a recent UK press article has been claiming that the
> > > use of headsets/ear-pieces typically connected to mobile phones via
> > > 2.5mm jack are even worse than using the m

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Hello Frank,
Remains to be seen whether c-NRTL/  marks (I have seen them in marketing
literature) are acceptable vis a vis c-UL and c-ETL.
Best Regards   

> -Original Message-
> From: Frank West [SMTP:fwest_ieeep...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 9:12 PM
> To:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly; 'geor...@lexmark.com';
> emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> Hi Vitaly!
> 
> Again, to clarify, no one except CSA can issue a CSA
> mark.  The CSA mark is the copyrighted property of CSA
> that CSA allows a manufacturer to affix to declare the
> product has been certified by CSA.  The CSA mark is
> one example of an authorized CO mark for Canada.
> 
> UL also has an authorized CO mark for Canada.  The
> UL-c mark is the copyrighted mark owned by UL that
> they allow a manufacturer to affix to declare the
> product has been certified by UL.  The UL-c mark is
> another example of an authorized CO mark for Canada.
> 
> TUV Rheinland is in the process of being approved to
> issue CO marks for Canada.  Our intended copyrighted
> mark will be our normal NRTL mark with a small -c
> affixed, vis a vis the UL mark.
> 
> There are no rules whatsoever (that I know of)
> dictating what the marks look like.  Each lab as part
> of their approval process to become a CO submits and
> has copyrighted an exclusive mark.  The labs choose
> the mark design for the usual purposes--marketing and
> brand recognition!
> 
> UL established a precedent with the UL-us and UL-c
> marks, and I would expect many new CO submittals (such
> as ours) to copy that method as UL has made it
> recognized by many manufacturers.
> 
> Hope the above was not to wordy, and was helpfull.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Frank West
> Sr. Engineer
> TUV Rheinland NA
> 
> --- "Gorodetsky, Vitaly" 
> wrote:
> > 
> > George,
> > 
> > You would further clear "confusion" if you would
> > comment on the following.
> > Let's say, TUVR and  MET are both NRTLs.  On the
> > other hand, they are
> > recognized COs (for TUVR status, see ITEM UPDATE
> > 1999, p.9).  They both
> > offer their own NRTL/  marks for ITE compliance with
> > UL1950.  My
> > understanding is that they are authorized to issue
> > CSA marks (vs. c-UL) as
> > no mark such as c-NRTL/TUVR or /MET exists. 
> > 
> > What's the meaning of a "US" subscript if, as we all
> > know, NRTL mark
> > demonstrates compliance with US standards only? 
> > I've seen NRTL mark with an
> > identifier for specific Lab name: MET, TUVR, etc.
> >  
> > Thanks again
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: geor...@lexmark.com
> > [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:22 AM
> > > To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Vitaly,
> > > 
> > > Allow me to try and clear some confusion over
> > NRTLs and marks.
> > > NRTL is not a mark.  An NRTL is an OSHA Nationally
> > Recognized
> > > Testing Laboratory accredited to evaluate products
> > to specific
> > > standards for the U.S.
> > > 
> > > Each NRTL can authorize the use of its own mark
> > for use on U.S.
> > > products, e.g. UL, CSA, MET, ITS, TUVR, and SGS. 
> > At one time,
> > > some chose to add the subscript "NRTL" beside
> > their mark.  Now
> > > it is more common to use a subscript "US"
> > indicating testing to
> > > U.S. standards.
> > > 
> > > The term NRTL has no meaning for Canadian
> > compliance.  Canada
> > > uses the term "Certification Organizations" (COs)
> > for those
> > > test houses accredited by the Standards Council of
> > Canada (SCC)
> > > for test houses that can assess products to
> > Canadian standards.
> > > 
> > > Examples:
> > > 
> > > UL can authorize use of the UL (U.S.) and c-UL
> > (Canada) marks
> > > by virtue of their SCC accredited CO status.
> > > 
> > > CSA can authorize use of the CSA (Canada) and
> > CSA/US (U.S.)
> > > marks by virtue of their OSHA NRTL status.
> > > 
> > > There is no literal "NRTL" or "c-NRTL" mark issued
> > by CSA or
> > > any other agency.  The agency marks of all NRTLs
> > could be called
> > > NRTL marks when used for U.S. products, but none
> > must use "NRTL&

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

George,

You would further clear "confusion" if you would comment on the following.
Let's say, TUVR and  MET are both NRTLs.  On the other hand, they are
recognized COs (for TUVR status, see ITEM UPDATE 1999, p.9).  They both
offer their own NRTL/  marks for ITE compliance with UL1950.  My
understanding is that they are authorized to issue CSA marks (vs. c-UL) as
no mark such as c-NRTL/TUVR or /MET exists. 

What's the meaning of a "US" subscript if, as we all know, NRTL mark
demonstrates compliance with US standards only?  I've seen NRTL mark with an
identifier for specific Lab name: MET, TUVR, etc.
 
Thanks again

> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:22 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> Vitaly,
> 
> Allow me to try and clear some confusion over NRTLs and marks.
> NRTL is not a mark.  An NRTL is an OSHA Nationally Recognized
> Testing Laboratory accredited to evaluate products to specific
> standards for the U.S.
> 
> Each NRTL can authorize the use of its own mark for use on U.S.
> products, e.g. UL, CSA, MET, ITS, TUVR, and SGS.  At one time,
> some chose to add the subscript "NRTL" beside their mark.  Now
> it is more common to use a subscript "US" indicating testing to
> U.S. standards.
> 
> The term NRTL has no meaning for Canadian compliance.  Canada
> uses the term "Certification Organizations" (COs) for those
> test houses accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC)
> for test houses that can assess products to Canadian standards.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> UL can authorize use of the UL (U.S.) and c-UL (Canada) marks
> by virtue of their SCC accredited CO status.
> 
> CSA can authorize use of the CSA (Canada) and CSA/US (U.S.)
> marks by virtue of their OSHA NRTL status.
> 
> There is no literal "NRTL" or "c-NRTL" mark issued by CSA or
> any other agency.  The agency marks of all NRTLs could be called
> NRTL marks when used for U.S. products, but none must use "NRTL"
> as part of the mark.
> 
> I hope this does not further confuse the issue!
> 
> George Alspaugh
> 
> -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> 11/23/99
> 02:03 PM ---
> 
> vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/23/99 12:44:02 PM
> 
> To:   grdulmage%sympatico...@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK,
>   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
>   Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> 
> Graham,
> 
> In the second paragraph, I said "CSA is recognized NRTL".  Thus, CSA can
> issue both NRTL and c-NRTL marks (as well as UL and c-UL marks as far as I
> know).  I would appreciate if you would mail me information on these two
> NRTL marks.
> 
> My mailing address is:  20600 Prairie Street   Chatsworth, CA 91311
> 
> Best Regards,
> Vitaly Gorodetsky
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Graham,

In the second paragraph, I said "CSA is recognized NRTL".  Thus, CSA can
issue both NRTL and c-NRTL marks (as well as UL and c-UL marks as far as I
know).  I would appreciate if you would mail me information on these two
NRTL marks.  

My mailing address is:  20600 Prairie Street   Chatsworth, CA 91311
 
Best Regards,
Vitaly Gorodetsky

> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Rae Dulmage [SMTP:grdulm...@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 7:06 PM
> To:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly
> Cc:   'geor...@lexmark.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: NRTL acceptance
> 
> Vitaly, your comment regarding CSA is incorrect. CSA is an NRTL just like
> the
> others. CSA has a mark for NRTL approval.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> G. Rae Dulmage
> 
> "Gorodetsky, Vitaly" wrote:
> 
> > George,
> > You have overlooked MET, NTS, WYLE, SWRI and others.  For a complete
> list
> > and the scope of recognition, go to the OSHA website.
> > Though, CSA is recognized NRTL, I am afraid, that the issuance of the
> NRTL
> > mark does not necessarily mean that CSA mark can be automatically
> affixed to
> > a product.  There should be Mutual Recognition Agreement between a
> > particular NRTL and the CSA.  Is it correct?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:11 AM
> > > To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, the following NRTLs are approved by OSHA for evaluation
> > > to UL 1950:
> > >
> > > UL, CSA, ITS (former ETL), TUV Rheinland, MET, and SGS.
> > >
> > > There may be some I have overlooked.
> > >
> > > George Alspaugh
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> > > 11/22/99
> > > 08:09 AM ---
> > >
> > > vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 04:57:29 PM
> > >
> > > Please respond to vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com
> > >
> > > To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK,
> > >   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> > > cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> > > Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Terry and George,
> > >
> > > In this country of ours, there are three equally acceptable safety
> marks:
> > > UL, ETL and NRTL.  But, as we all know, some acceptable marks are more
> > > equal
> > > than others.
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From:   geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > > > Sent:   Friday, November 19, 1999 11:02 AM
> > > > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > > Subject: NRTL acceptance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Terry,
> > > >
> > > > You have raised a very good question.  The problem is that the U.S.
> > > > had only one approved safety agency  for so long, that it is
> > > > difficult to wean non-laymen away from that one agency mark.  This
> > > > includes your (and my) management, marketing, customers, etc.  Few
> > > > of these understand the meaning of NRTL, with its variety of agency
> > > > approvals and marks.
> > > >
> > > > I did fight this battle over an off-the-shelf peripheral we needed
> > > > to market which did not have the "traditional" safety mark, but an
> > > > acceptable NRTL mark.  One of the positions I to confront was that
> > > > many Federal, state, or local "government" bids require "the" mark.
> > > >
> > > > I referenced the Code of Federal Regulations, OSHA sections, citing
> > > > acceptable U.S. authorized NRTLs.  I pointed out that compliance to
> > > > UL 1950 was the needed requirement, not which agency did the actual
> > > > assessment.  One problem is that those who write the specifications
> > > > for government bids are not aware of this fact, and do continue to
> > > > list only one agency mark into the document.  In a way, this is
> > > > probably a violation of federal law, i.e. requiring vendors to do
> > > > "business" with a specified private company, thus stifling any
> > > > competition.  Isn't this what

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

George,
Do I have to feel sorry about opening this Pandora's Box (I seem to
originate this turn in discussion)?  I meant to make innocuous remark
(referring to Orwell).  Everyone benefits from clarification.

c-ETL is perfectly OK.  As to NRTL mark(s), I know of recent agreement
between TUV Rheinland and CSA but have not seen the c-version of the mark
yet.  Hope someone from CSA would clarify for all of us who is recognized CO
and who is not.

Best Regards

> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 5:02 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> S. William,
> 
> Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs.  Apparantly UL is one or
> more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada.
> 
> Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian
> mark?  Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA?
> 
> George
> 
> -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> 11/23/99
> 07:57 AM ---
> 
> swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM
> 
> To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
> cc:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
>   Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> 
> George, Canada is not as straight forward as that. There is not a mutual
> agreement. In order for a lab to issue a Canadian Approval Mark, the lab
> must be accredited as a CO(Certifying Organization) by the SCC(Standards
> Council of Canada). The CO must use data that has come from a TO(Testing
> Organization) that is also accredited by the SCC. Most labs that issue
> their Canada Mark are both a CO and TO so it is very easy for them. The
> critical item is that the product has to have been tested against the
> relevant Canadian National Standard(very easy for ITE as 1950 is a joint
> standard).
> If you want to do everything by the book, your US Mark should be from an
> NRTL certified by OSHA to the standards that apply to your product and the
> Canadian Mark must be from a CO accredited by the SCC.
> 
> 
> Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com
> 
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC)
> From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/22/99 03:42 PM
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> I tried to recall NRTLs that were approved for asessments of ITE to
> UL1950.  I did not overlook MET (listed in my note), but may have
> missed NTS which may fit this description.  I'm not sure the others
> are sanctioned for listing of ITE under UL1950.
> 
> There are many NTRLs, including UL.  There is no "NRTL" mark, as all
> NRTLs are legally equal.  The mark of some NRTLs has included the
> letters "NRTL" as part of their mark, apparantly by choice.  The
> CSA/NRTL mark is an example.  To my knowledge, the use of "NRTL" in
> an agency's mark is not mandatory.  CSA has recently changed their
> mark to drop the "NRTL" and simply show the CSA mark with "US"
> subscript for assessment to the U.S. stadnard.
> 
> However, Canada does not recognize the U.S. NRTLs to assess an ITE
> product to the Canadian standard.  There is a mutual agreement between
> Canada and the U.S. that "allows" a UL assessment to the Canadian ITE
> safety standard.  This results in the UL mark with a subscript "C",
> often called the "c-UL" mark.  It is my understanding that when the
> Canadian government bids out ITE for its own use, they tend to prefer
> the CSA mark over the c-UL mark.  This seems to violate the "spirit"
> of the agreement, but who can force them to do otherwise?
> 
> George Alspaugh
> 
> (Some or all of the above may reveal ignorance on my part, which can
> be "cured" by more enlightened appends to follow.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

George,
You have overlooked MET, NTS, WYLE, SWRI and others.  For a complete list
and the scope of recognition, go to the OSHA website.
Though, CSA is recognized NRTL, I am afraid, that the issuance of the NRTL
mark does not necessarily mean that CSA mark can be automatically affixed to
a product.  There should be Mutual Recognition Agreement between a
particular NRTL and the CSA.  Is it correct?

Regards 

> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:11 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> Actually, the following NRTLs are approved by OSHA for evaluation
> to UL 1950:
> 
> UL, CSA, ITS (former ETL), TUV Rheinland, MET, and SGS.
> 
> There may be some I have overlooked.
> 
> George Alspaugh
> 
> -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> 11/22/99
> 08:09 AM ---
> 
> vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 04:57:29 PM
> 
> Please respond to vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com
> 
> To:   George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK,
>   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  RE: NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry and George,
> 
> In this country of ours, there are three equally acceptable safety marks:
> UL, ETL and NRTL.  But, as we all know, some acceptable marks are more
> equal
> than others.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > Sent:   Friday, November 19, 1999 11:02 AM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: NRTL acceptance
> >
> >
> > Terry,
> >
> > You have raised a very good question.  The problem is that the U.S.
> > had only one approved safety agency  for so long, that it is
> > difficult to wean non-laymen away from that one agency mark.  This
> > includes your (and my) management, marketing, customers, etc.  Few
> > of these understand the meaning of NRTL, with its variety of agency
> > approvals and marks.
> >
> > I did fight this battle over an off-the-shelf peripheral we needed
> > to market which did not have the "traditional" safety mark, but an
> > acceptable NRTL mark.  One of the positions I to confront was that
> > many Federal, state, or local "government" bids require "the" mark.
> >
> > I referenced the Code of Federal Regulations, OSHA sections, citing
> > acceptable U.S. authorized NRTLs.  I pointed out that compliance to
> > UL 1950 was the needed requirement, not which agency did the actual
> > assessment.  One problem is that those who write the specifications
> > for government bids are not aware of this fact, and do continue to
> > list only one agency mark into the document.  In a way, this is
> > probably a violation of federal law, i.e. requiring vendors to do
> > "business" with a specified private company, thus stifling any
> > competition.  Isn't this what the goverment is accusing Microsoft
> > of doing?
> >
> > You are exactly right.  As PSE professionals, we should be able to
> > look for and use whatever options are legally available to meet our
> > employer's certification needs in the most timely and cost effective
> > manner.  Unfortunately, in the U.S. this requires a significant
> > amount of internal and external education as to the actual legal
> > options.
> >
> > George Alspaugh
> > Lexmark International Inc.
> >
> > -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> > 11/19/99
> > 01:41 PM ---
> >
> > tjmeck%accusort@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 12:25:38 PM
> >
> > Please respond to tjmeck%accusort@interlock.lexmark.com
> >
> > To:   emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> > cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> > Subject:  NRTL acceptance
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > We have been using an old reliable but very busy Safety agency to
> > review our products and apply their safety mark.
> >
> > From time to time we are approached by their competitors, NRTLs, or
> > European soon to be NRTL labs for our business.
> >
> > My question is in this `NRTL enlightened market are there still
> > inspectors out there that will still require education about the NRTL
> > status and the acceptability of an NRTL lab Listing vs the old familiar
> > ones?
> >
> > As you all know time to market is critical and 3 to 6 months is too
> > long to wait.  We will need to look for other solutions and I am trying
> > to review the whole range of issues involved in changing the primary
> > NRTL.
> >
> > I hope this is not too commercial a question!  If you feel it is please
> > reply to me directly.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Terry J. Meck
> > Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
> > Phone:215-721-5280
> > Fax:215-721-5551 hard copy;
> > Fax PC: 215.799.1650 To my desk PC
> > tjm...@accusort.com
> > Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
> > 511 School House Rd.
> > Telford, PA 18969-11

RE: UL and CE Mark Acceptance/HUNGARY

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

I have recently learned that the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania would also accept CE mark.

Regards

> -Original Message-
> From: Edward Fitzgerald [SMTP:edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 7:58 AM
> To:   PRYOR MCGINNIS; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: UL and CE Mark Acceptance/HUNGARY
> 
> 
> Dear Pryor,
> 
> Just doing some email house keeping and thought I had added to this
> thread already... But you could officially add HUNGARY to your CE mark
> list.
> 
> Hungary has a legal requirement (Decree 79/1997. (XII.31.) IKIM) for all
> electrical/ electronic apparatus to apply the CE label.  A
> Manufacturer's DofC for Safety must be generated and must state the
> Hungarian national standards equivalent to the CENELEC EN's (e.g. MSZ EN
> 60 950-92 = EN 60 950)
> 
> Best regards, Edward
> Edward Fitzgerald 
> Director
> Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
> GSM Tel. : +44 4685 33 100
> 
> European Technology Services (EMEA)
> Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy
> Regional Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK.
> 
> Global Telecom / Radio Intelligence Site 
> psst... spread the word !
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Corinne SALINGRE [mailto:corinne.salin...@cstelecom.com]
> Sent: 27 September 1999 07:38
> To: PRYOR MCGINNIS; 'EMC-PSTC - forum'
> Subject: Re: UL and CE Mark Acceptance
> 
> CE marking : officially (= legally) no country outside EU will accept CE
> marking. But my daily practice have shown that in many countries, having
> safety, EMC and interfaces tested according CE scheme will greatly help.
> It means (unfortunately) that you will have to pay for an accredited lab
> to do the job but it can be done through paperwork only if you can
> provide copies of tests reports from accredited labs.
> And of course you will have to mark your products according to the
> national law of each country !
> I have succesffully tested that with Eastern Europe and North Africa.
> 
> PRYOR MCGINNIS wrote:
> 
> > Hello All,
> >
> > What countries will accept UL Mark without additional testing or
> marking?
> >
> > Does anyone know of a list of countries other than the EU members that
> > accept the CE Marking without additional testing or marking?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Pryor McGinnis
> > c...@prodigy.net
> >
> 
> Pryor,
> 
> > What countries will accept UL Mark without additional testing or
> marking?
> 
> Officially: NONE. cUL is accepted in Canada.
> 
> > Does anyone know of a list of countries other than the EU members that
>   accept the CE Marking without additional testing or marking?
> 
> The CE marking is also accepted in the following non-EU
> countries:
> Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
> 
>  I hope this helps,
> 
>  John Radomski
>  Compliance Engineer
>  Inter-Tel Integrated Systems
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NRTL acceptance

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Terry and George,

In this country of ours, there are three equally acceptable safety marks:
UL, ETL and NRTL.  But, as we all know, some acceptable marks are more equal
than others.

> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 11:02 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> Terry,
> 
> You have raised a very good question.  The problem is that the U.S.
> had only one approved safety agency  for so long, that it is
> difficult to wean non-laymen away from that one agency mark.  This
> includes your (and my) management, marketing, customers, etc.  Few
> of these understand the meaning of NRTL, with its variety of agency
> approvals and marks.
> 
> I did fight this battle over an off-the-shelf peripheral we needed
> to market which did not have the "traditional" safety mark, but an
> acceptable NRTL mark.  One of the positions I to confront was that
> many Federal, state, or local "government" bids require "the" mark.
> 
> I referenced the Code of Federal Regulations, OSHA sections, citing
> acceptable U.S. authorized NRTLs.  I pointed out that compliance to
> UL 1950 was the needed requirement, not which agency did the actual
> assessment.  One problem is that those who write the specifications
> for government bids are not aware of this fact, and do continue to
> list only one agency mark into the document.  In a way, this is
> probably a violation of federal law, i.e. requiring vendors to do
> "business" with a specified private company, thus stifling any
> competition.  Isn't this what the goverment is accusing Microsoft
> of doing?
> 
> You are exactly right.  As PSE professionals, we should be able to
> look for and use whatever options are legally available to meet our
> employer's certification needs in the most timely and cost effective
> manner.  Unfortunately, in the U.S. this requires a significant
> amount of internal and external education as to the actual legal
> options.
> 
> George Alspaugh
> Lexmark International Inc.
> 
> -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> 11/19/99
> 01:41 PM ---
> 
> tjmeck%accusort@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 12:25:38 PM
> 
> Please respond to tjmeck%accusort@interlock.lexmark.com
> 
> To:   emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  NRTL acceptance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> We have been using an old reliable but very busy Safety agency to
> review our products and apply their safety mark.
> 
> From time to time we are approached by their competitors, NRTLs, or
> European soon to be NRTL labs for our business.
> 
> My question is in this `NRTL enlightened market are there still
> inspectors out there that will still require education about the NRTL
> status and the acceptability of an NRTL lab Listing vs the old familiar
> ones?
> 
> As you all know time to market is critical and 3 to 6 months is too
> long to wait.  We will need to look for other solutions and I am trying
> to review the whole range of issues involved in changing the primary
> NRTL.
> 
> I hope this is not too commercial a question!  If you feel it is please
> reply to me directly.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Terry J. Meck
> Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
> Phone:215-721-5280
> Fax:215-721-5551 hard copy;
> Fax PC: 215.799.1650 To my desk PC
> tjm...@accusort.com
> Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
> 511 School House Rd.
> Telford, PA 18969-1196 USA
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Than try the Wasserman Reaction.

> -Original Message-
> From: Colgan, Chris [SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 7:33 AM
> To:   EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?
> 
> 
> I had to take a DNA test the other dayand I failed it.
> 
> Chris Colgan
> EMC & Safety
> TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
> 
> mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Scott Douglas [SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
> > Sent:   15 November 1999 16:18
> > To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> > Subject:Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?
> > 
> > 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > Happened to see the X-Files last night and noted that the clamp used to
> > hold
> > Multer's head still during brain surgery had a CE mark prominently
> > displayed
> > on the forehead section. Makes me wonder, is CE marking of brains coming
> > next? Would mine pass? Or will it need a major re-design to become
> > compliant? Not sure I want the answers to those questions.
> > 
> > Scott
> > s_doug...@ecrm.com
> > ECRM Incorporated
> > Tewksbury, MA  USA
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> > 
> =
> Authorised on 11/16/99 at 15:34:01; code 37f48bf34271FFF2.
> 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)
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

How about new harmonized test: do you see any difference between 1900 and
2000?
If you don't than take VIAGRA.

> -Original Message-
> From: Lacey,Scott [SMTP:sla...@foxboro.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 9:46 AM
> To:   'Scott Douglas'
> Cc:   'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject:  RE: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?
> 
> 
> Scott,
> CE compliant? I'm not even sure that my brain is Y2K compliant! :-)
> Scott Lacey
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   Scott Douglas [SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
>   Sent:   Monday, November 15, 1999 11:18 AM
>   To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
>   Subject:Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?
> 
> 
>   Hi All,
> 
>   Happened to see the X-Files last night and noted that the clamp used
> to hold
>   Multer's head still during brain surgery had a CE mark prominently
> displayed
>   on the forehead section. Makes me wonder, is CE marking of brains
> coming
>   next? Would mine pass? Or will it need a major re-design to become
>   compliant? Not sure I want the answers to those questions.
> 
>   Scott
>   s_doug...@ecrm.com
>   ECRM Incorporated
>   Tewksbury, MA  USA
> 
> 
> 
>   -
>   This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>   To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>   with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>   quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>   jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>   roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>   
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

To refresh everyone's memory: we have recently defined a term shlepper.
Now, it is unfair that only shleppers get clamped.

> -Original Message-
> From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 10:12 AM
> To:   'aimee.l.da...@us.ul.com'; Scott Douglas
> Cc:   EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?
> 
> 
> I hesitate to even have my head examined..
> 
> I am afraid of what is (or is not) in there!!
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: aimee.l.da...@us.ul.com [mailto:aimee.l.da...@us.ul.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 10:23 AM
> To: Scott Douglas
> Cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would be the scope of the directive regulating this?  Would
> certain brains be exempt based on qualifications listed in Annex I?
> -Aimee
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

FW: ECO Declaration

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

> -Original Message-
> From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly 
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 4:10 PM
> To:   'geor...@lexmark.com'
> Subject:  RE: ECO Declaration
> 
> Also, ECOlogical requirements are typical for Germany and (surprise?)
> Russia; though, in Russia, they are applicable only to some specific ITE
> products,  and you would be required to have, what they call, "Hygienic
> Approval".  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 1:06 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  ECO Declaration
> 
> 
> Ed;
> 
> Here are snipets from a note I received a week or so ago.
> It may answer your Q regarding "ECO".
> 
> *
> 
> Sweden, Denmark and Norway have an organisation called Nordic
> Information Technology Organisation (NITO).  Yesterday they sent
> me a draft of an ECO Declaration.  I believe that we have to fill
> in an declaration for each product.  Do you have any comments to
> the ECO Declaration and the guidelines?
> 
> 
> 
> I printed out the accompanying forms and reviewed.  They largely
> dealt with environmental (ecological) issues.  I forwarded the
> information and files to our environmental people, but deleted the
> files to avoid needless bit-bucket usage.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George Alspaugh
> Lexmark International Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Telecom reqs.

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Dale,
I am lost.  If a piece of equipment is tested to EN 300 386-1,-2 than it
wouldn't be necessary to test it to EN55022/EN50082-1 (right/wrong?).  In
fact, as it spelled out in the original message, this computer will be used
not as a part of a telecom network but rather for troubleshooting.  Do you
think that in this case it would be better to recommend EN55022 and CISPR 24
given that John did not mention NEBS conformity requirements (if equipment
is not integral part of telecom network, "resistibility" requirements are
not necessary)?

Regards 

> -Original Message-
> From: Dale Albright [SMTP:da...@emclabs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 3:40 PM
> To:   Linstrom, John  (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI); emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Telecom reqs.
> 
> John,
>  
> Yes.  EN 300 386-1 and EN 300 386-2 - Electromagnetic compatibility and
> Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Telecommunication network equipment;
> Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requirements.
> The requirements are based on the installation environment and category of
> equipment within the scope of the standard (part 2).  It covers emissions
> and immunities and is very thorough and includes tests for "resistibility"
> much like the Bellcore (telcordia) "objectives."
>  
> Dale.
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI) <
> john.linst...@cdynamics.com >
>   To: emc-p...@ieee.org  < emc-p...@ieee.org
> >
>   Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 5:09 PM
>   Subject: Telecom reqs.
>   
>   
> 
>   We are being asked to bid on a proposal for a portable computer that
> must meet UL1950/CAN/EN60950 and get the CE mark (EN55022/50082-1).
> Understandable. It's to be used as part of a telecomm central office
> troubleshooting set, and the rest of the reqs. calls for "CE Telecomm
> compliance". What other standards must the unit meet?
> 
>   I don't know yet if the unit will be connected to the telephone
> lines or to the back side of routing equipment, etc. Are there standards
> for telecomm equip. that doesn't interface to the phone lines?
> 
>   Thanks in advance. 
> 
>   John Linstrom 
>   Computer Dynamics 
>   PH 864.281.7768 x266 
>   FX  864.675.0106 
>   john.linst...@cdynamics.com 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Fans; m3/h to CFM

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

The recent loss/disaster in space surprises me no longer 

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrews, Kurt [SMTP:kandr...@tracewell.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:24 AM
> To:   pmerguer...@itl.co.il; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Fans; m3/h to CFM
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> 1ft. = 0.3048m  then  1 cu.ft.  =  (0.3048m)3 = 0.0283168m3   and
> 1ft./Sec.  also equals  0.3048m/Sec.   
> so then  1cu.ft./Sec. = 0.0283168m3/Sec.  
> so then  1cu.ft./min. =  (0.0283168m3/Sec.) x (60Sec./min.) = 1.699008
> m3/min.
> so then  1cu.ft./min. =  (1.699008 m3/min.)  x  (60min./hr.)  =  101.94048
> m3/hr.
> 
> so the formula for CFM to m3/hr. should be 1CFM = 101.94048 m3/hr.  
> 
> and the formula for m3/hr. to CFM would be the reciprocal or 1÷101.94048 =
> 0.0098096
> 
> so 1 m3/hr. = 0.0098096 CFM
> 
> So to convert m3/hr. to CFM multiply by 0.0098096
> 
> And to convert CFM to m3/hr. multiply by 101.94048
> 
> You may want to check my math, but as far as I can recall this is how you
> would do it. The conversion factors of 1ft. = 0.3048m and 1ft./Sec =
> 0.3048m/Sec. came from a Conversion Factor Chart from an old copy of
> Connection Technology magazine.
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   pmerguer...@itl.co.il [SMTP:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
>   Sent:   Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:55 AM
>   To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>   Subject:Fans; m3/h to CFM
> 
> 
>   Hello There!
> 
>   Anyone knows how to convert m3 (ie meters cube)/hour to CFM? To
> serve my
>   clients better so they can use alternate dc fans, I usually specify
> in the
>   UL Reports the use of Recognized fans rated XXX Vdc, max --- A,
> minimum ---
>   CFM. However, I just looked up a spec sheet for a dc fan and it
> gives the
>   m3/h rating and not the CFM rating. Can anyone help with this
> conversion?
> 
>   Thanks in Advance
>   +++
>   RTTE Directive Seminar
>   Renaissance Hotel, Tel-Aviv
>   12th January 2000: CALL FOR DETAILS
>   +++
> 
>   Peter Merguerian
>   Managing Director
>   Product Testing Division
>   I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
>   Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
>   Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
> 
>   Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
>   e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
>   website: http://www.itl.co.il 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   -
>   This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>   To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>   with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>   quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>   jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>   roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>   
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Rockwell Modem, need info.?

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Hi Ray and George,

Compliance with UL 1950 can be demonstrated with UL, ETL, and NRTL safety
marks.  Thus, the UL Yellow book is one of potential sources of the license
information (look at the product mark first).  

> -Original Message-
> From: Russell, Ray [SMTP:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 1:38 PM
> To:   'sparaci...@andovercontrols.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Rockwell Modem, need info.?
> 
> 
> Hi George,
> 
> I my experience, I have used the UL Yellow books to verify UL recognition
> and to determine which standards it is recognized to. If I still have
> trouble, I have called UL direct, and they have always been helpful. 
> 
> Ray
> 
> rayruss...@gastmfg.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: sparaci...@andovercontrols.com
> [mailto:sparaci...@andovercontrols.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 10:43 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Rockwell Modem, need info.?
> 
> 
> 
> Good Day Everyone,
> 
> I'm having a heck of a time getting compliance information from Rockwell
> regarding one of their Socket Modems
> (SMV144AC series). We incorporratte this modem onto our motherboard.
> Simply,
> I need to know if the Rockwell modem that we use in our product has been
> recognized to either UL 1459 or UL 1950. I would like to treat the modem
> as
> a recognized component in my system.
> 
> No compliance info on their literature, so I contacted the local Rockwell
> office in Littleton, Ma.  and they referred me back to our distributor who
> has not been able to get a response back from Rockwell...  Also, I
> contacted
> Rockwell headquarters in Newport Beach, CA ... they referred me to their
> local office in Littleton.  Are we sensing a pattern here ??
> 
> If anyone has the name & contact info of someone at Rockwell that can
> help,
> please forward to me.
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give me & have a Great Weekend.
> George
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: That doesn't make any sense

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

How come I have not seen the original Rich's message posted on July 20? 


> -Original Message-
> From: Schanker, Jack [SMTP:jschan...@adaptivebroadband.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 6:37 AM
> To:   ri...@sdd.hp.com
> Cc:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  That  doesn't make any sense
> 
> 
> Rich:
> 
> I want to thank you, and compliment you, for so accurately describing
> managment reactions to regulatory "problems" in your July 20 posting to
> the
> emc-pstc.
> 
> It completely mirrors my own past (and continuing) experiences.
> 
> I have also gotten the reaction "well, that doesn't make any sense" in
> relation to an inconvenient rule in some international standard. "Why did
> they do that" ? is asked, like I should know.
> 
> Then the big question: "Can we get a waiver"?
> 
> Dialogue:
> 
> "No, I don't think so." Manager: "Did you try"?
> 
> The years of experience and intuitive feel for what is and what is not
> possible, mean little to the uninformed arrogance of a manager who is used
> to having it his way (almost always "his") and expecting the world to turn
> at his command.
> 
> The "bad news" aspect also looms large, as you so aptly describe.
> 
> Gotta get back to work.
> 
> Jack
> 
> Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E.
> Director of Agency Compliance
> Adaptive Broadband Corporation
> 175 Science Parkway
> Rochester, NY 14620 USA
> +716 242 8454 (voice)
> +716 241 5590 (fax)
> jschan...@adaptivebroadband.com
> 
> The opinions expressed above are obviously someone else's.
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: EMF Test Data (Cancer and EMF)

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

All compliance practitioners recognize the difference between "improper
testing" and "data (expedient) misinterpretation".  What was it?

> -Original Message-
> From: rbus...@es.com [SMTP:rbus...@es.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 2:22 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  EMF Test Data (Cancer and EMF)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached is a link to a recent MSNBC article concerning improper testing
> with regard to cancer and EMF. Thought some of you might be interested.
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/293056.asp
>  
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Harmonics (EN 61000-3-2) testing of EUT's > 1KW

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

The last paragraph is a typical example of particular American ingenuity.
Lovely, indeed.

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul McCoy [SMTP:pmc...@lsr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 1:25 PM
> To:   EMC and Safety list
> Subject:  Re: Harmonics (EN 61000-3-2) testing of EUT's > 1KW
> 
> 
> Kyle,
> I have good news and bad news for you:
> 
> The bad news is that your equipment is defined in the standard and has to
> meet
> the Class A limits of table 1 (which incidentally corresponds to the
> maximum
> Class D limit for odd harmonics plus even limits). There is no hole in the
> requirements for "CLASS D equipment greater than 600 watts". The Class A
> is a
> catch all which consists of "Balanced three phase equipment and all other
> equipment, except that stated in one of the following classes". If it's
> not
> Class B, C, or D; it's Class A.
> 
> The good news is that you are correct:  As long as your product wasn't
> covered
> by the old 555 standards you do not have to comply until 1 Jan 2001; so
> you have
> time to work on corrections.
> 
> The better news is that there is a loop hole you can use. The standard is
> only
> for equipment drawing less than 16 Amps per phase. Add some large power
> resistors across the line to make the unit use more than 16 Amps per phase
> and
> you are exempt! ;-)
> 
> Good Luck,
> Paul McCoy
> 
> "Ehler, Kyle" wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > I've just come across an ITE product that fails power line harmonics (EN
> > 61000-3-2).
> > Naturally, the engineer in charge is nervous about it and wants to know
> if
> > there is any way around the requirement to pass.
> > If memory serves, the standard does not actually go into effect until
> > 1/1/2001 is this correct?  What exposure remains?
> >
> > Given that, some of our more picky customers may demand it soon.  At
> which
> > time we will pursue a power supply with PFC.  We already have identified
> a
> > candidate, but it has UL certification and no other.  We have learned
> that
> > an off the shelf item without full global compliance is a direct invite
> for
> > investigation and redesign to gain compliance -at our expense. Globally
> > accepted supplies are a must in our business.
> >
> > I was reading in Compliance Engineering (March/April '98 pp. 33) that
> some
> > discussion has been made concerning the operating class of EUT's to
> date.
> > There are four classes (A through D) which categorize products as to
> power
> > phases used, consumption character, and intended use.  The limitations
> of
> > Class D excludes EUT's with power ratings higher than 600 watts which
> would
> > leave an undefined region for testing of such products exceeding this
> > figure.  The article mentions a "Class E" as professional equipment, but
> no
> > limits were expressed but maybe I am confused.
> >
> > This product consumes in single phase 1.3KW or more depending on
> > configuration.  It is made up of a mix of smaller modules that
> independently
> > meet all applicable standards including harmonics.  The majority of the
> > modules employ PFC and therefore are tolerant of stacking into a cabinet
> > such as this and still comply.  Then we add a couple non-PFC modules,
> that
> > by themselves are compliant, and now the harmonics fail in two or three
> of
> > the odds.  Swapping of power supplies (cherry picking) shows a range of
> > failures from 1 to 200 ma over the limit (in class D req'mts) depending
> on
> > harmonic.
> >
> > The next question I would pose:  Is this a non-issue because the EUT is
> > unclassified ("professional equipment") and therefore exempt?
> >
> > Thank-You,
> >
> > Kyle Ehler  kyle.eh...@lsil.com 
> > Assistant Design Engineer
> > LSI Logic Storage Systems Division
> > 3718 N. Rock Road
> > U.S.A.  Wichita, Kansas  67226
> > Ph. 316 636 8657
> > Fax 316 636 8889
> > Fax 316 636 8315
> >
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: IEC950 vs. EN 60950

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Tania,
We have not "harmonized" US safety mark demonstrating compliance with
UL1950: UL, ETL, NRTL.  I've been asked a rhetorical question "which US mark
is better".  Europeans have at least a single CE mark which, in addition,
covers EMC.

Regards,

> -Original Message-
> From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 3:03 PM
> To:   Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA); 'Peter E. Perkins'
> Cc:   PSNetwork
> Subject:  RE: IEC950 vs. EN 60950
> 
> 
> What Pete is describing is quite fitting for Europe and the US.
> However,
> in the rest of the world, what is accepted and/or required varies as much
> as
> the different flora and fauna around the world.   South Africa, for
> example,
> does not care for compliance to an EN60 950 document, but will accept
> compliance via a CB Scheme report to IEC 950  (but not to EN60 950!).
> What we do, therefore, is have the CB report and Certificate reference
> both
> EN60 950 and the IEC 60  950 document!!!
> There are other countries (and since their requirements are constantly
> changing, I will not point them out here) that will accept US safety
> and/or
> FCC Part 15 compliance.Other countries will require compliance and/or
> testing to their own national standards in their own country.   You need
> to
> approach each case individually at any given time since requirements,
> agencies, addresses, and even governments are constantly changing.
> 
> Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division
> tgr...@lucent.com
> 
> 
> --
> From:  Peter E. Perkins [SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com]
> Sent:  Tuesday, July 20, 1999 1:46 PM
> To:  Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA)
> Cc:  PSNetwork
> Subject:  IEC950 vs. EN 60950
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel & PSNet,
> 
> IEC 950 - now IEC 60950 - is an international standard, meaning
> that all countries participating in the development of the standard bring
> their codes and practices to the table and some subset of the same is
> included in the final standard.  
> 
> EN 60950 is the European version of that standard.  It includes
> specific Euro codes and practices which were not agreed to by the
> international community.  These differences are important and must be
> adhered to in complying with the standard.  You cannot claim compliance to
> the EN for CE marking purposes without meeting these deltas.
> 
> In the same way, UL 1950 is the American version of IEC 950.  It
> includes many American changes that result from our codes and practices
> here.  In order to get NRTL certification to this standard, the equipment
> must comply with these deltas, too.
> 
> From a certification point of view, the IEC standard is not
> important.  The equipement must meet the locally adopted version for
> compliance.  From a standards development or future looking viewpoint the
> IEC standard is driving the local standards in the highest or most general
> way.  
> 
> The manufacturer's dream is to see all of these standards be
> exactly equal in wording - i.e. no local deltas.  Probably not in my
> lifetime - there are some basic underlying requirements in each market.
> In
> America, for instance, the NEC contains basic requirements which will not
> change soon; plus there are legally driven requirements based upon case
> law
> that companies have to meet in America - such as the use of ANSI labels
> else the product markings are deficient.
> 
> So, get the local standards and comply with them...  that's the
> requirement.
> 
> :>) br, Pete Perkins
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> Peter E Perkins
> Principal Product Safety Consultant
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
> 
> +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax
> 
> p.perk...@ieee.org  email
> 
> visit our website:
> 
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Product Safety Semantics

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

I can't help making this innocuous comment.   (English is not my major.)
All I have to say is that Europeans are, as usually, more  attached to
purified English.  Shall is stronger (more "dictatorial" or, if you want,
directive) than must.   

> -Original Message-
> From: John Juhasz [SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 7:18 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Product Safety Semantics
> 
> Many thanks to those who responded to my query about the use/meanings of
> the words 'shall' and 'must' in product safety standards. 
>  
> Must and shall appear to be interchangeable. UL1950 uses both (couldn't
> make up there minds?), but 'must' appears a lot in the Annexes. EN60950
> (IEC950) uses 'shall' consistently.  From the responses I got, 'will' is
> thrown in for good measure. 
>  
> Therefore, shall, must, and will mean 'mandatory'. 'Should' is a
> recommendation. 
>  
> I must, shall, will remember this. 
>  
> John A. Juhasz 
> Product Qualification & 
> Compliance Engr. 
> 
> Fiber Options, Inc. 
> 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 
> Bohemia, NY 11716 USA 
> 
> Tel: 516-567-8320 ext. 324 
> Fax: 516-567-8322 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Discrete components needle flame test

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Hello Experts,

While performing the Bellcore (NEBS GR-63-CORE) Needle Flame Test on
electrolytic capacitors withstanding high temperature up to 105 deg.C, a
break of hermeticity  with subsequent release of hazardous substances may
occur.  Does anyone have had an experience in successfully passing the test?
Could you write up on this subject or give me a pointer to any application
notes addressing this issue.

If my memory serves me well, a similar question was posted about a month ago
or so and briefly discussed. 

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Vitaly  Gorodetsky
Compliance Engineer Direct: (818) 678-3840
Canoga Perkins Corp.Main:   (818) 718-6300
20600 Prairie StreetFAX:(818) 678-3740
Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008   e-mail:
vgorodet...@canoga.com  

RE: EN 61000-4-

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

To Jeff and everyone concerned:
EN55024 covers only ITE and, as such, it is not intended to replace
EN50082-1 for other relevant categories of products.

> -Original Message-
> From: Geoff Lister [SMTP:geoff.lis...@motionmedia.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 3:59 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Cal Whiteley
> Subject:  Re: EN 61000-4-
> 
> 
> Cal,
> EN55024:1998 is now replacing EN50082-1:1997, the final date for the 
> transition being 1st July 2001. In the body of EN55024, the 
> references are IEC 61000-4-x, but in Annex ZA (normative) there is a 
> cross reference to the equivalent EN specs. They are
> EN61000-4-2:1995 ESD
> EN61000-4-3:1996 Radiated RF electromagnetic field
> EN61000-4-4:1995 Fast transient/burst
> EN61000-4-5:1995 Surge
> EN61000-4-6:1996 Conducted RF
> EN61000-4-8:1993 Power frequency magnetic field
> EN61000-4-11:1994 Voltage dips,short interruptions and voltage 
> variations
> To the best of my knowledge the above information is correct, but 
> given the nature of international specs they are always subject to 
> change.
> 
> regards
> Geoff Lister
> 
> 
> > Date:  Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:56:11 -0400
> > From:  Cal Whiteley 
> > To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject:   EN 61000-4-
> > Reply-to:  Cal Whiteley 
> 
> > 
> > Hello all - can anyone tell me which of the EN 61000-4- (immunity)
> > documents apply to telecommunications terminal equipment ? Thanks in
> > advance for your help.
> > Cal Whiteley
> > Patton Electronics Co.
> > Gaithersburg, MD
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> > 
> > 
> *Geoff Lister   email: geoff.lis...@motionmedia.co.uk
> *Motion Media Technology Ltd., Horton Hall, Horton, Bristol, BS37 6QN, UK.
> *POTS : +44-(0)1454-313444 or +44-(0)1454-338561 (direct)
> *ISDN : +44-(0)1454-338555 or +44-(0)1454-338554 (direct)
> *FAX  : +44-(0)1454-313678 Home : +44-(0)1275-854025
> *WWW  :  http://www.motionmedia.co.uk/
> * The Videophone Company  -  Seeing is believing
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Worldwide ITE Requirements

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Indeed, each shipment to Russian Federation should be accompanied with an
authorised copy of a GOST-R certificate (with affixed holographic sticker).
Along with a GOST-R cerificate, Russians issue a license authorising the use
of GOST-R mark for 2 or 3 years.  Also, most of Russian Certification
Centers require copies of safety (CB scheme or CE) and EMC reports issued by
GOSSTANDART' accredited testing labs.  For certain type of ITE equipment
(such as VDT, keyboard, etc.), so called hygienic approval is required.
Very few foreign labs have been appointed by Russian Hygienic Certification
Center, SAMTEST, to perform required tests and prepare bilingual submittals.

For those who dare to contradict, an old Russian dictum goes like this: the
Laws have been written to ignore them (only joking!). Good luck.

Regards,
Vitaly Gorodetsky  

> -Original Message-
> From: Edward Fitzgerald [SMTP:edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 7:17 AM
> To:   EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: Worldwide ITE Requirements
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Either you missed out some of my corrections under Russia or someone has
> dared to contradict me!(only joking!).  Applying the GOST R mark is a
> condition of the GOST certification as is supplying an authorised copy
> of your certificate with each batch - your equipment could be held
> indefinitely by customs if you chance shipping without it (a variation
> on Russian Roulette).  Also the Law now requires that all imported
> equipment must have a Russian language User Manual regardless of
> industrial, business or domestic use. If you can't find the information
> to substantiate what I've stated then I can quote directly from the Laws
> we've translated.
> 
> < SAFETY... File=N; DoC=N; Cert=Y; Mark=Y
> EMC... File=N; Doc=N; Cert=Y; Mark=Y
> Notes: (add words)... and QA Inspection Control imposed under
> GOST R
> Certification. >>
> 
> My comments above in no way detract from all the time and good work you
> have put into collate this document.  I know from many years experience
> that it is very difficult to judge what is correct (even from the
> printed word) unless its quoted directly from the Legislation (then we
> just let the lawyers argue the toss).
> 
> Best regards, Edward
> 
> Edward Fitzgerald
> International Approvals Consultant
> Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
> GSM Tel. : +44 4685 33 100
> 
> European Technology Services
> Specialist Global Compliance Consultancy
> Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK.
> http://www.ets-tele.com
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: WOODS, RICHARD [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
> Sent: 07 May 1999 15:24
> To: 'emc-pstc'
> Subject: Worldwide ITE Requirements
> 
> 
> Thank you to everyone that provided comments. In some cases, the replies
> were contradictory, so I had to use my best judgement on the reliability
> of
> the source. It came to my attention that there are more severe
> requirements
> for equipment for domestic use, so I have restricted my chart to
> business
> use. Updates have been made to the following countries: Australia, Czech
> Republic, Hungary, Japan, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and Singapore.
> 
> Further comments and suggestions are welcome, especially where a
> question
> mark appears.
> 
>  <> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Precompliance Testing

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Hello Robert,
I've had identical comments, specifically regarding pre- and compliance
applications.  I've put all these problems into method's metrology category.
Don't you think that it is quite promising technique compared to other
alternatives.
Best Regards,
Vitaly Gorodetsky

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Bonsen [SMTP:rbon...@orionscientific.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 2:10 PM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Precompliance Testing
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> The company mentioned, SARA, builds what they call a distributed RF
> analyzer named CASSPER. They have been working on it for a while now,
> demoed it at a couple of shows, and to the best of my knowledge the system
> started to ship recently. In the data sheets I analyzed, mention was made
> of background noise cancellation techniques by using two time and
> frequency
> synchronized receivers, one configured as the "normal" receiver and one as
> a reference receiver. The time and frequency sync between the two
> receivers
> allows for coherent simultaneous measurements of the reference signal and
> the measuring signal, hence allowing the system to dynamically reduce the
> noise level in the measurement. So far the data sheets... By the way, this
> noise cancellation technique will not work on ordinary receivers and
> spectrum analyzers because the time/frequency synchronization, which
> cannot
> be achieved with "ordinary" equipment, is essential.
> 
> In theory this works great, but as with all noise/spurious signal
> cancellation techniques (common in the RCS and antenna measurement world)
> using a variety of mathematical principles, there will be practical
> limitations. Also, one of the drawbacks is that you are required to
> purchase another receiver for this technique to work. And of course this
> type of receiver with noise cancellation technique is not the kind of
> device the standards have made provisions for, so the question is if the
> data will ever be acceptable for compliance measurements per the
> standards.
> 
> CASSPER is a very interesting device, very useful for a wide variety of RF
> applications. I would like to get my hands on one soon to tinker with it
> and find out exactly what its potential is. The company mentions as
> applications pre-compliance regulatory testing and EUT debugging, but as
> indicated it is not usable for compliance testing (yet?). 
> 
> Reference: http://www.sara.com/cassper
> 
> Regards,
> -Robert
> 
> Robert Bonsen
> Principal Consultant
> Orion Scientific
> email: rbon...@orionscientific.com
> URL:   http://www.orionscientific.com
> phone: (512) 347 7393; FAX: (512) 328 9240
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Precompliance Testing

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

I discussed the idea of two channel configuration fiber-optic-based
(critical trait: no additional rad. emissions) system with Dr. Parviz
Parhami of Cassper Div. of SARA, Inc.  I  learned later that SARA has filed
for a patent (it is patent pending).  The original system was developed for
some DoD applications.  It is inexpensive and rather elegant solution
considering availability of hardware from SARA. 
One of two antennas sould be positioned at, say, 10m (or 30m, as required)
from an EUT and the second antenna is placed at the predetermined distance
from the first, such that the emissions from the EUT would be relatively
negligible.  The rest, differential data processing, is obvious.  There are
some metrological issues to be resolved. 

For details, contact Dr. Parviz Parhami, e-mail: pparh...@sara.com.
Best Regards   

> -Original Message-
> From: ed.pr...@cubic.com [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 10:00 AM
> To:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly; 'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  RE: Precompliance Testing
> 
> Vitaly:
> 
> Could you describe your ideas about inexpensive OATS automatic ambient
> cancellation?
> 
> ----
>   From: "Gorodetsky, Vitaly" 
>   Subject: RE: Precompliance Testing
>   Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 17:22:12 -0700 
>   To: "'Flinders, Randall'" , 'Hans Mellberg'
> , 'emc-pstc' 
> 
> 
> > In stationary case, such as OATS, there's a relatively inexpensive way
> of
> > automatic cancelling ambients out .
> 
> 
> --
> Ed Price
> ed.pr...@cubic.com
> Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
> Cubic Defense Systems
> San Diego, CA.  USA
> 619-505-2780
> Date: 05/06/1999
> Time: 08:59:57
> Military & Avionics EMC Services Our Specialty
> Also Environmental / Metrology / Reliability
> --
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Precompliance Testing

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

It is simple and elegant patent pending solution  (Cassper Div. of SARA has
filed for patent). Contact Dr. Parviz Parhami of SARA :  pparh...@sara.com 

> -Original Message-
> From: Aschenberg, Mat [SMTP:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 8:31 AM
> To:   'Gorodetsky, Vitaly'; 'Flinders, Randall'; 'Hans Mellberg';
> 'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  RE: Precompliance Testing
> 
> What would that method be? 
> Mat
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly [SMTP:vgorodet...@canoga.com]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:22 PM
> > To: 'Flinders, Randall'; 'Hans Mellberg'; 'emc-pstc'
> > Subject:RE: Precompliance Testing
> > 
> > In stationary case, such as OATS, there's a relatively inexpensive way
> of
> > automatic cancelling ambients out .
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   randall.flind...@emulex.com
> > [SMTP:randall.flind...@emulex.com]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, May 05, 1999 12:23 PM
> > To: 'Hans Mellberg'; 'emc-pstc'
> > Subject:RE: Precompliance Testing
> > 
> > I second that opinion.  My experience shows SEVERE ambient issues
> > with rooftop sites.
> > -- 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Randall T. Flinders
> > EMC Engineer
> > Emulex Network Systems
> > V: (714) 513-8012
> > F: (714) 513-8265
> > randall.flind...@emulex.com
> > __   __
> > __\ /__
> > __/ \__
> > E  M  U  L  E  X
> > 
> > Chairman
> > Orange County Chapter
> > IEEE EMC Society
> > r.flind...@ieee.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > From:   Hans Mellberg
> > Sent:   Wednesday, May 05, 1999 7:59 AM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; bogda...@pacbell.net;
> > Gary McInturff
> > Cc: 'Brent DeWitt'; Allen Tudor; emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:Re: Precompliance Testing
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Before you put a rooftop OATS, (assuming you are not located
> > in Easter
> > Island or the Caribean Islands!) you are going to deal with
> > substantially higher ambient signals. It so happens that
> > when you need
> > a stronger signal, a common practice is to raise the
> > antenna! I have
> > battled those problems twice in my past and I would not
> > reccomend
> > rooftop OATS anymore.
> > 
> > 
> > --- bogda...@pacbell.net wrote:
> > > May I add a note of caution:
> > > It may be worthwhile to check the permissible
> > > loading of the roof, especially
> > > when you are in the Southwest where roofs are mostly
> > > for shade and a few drops
> > > of rain. I guess that you don't want to appear
> > > suddenly in the conference room
> > > below
> > > Bogdan.
> > > 
> > > Gary McInturff wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'll agree with Brent, and others, the headaches
> > > of a metal room or the
> > > > metal studs et al, in a building are going to make
> > > you pull your hair out.
> > > > But there is an alternative to the parking lot.
> > > You may want to consider the
> > > > roof. The ground reference can be put up there as
> > > well, especially if you
> > > > are doing pre-compliance stuff. You don't have to
> > > give up parking space -
> > > > which is sure to irate somebody. The roof gets a
> > > little hot, but that only
> > > > gives you the opportunity to work in your cutoffs,
> > > and showing up to a
> > > > meeting with the suits dressed like this is always
> > > good for a laugh!
> > > > Gary
> > snip
> > 
> > ===
> > Best Regards
> > Hans Mellberg
> > EMC Consultant
> > _
&

RE: Precompliance Testing

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

In stationary case, such as OATS, there's a relatively inexpensive way of
automatic cancelling ambients out .

> -Original Message-
> From: randall.flind...@emulex.com [SMTP:randall.flind...@emulex.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 12:23 PM
> To:   'Hans Mellberg'; 'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  RE: Precompliance Testing
> 
> I second that opinion.  My experience shows SEVERE ambient issues with
> rooftop sites.
> -- 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Randall T. Flinders
> EMC Engineer
> Emulex Network Systems
> V: (714) 513-8012
> F: (714) 513-8265
> randall.flind...@emulex.com
> __   __
> __\ /__
> __/ \__
> E  M  U  L  E  X
> 
> Chairman
> Orange County Chapter
> IEEE EMC Society
> r.flind...@ieee.org
> 
> 
> 
>   --
>   From:   Hans Mellberg
>   Sent:   Wednesday, May 05, 1999 7:59 AM
>   To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; bogda...@pacbell.net; Gary
> McInturff
>   Cc: 'Brent DeWitt'; Allen Tudor; emc-p...@ieee.org
>   Subject:Re: Precompliance Testing
> 
> 
> 
>   Before you put a rooftop OATS, (assuming you are not located in
> Easter
>   Island or the Caribean Islands!) you are going to deal with
>   substantially higher ambient signals. It so happens that when you
> need
>   a stronger signal, a common practice is to raise the antenna! I have
>   battled those problems twice in my past and I would not reccomend
>   rooftop OATS anymore.
> 
> 
>   --- bogda...@pacbell.net wrote:
>   > May I add a note of caution:
>   > It may be worthwhile to check the permissible
>   > loading of the roof, especially
>   > when you are in the Southwest where roofs are mostly
>   > for shade and a few drops
>   > of rain. I guess that you don't want to appear
>   > suddenly in the conference room
>   > below
>   > Bogdan.
>   > 
>   > Gary McInturff wrote:
>   > 
>   > > I'll agree with Brent, and others, the headaches
>   > of a metal room or the
>   > > metal studs et al, in a building are going to make
>   > you pull your hair out.
>   > > But there is an alternative to the parking lot.
>   > You may want to consider the
>   > > roof. The ground reference can be put up there as
>   > well, especially if you
>   > > are doing pre-compliance stuff. You don't have to
>   > give up parking space -
>   > > which is sure to irate somebody. The roof gets a
>   > little hot, but that only
>   > > gives you the opportunity to work in your cutoffs,
>   > and showing up to a
>   > > meeting with the suits dressed like this is always
>   > good for a laugh!
>   > > Gary
>   snip
> 
>   ===
>   Best Regards
>   Hans Mellberg
>   EMC Consultant
>   _
>   Do You Yahoo!?
>   Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
>   -
>   This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>   To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>   with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>   quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>   jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>   roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
<>

RE: Precompliance Testing

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Ed,
Thanks for your eloquent linguistic excursion.  I am wondering whether there
is a noun derivative from SCHLEP.  It could be a nice synonym for Compliance
Engineering and schlepper would be a recognizable term in everyone's resume
for compliance engineer.
Best Regards
> -Original Message-
> From: Knighten, James L [SMTP:jk100...@exchange.sandiegoca.ncr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 3:57 PM
> To:   ed.pr...@cubic.com; Knighten, James L; 'Brent DeWitt'; Allen Tudor;
> emc-p...@ieee.org; Gary McInturff
> Subject:  RE: Precompliance Testing
> 
> Ed and Others, 
> 
> Thanks for the lesson in colloquial jargon.
> 
> Obviously, I have been schlepping all these many years and did not realize
> it.
> 
> Just a final note:  MS Word 97's spell checker recognizes both "schlep"
> and
> "schlepping."
> 
> Jim
> 
> Dr. Jim Knighten  e-mail: jlknigh...@ieee.org
>  
> Senior Consulting Engineer
> NCR
> 17095 Via del Campo
> San Diego, CA 92127   http://www.ncr.com  
> Tel: 619-485-2537
> Fax: 619-485-3788
> 
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   ed.pr...@cubic.com [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
>   Sent:   Monday, May 03, 1999 5:40 PM
>   To: Knighten, James L; 'Brent DeWitt'; Allen Tudor;
> emc-p...@ieee.org; Gary McInturff
>   Subject:RE: Precompliance Testing
> 
>   James:
> 
>   Schlep is a little descriptive verb I learned during a three year
> long exile in Northern New Jersey. It's Yiddish, meaning to haul, to drag,
> to sweat, to expend considerable energy with little reward and no respect.
> It's five steps forward and four steps back, plus you stub your toe. And
> there's a rock in your shoe. And you just might be developing a blister.
> Sisyphus was a schlepper.
> 
>   Yes, it's certainly a military term, although each service and era
> assigns a new name to it. But, now that I think about it, maybe a trip to
> the parking lot doesn't quite measure up to schlepping.
> 
>   ;-)
>   Ed
> 
> 
> 
>   
> From: "Knighten, James L" 
> Subject: RE: Precompliance Testing
> Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 15:37:35 -0700 
> To: ed.pr...@cubic.com, 'Brent DeWitt' ,
> Allen Tudor , emc-p...@ieee.org, Gary McInturff
> 
> 
> 
>   > Ed,
>   > 
>   > I'm not familiar with the verb "to schlep."  
>   > 
>   > Is this a specialized technical term, perhaps particular to EMC or
> to the
>   > military arena?
>   > 
>   > Jim
>   > 
>   > Dr. Jim Knighten  e-mail: jlknigh...@ieee.org
>   >  
>   > Senior Consulting Engineer
>   > NCR
>   > 17095 Via del Campo
>   > San Diego, CA 92127   http://www.ncr.com
>  
>   > Tel: 619-485-2537
>   > Fax: 619-485-3788
>   > 
>   > 
>   >   -Original Message-
>   >   From:   ed.pr...@cubic.com [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
>   >   Sent:   Monday, May 03, 1999 2:38 PM
>   >   To: 'Brent DeWitt'; Allen Tudor; emc-p...@ieee.org; Gary
>   > McInturff
>   >   Subject:RE: Precompliance Testing
>   > 
>   >   The roof alternative has been done more than a few times.
> Emaco (now
>   > part of TUVPS) in San Diego had a pair of pneumatic lifts which
> travelled
>   > from their second floor through the roof. The test specimen and
> antenna
>   > could be set up on their respective elevators, pushed up through
> the roof,
>   > and come to rest level with the roof ground plane.
>   > 
>   >   I imagine that they did have some problems with weathering
> of
>   > conductive interfaces and water leakage, but it did serve them
> well for a
>   > few years.
>   > 
>   >   BTW, I agree that the "parking lot" option is better than
> trying to
>   > live with a test site WITHIN a commercial office structure. There
> have been
>   > several posters who already described the problems found inside
> the
>   > building. Some of the problems with a parking lot site are:
>   > 
>   >   1. Sometimes the cars encroach on the site.
>   >   2. You have to schlep all your stuff out to the site, and
> back again
>   > at night.
>   >   3. Sometimes, your utilities get mysteriously shut off,
>   > necessitating a call to your plant facilities guy (for a big
> company; for
>   > little companies, you get to look for the breaker yourself).
>   >   4. Flooding.
>   >   5. Wind can knock over your test antenna mast. Securing the
> mast
>   > each night adds another housekeeping task.
>   >   6. Sunburn. (If I'm gonna get sunburned, let it be with a
> yacht
>   > beneath my feet.)
>   >   7. Ants and rodents. (You are only one step short of a
> picnic.)
>   >   8. Snow. Ice. Wind chill