RE: EN 60601-1-2/ EN 55022: 1998
EN 60601-1-2:2001 was just published in the OJ. The CENELEC web site has not been updated yet. Best Regards, Jim Jim Conrad, Convenor IEC SC62A/MT23 P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936 U.S.A. E-mail: jc...@shore.net Phone: 978-468-3909 FAX: 978-468-1034 From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ITL-EMC User Group Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 12:57 AM To: Emc-Pstc Group (E-mail) Subject: EN 60601-1-2/ EN 55022: 1998 Thanks to all who replied. I was pretty sure about EN 55022: 1998 but wanted to make sure. Anything about the new edition of IEC/EN 60601-1-2? David Shidlowsky Technical Writer EMC Laboratory ITL (Product Testing) Ltd. Kfar Bin Nun Israel Tel: +972-8-9797799 Fax: +972-8-9797702 Email: dav...@itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. -Original Message- From: ITL-EMC User Group Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:50 AM To: Emc-Pstc Group (E-mail) Subject: EN 60601-1-2/ EN 55022: 1998 Dear All, I have read in various places that the new edition of IEC/EN 60601-1-2 is in effect (FDA in the US). As yet, only EN 60601-1-2: 1993 is listed in the OJ (December 2002). Does anyone know when the new edition will be listed in the OJ and thus become official? Regarding EN 55022: 1998 + Amendment A1: 2000, I have also read that the application of this standard is being delayed. Does anyone have any information as to when it will become applicable? Thanks David Shidlowsky Technical Writer EMC Laboratory ITL (Product Testing) Ltd. Kfar Bin Nun Israel Tel: +972-8-9797799 Fax: +972-8-9797702 Email: dav...@itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: W32.Elkern removal tools
Do you know if this bug came through the IEEE fire wall? Any more info available? I went to the F-sure site but was unsure if I should download the removal tool. Anyone use it yet? Jim Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of lfresearch Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:12 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: W32.Elkern removal tools W32.Elkern is a very dangerous virus that can infect on Win98/Me/2000/XP. F-Secure give you the very W32.Elkern removal tools For more information,please visit http://www.F-Secure.com
RE: W32.Elkern removal tools
Do you know if this bug came through the IEEE fire wall? Any more info available? I went to the F-sure site but was unsure if I should download the removal tool. Anyone use it yet? Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of lfresearch Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:12 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: W32.Elkern removal tools W32.Elkern is a very dangerous virus that can infect on Win98/Me/2000/XP. F-Secure give you the very W32.Elkern removal tools For more information,please visit http://www.F-Secure.com
RE: Medical Devices Environmental Requirements
Have you checked 60601-1? Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Naftali Shani Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:27 PM To: 'Mandel, Joel'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Medical Devices Environmental Requirements Are there any customers-specific requirements? In the telecom industry, NEBS/ETSI (Telcordia GR-63 ETS 300 019) come to mind. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 613.599.6430/866.2CATENA (X.8277); C 295.7042; F 599.0445 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Mandel, Joel [mailto:joel_man...@adc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:43 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:Medical Devices Environmental Requirements Hi All Can anybody help me out with Environmental testing requirement/Standards (Temp,Vibration) for medical devices? Thank You Joel Mandel Reliability Dept ADC Israel --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry
Hi Paul, Take a look at ISO 7637-1 for 12V systems and -2 for 24V vehicles. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Denomme, Paul S. Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:16 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RFI/EMI requirements for the automotive industry Hi All, Can someone please inform me of the standards RFI/EMI standards that are required in the automitive industry. This would be for a microprocessor controlled item that is part of the vehicle. My customer stated that EMI/RFI specifications are Standard Automotive. What I am trying to figure out is what is Standard Automotive EMI/RFI requirements. Thank you for your help. Paul Denomme Viasystems --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
Thanks Ken, Yes, 25 dBuV/m not 25 uV/m. I also found the test set up rather strange. Certainly not consistent with CISPR but then the aircraft environment is entirely different than most other equipment installations. I agree, this makes it hard to compare to CISPR testing. We may have over simplified the requirements for aircraft installations. I will take another look at this. Any other information would be very helpful to the IEC working group. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:16 AM To: Jim Conrad; m.bushn...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad Subject: Re: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I think you mean 25 dBuV/m, but regardless of the number, it is not a direct comparison to CISPR because a) the DO-160 EUT-antenna separation is 1 meter, not 3 or 10 meters, and b) the test is performed without an antenna height search, and c) the EUT is fastened to a metallic ground plane, and EUT-attached cables are mounted directly above the ground plane, which reduces emissions relative to a CISPR test set up. -- From: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net To: m.bushn...@ieee.org, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 6:48 AM I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process of amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft environment. We have based our requirements on the environment specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE are higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you find anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of m.bushn...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] Reply To: Ron Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM To: EMC Subject:RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard. Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this document contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the same specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our
RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process of amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft environment. We have based our requirements on the environment specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE are higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you find anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of m.bushn...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] Reply To: Ron Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM To: EMC Subject:RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard. Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this document contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the same specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz
John Woodgate wrote: There was a BIG argument between experts over the test signal to be used for assessing immunity to mobile phone emissions. CENELEC people prematurely chose the keyed-carrier signal, but it presents inconvenience in both generation and measurement. IEC experts (some from Europe) showed that sinusoidal modulation is quite acceptable and does not present those problems. See Annex A of IEC/EN61000-4-3:1995/7. -- I agree with John's comments. I have also done the comparison between on-off keying and sine wave modulation and found almost no difference on medical products. They measured to have the same susceptibility with either modulation. We conducted the test up to @.5 GHz. It was a joint effort between Motorola and HP/Agilent. I hope this helps. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:20 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian ian.gor...@edwards.boc.com wrote (in E1BA0362B28ED211A1E80008C71EA306018190CE@EXC_EAS01) about 'RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz' on Mon, 30 Sep 2002: My mistake - the old light industrial generic immunity standard EN50082-1 (and EN61000-6-1?) includes use of a keyed carrier at 900MHz No, IEC/EN 61000-6-1 doesn't include it either. There was a BIG argument between experts over the test signal to be used for assessing immunity to mobile phone emissions. CENELEC people prematurely chose the keyed-carrier signal, but it presents inconvenience in both generation and measurement. IEC experts (some from Europe) showed that sinusoidal modulation is quite acceptable and does not present those problems. See Annex A of IEC/EN61000-4-3:1995/7. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: EN 60601-1-2
It seems a bit strange that they have not listed it in the OJ yet but I am told it is coming soon. I think the important thing is that CENELEC approved it in Sept of 2001 and have now published the DOR, DOP, DOW on their web site. Now we just have to wait for the OJ publication that should happen in November. Best Regards, Jim Jim Conrad, Convenor IEC SC62A/MT23 P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936 U.S.A. E-mail: jc...@shore.net Phone: 978-468-3909 FAX: 978-468-1034 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ITL-EMC User Group Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:51 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN 60601-1-2 Hi all, Has anyone heard when the latest edition of EN 60601-1-2 will be published in the Official Journal? I have received enquiries from customers regarding the new edition. Thanks to anyone who can help. Regards David Shidlowsky Technical Writer EMC Laboratory ITL (Product Testing) Ltd. Kfar Bin Nun Israel Tel: +972-8-9797799 Fax: +972-8-9797702 Email: dav...@itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Medical Wrist Device and Cardiac Pacemakers
Hi Peter, I'm not sure what your wrist device does. Does it have electronics in it with clock frequencies over 9 kHz? Does it transmit a EMF? If the device is within CISPR limits then you should be OK for pacemakers. I think they are tested at 100 V/m. Some pacemakers have a magnetic switch in them that is activated at 10 gauss. I will send you a document describing EMI for pacemakers separately. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Peter Merguerian Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:21 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Medical Wrist Device and Cardiac Pacemakers Dear All, For a medical device to be worn on the wrist of a patient, does anyone know what additional requirements (if any) should the manufacturer of the medical device take in order for the device not to interfere with a cardiac pacemaker? My little research on the subject tells me that the cardiac pacemaker manufacturer should take all the required measures so that any other device nearby (cellular telephones, medical equipment, etc.) does not interfere with the pacemaker. Is this correct? Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: SMPS EMC Emissions
Alex wrote: Do you think it is reasonable to specify in my power supply specification that the manufacturers SMPS should meet EN55022 Class B -6dB Yes. I would ask for 6 dB margin since measurement uncertainty for a typical conducted measurements system is 5.4 dB. You must also allow for unit to unit variations in manufacturing. Sample 5 units and apply the 80/80 rule and see if they still pass. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Alex McNeil Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:57 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: SMPS EMC Emissions Hi Group, First of all thank you to those who replied to my previous email. I have not had time to reply personally...yet. I have noticed that the broadband noise of some SMPS are already near to the limits of EN55022 Class B (I tested with a max resistive load). This gives my product little scope for emissions at these broadband frequencies, especialy when my product is taking peak load e.g. printing. The power supply manufacturer rightly claims that his product does meet EN55022 Class B. Do you think it is reasonable to specify in my power supply specification that the manufacturers SMPS should meet EN55022 Class B -6dB or? Have any of you come across a similar scenario? As usual , I look forward to your professional opinions. Kind Regards Alex McNeil Principal Engineer Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375 Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321 email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Transmission line formula?
Hi Brent, I had the same problem when I designed mine. By using square stock, which is great for building a log-p, I was not able to get the impedance necessary to make it look 50 ohms at the driving end(but close enough to keep the VSWR 2:1). I was also trying to push the limits on gain and size. In any event, I finally wound up measuring the characteristic Z of the square stock transmission line. At close spacing the formula is Zo=377(w/l) for l/w10. w is the spacing and l is the thickness of the rod. If l/w is 0.1 then use Zo=120*cosh-1(w/l) or Zo=276*log(2w/l). If you are in the area of w=l then use Zo=sqrt(L/C) where L is the inductance per unit length and C is the capacitance per unit length. Measure these on your HP impedance or network analyzer. This gets you very close. Good luck! Give me a call if you would like more info. Best Regards, Jim Jim Conrad Conrad EMC Consulting P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936 U.S.A. E-mail: jc...@shore.net Phone: 978-468-3909 FAX: 978-468-1034 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 6:26 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Transmission line formula? Anyone have a formula for calculating the Z0 of two parallel rectangular pieces of metal tubing in air? I'm designing a log-periodic antenna and need to get the boom transmission line spacing right. Thanks! Brent DeWitt Datex-Ohmeda --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Bonding to conductive plastic - best method??
Hi Chris, I would try a Silver loaded conductive epoxy or use SS self tapping screws. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Chris Wells Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 10:23 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Bonding to conductive plastic - best method?? - Original Message - From: Chris Wells mailto:cdwe...@adelphia.net To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: christopherdwe...@eaton.com mailto:christopherdwe...@eaton.com Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:07 AM Subject: Bonding to conductive plastic - best method?? Recently we had a good string going on conductive platics. I would appreciate some help coming up with the ideal electrical bond to this type of plastic. We use a 6% Stainless Steel Fiber mix in Poly carbonate and I was looking for the best method to electrically bond to the plastic to drain off ESD or for high frequency bonding with the metal portion of our product. This would include Printed Circuit Board to plastic, Cable to plastic and metal housing to plastic type connections. For joining metal housing and PCB connections we have been using plastic screws that mechanically are designed for plastic. The threads are widely spaced, tall and thin - They cut into the plastic with out breaking the mounting bosses (studs). The engagement with the plastic (screw thread in plastic boss hole) is ~ 100% leaving little or no air gap between the screw and the plastic. First set of Question - If using screws what would be the best type of screw to insure good contact to the stainless steel fibers? * High profile, thin thread, plastic screw like I described? * Self tapping type screw? What should the platting be? * Clear Zinc * Zinc Chromate? * Nickle on brass? * Stainless Steel? Is there any sort of liquid/paste like adative that could be added to the screw hole to enhance the electrical connection? We have experimented with metal inserts (PEM nut brand for example). What sort of bonding does one get when molded in? I suspect poor relative to press in. Can the inserts be plain brass or should they be plated like with nickle? Depth of inserts - Longer inserts should be better but I am concerned about cracking of the boss. Screen matterial in the screw boss. I have seen screen matterial embedded in conductive plastic. Perhaps it could help screws bond to the plastic as well. Any comments? Sounds messy. Coatings on top of conductive plastic? If a coating were placed on the inner surface of the conductive plastic it might make a good hybrid sollution but costly. Are there other considerations? If you respond today try CC to christopherdwe...@eaton.com mailto:christopherdwe...@eaton.com So I get it at work too (the ITE guys can't handle this subscription list at work) This group is the best resource I have for this sort of topic - thanks in advance!! Chris Wells Senior Design Engineer Cutler-Hammer Pittsburgh, Pa. USA christopherdwe...@eaton.com mailto:christopherdwe...@eaton.com
RE: non 601 approved isolating component
Hi Ron, I think I am using the same part. Is it the isoloop part? That part is good for 2.5 kV for one minute. We plan to do humidity soak and dielectric tests to show that the basic insulation of the part is adequate for 601-1. I have also talked to the vendor to get the part UL2601 listed. There are several other medical customers using the part. The device is built to the same requirements/specs as the opto isolators so I have good feeling it is OK for our application (60601-1). Just be aware that some of the parts don't quite meet the 30 kV/uS transient immunity spec. and they do not spec the magnetic immunity. As you know, 3 A/m is required by 601. They jitter like crazy when you bring a 50/60 Hz field next to them. What freq. will you be running them at? They have higher immunity at 5 Volts supply voltages. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ron Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:49 PM To: EMC Subject: non 601 approved isolating component I need to use an isolating device between a sip/sop and an applied part (BF) requiring 1500V isolation (Basic(250)). I plan on using a digital isolator, but the component does not have IEC601 approval. The component does have 2500V isolation and 8 mm creepage. Questions: 1) When our product is submitted for IEC601 certification, how does the use of the non 601 approved part affect the investigation? 2) Does the investigator need the schematic for that component? What if the schematic is not available? 3) If the component already has other approvals (UL1950 or UL1577). How does this affect the approval process? Thanks in advance. r...@vascor.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Work in progress vs Date of Withdrawal
Hi Al, I do not know of a guide but it is usually stated in the directive what placing a product on the market means. It is my understanding that you can not ship(place on the market) anything into the EC that carries the CE mark after the date of withdrawal of a standard that is used to show compliance to a directive. Any products that are stored in a warehouse in the EC can still be sold after the DOW. Work in progress does not count. It must be in the country. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Brewster, Alan Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:52 AM To: emc-pstc Subject: Work in progress vs Date of Withdrawal Greetings All, If a vendor is in the process of building equipment and has started the manufacturing phase before the date on which a standard is superceded, can the goods still be supplied against the old standard? In particular, the introduction of EN 61000-6-2 on April 1st will leave some equipment suppliers with long lead time parts in a quandary over how to declare, especially if they might not meet the surge and dip requirements. Is there a published guidance on the treatment of material that is Work in Progress? Regards, Alan Brewster --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: SDR in the US
Hi Kim, 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Radio band in the US and I don't think it is available for general use. I am sending you an FCC publication entitled UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR LOW-POWER, NON-LICENSED TRANSMITTERS. I hope it helps. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:36 AM To: treg; EMC-PSTC Subject: SDR in the US Hi all I have a Radio remote control for use in private homes I have understood that 433MHz SRD is not possible in the US in the same way as in EU. Some FCC notes points to 902 - 928 MHz for this kind of equipment. I'm trying to understand the FCC but I'm hindered by no possible download of relevant 47CFR code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/47cfr90_00.html doesn't seem to function at the moment) Is it correct that 902 -928 is allowed in part 15 without license if output is below 50mV/m at 3m, and if I need more power I will have to apply for a general license under part 90 ? Please help me ! Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Industrial Locations
Amund, I am curious why you included ISM in your list of industrial locations. ISM can be either class A or class B. I thought the distinction was made according to the mains power distribution system; CISPR 11, subclause 4.2. JIm -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of am...@westin-emission.no Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 2:23 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: Industrial Locations I only have the generic EN50082-2 (immunity) and EN50081-2 (emission) standards, so I quote the description of locations from these standards: QUOTE start Industrial locations are characterized by the existence of one or more of the following conditions: - industrial, scientific and medical apparatus are present - heavy inductive or capacitive loads are frequently switched - current and associated field are high These are the major contributors to the industrial electromagnetic environment and as such distinguish the industrial from other environments. QUOTE end There are no other industrial examples in these generic standards. Amund, Oslo/Norway -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av richwo...@tycoint.com Sendt: 19. februar 2002 15:45 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: Industrial Locations Do the Generic emission and immunity ENs for industrial locations provide examples of those locations? If so, I would appreciate someone providing the list of the example locations. I need to compare them against the examples of light-industrial locations. Thanks in advance. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Medical Device Emissions Limit?
Yes it is. The real frequency is 450 kHz ±100 kHz. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:04 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Medical Device Emissions Limit? I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net wrote (in ncbbkfbmfdcdcgaccfbaaeimgmaa.jc...@shore.net) about 'Medical Device Emissions Limit?', on Tue, 12 Feb 2002: ESU = Electro Surgical Unit - also know as the Bovie knife As opposed to Bowie. Or the German version thereof. and is used for cutting and coagulating in the operating room. It is essentially a 300 watt spark gap transmitter operating at 500 kHz. Charming! Isn't that still an International Distress Frequency? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Medical Device Emissions Limit?
ESU = Electro Surgical Unit - also know as the Bovie knife and is used for cutting and coagulating in the operating room. It is essentially a 300 watt spark gap transmitter operating at 500 kHz. Sorry about that. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:47 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Medical Device Emissions Limit? I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net wrote (in ncbbkfbmfdcdcgaccfbageihgmaa.jc...@shore.net) about 'Medical Device Emissions Limit?', on Mon, 11 Feb 2002: you should also consider ESU testing even thought it is not specifically mentioned (at this time) in standards you mentioned below. What is 'ESU testing'? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Medical Device Emissions Limit?
Hi Kevin, Hospitals are generally considered Class A. If the device will be used in the OR, you should also consider ESU testing even thought it is not specifically mentioned (at this time) in standards you mentioned below. Your customers in the OR will be real unhappy when the Bovie goes off and your product fails to function. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kevin Hight Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:16 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Medical Device Emissions Limit? Good Morning, I am in desperate need of your expert assistance. I need to define the requirements for a device that is located in a hospital operating room. Device 'X' is used during surgery and makes contact to the patient. The device will be compliant with EN 60601-1, EN 60601-1-1, EN 60601-1-2 (2001). Question: For Radiated Emissions, is this product a Class A or a Class B device? Regards, __ Kevin J. Hight - Principal Compliance Engineer Colorado MEDtech, Inc. 6175 Longbow Drive, Boulder, Colorado 80301 Phone: (303) 530-8288 x-3111 Fax: (303) 581-1003 Email: k...@cmed.com mailto:k...@cmed.comhttp://www.cmed.com http://www.cmed.com Great crises produce great men, and great deeds of courage. -- John F. Kennedy --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition
Hi Ned, I think everyone is asking the same question. You have received the correct interpretation from the FDA. The 2nd edition is effective as of 10-2001 and if you claim compliance with it on your 510k, the FDA will not come back and ask for more information regarding EMC. They are however reasonable and do not expect manufactures to comply on such short notice but they then also reserve the right to come back and ask you additional questions regarding the EMC performance of you product which may include why you did not choose to comply with the 2nd edition of 60601-1-2. Call me if you want more information regarding this. You asked: Has anyone had any success in doing a risk analysis to use lower immunity compliance levels than specified in IEC 60601-1-2, Second Edition, Section 36.202.1 a) or using different compliance criteria (36.202.1 j))? The risk analysis that is call for in the 2nd edition is only to determine which functions of the equipment will be tested for immunity. Only those functions that are associated with essential performance need be tested. A risk analysis does not allow essential performance to pass at reduced levels. Yes, Clause 6.8.3.201 a) 5), These justification shall be based only on physical, technological or physiological limitations... pretty much preclude the use of lower limits? Your justification for lower immunity levels must be based on physical, technological or physiological limitations. You stated and asked: The device in question meets IEC 60601-1-2 First Edition, but will not pass the requirements in the Second Edition. Can the justification be that since there are no known risks on the device, the current level of immunity is adequate? No you cannot use this as a justification because it is not based on physical, technological or physiological limitations of your equipment. Please contact me directly if you need more help. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ned Devine Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 4:24 PM To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject: IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition Hi, I need some help from the EMC experts. According to FDA Acting Chief of the Brach I am dealing with, since the FDA has recognized IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition (October 2001), then ...If they submit a new 510(k) (or even a modification for an existing device) and we have recognized the more recent standard, then they would need to comply with the new standard. Making the new edition immediately effective seems a little harsh. I am appealing his interpretation, but I don't know if I will have any luck. Has anyone had any success in doing a risk analysis to use lower immunity compliance levels than specified in IEC 60601-1-2, Second Edition, Section 36.202.1 a) or using different compliance criteria (36.202.1 j))? Or does Clause 6.8.3.201 a) 5), These justification shall be based only on physical, technological or physiological limitations... pretty much preclude the use of lower limits? The device in question meets IEC 60601-1-2 First Edition, but will not pass the requirements in the Second Edition. Can the justification be that since there are no known risks on the device, the current level of immunity is adequate? Thanks Ned Ned Devine Program Manager Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 1 616 248 9671 Phone 1 616 574 9752 Fax ndev...@entela.com e-mail --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No
RE: noise immunity on mains powered equipment
Ken, I don't recall your original query but it sounds like you were asking about BCI testing requirements. I can answer for medical equipment. The 2nd ED of 60601-1-2 requires BCI testing of all patient connected cables. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:49 AM To: kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be; 'EMC-PSTC' Subject: Re: noise immunity on mains powered equipment I was hoping someone would be able to answer this more authoritatively than I can, but if there have been any replies, I missed them. I am aware that the US FDA imposes a BCI type requirement like MIL-STD-461 CS114. Of course that is for medical equipment. RTCA/DO-160 imposes a very similar BCI requirement on commercial avionics. SAE ARP 1972 included BCI testing but was just a recommended practice, I don't know of any entity that actually levied it as a requirement. The automotive world in this country at least has adopted BCI techniques as well. There were in-house specs (I recall seeing a GM spec) and a better version has been adopted as an SAE J-type requirement industry-wide. That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. -- From: kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be To: 'EMC-PSTC' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: noise immunity on mains powered equipment Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 11:06 AM Hello, Has any-one ever heard about a standard (non-military) that describes noise immunity of mains powered equipment. Testing seems to be done by the current bulk injection method. the standard is not IEC 61000-4-6. Regards, Kris Carpentier --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: IEC 60601-1/EN 60601-1 Question
Hi Kaz, I agree with Jon. However there are battery standards that you may consider meeting if you plan on CE marking the battery so it can be imported and sold in Europe as an accessory to your device. I just went through this with a recent medical product I worked on. There are also requirements for battery operated MEE in 60601-1-2; 2001 that you may want to consider. Best of luck. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jon Griver Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:13 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com Subject: IEC 60601-1/EN 60601-1 Question Kaz, I have checked my copy of EN 60601-1:1990 with amendments A1:1992 A2:1995 and A13:1995, which is the version of the standard currently specified in the Official Journal. I can find no reference to any specific battery standards in Annex L or Annex ZA. Clause 56.7 of the standard does have general requirements for batteries. Regards, Jon Griver www.601help.com The Medical Device Developers Guide to IEC 60601-1 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: EMC for cardio : which standard apply?
Hi Paolo, Yes, the 2nd ED has additional requirements but you will need to meet them anyway by November 2004 which is the D.O.W. for the 1st ED of 60601-1-2. In addition, the FDA in the US is now looking for compliance to the 2nd ED. That is, if you claim compliance to the 2nd ED on your 510K then they can not ask you for additional information about EMC. Japan also recognizes the 2nd ED. With all that being said, you can still use the 1st ED for CE compliance until November 2004. After that date, any MEE shipped into Europe with the CE mark will have to meet the requirements of the 2nd ED if you are going the standards route of compliance to the MDD. I hope this helps. Jim -Original Message- From: Paolo Peruzzi [mailto:paolo.peru...@esaote.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:53 AM To: Jim Conrad Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC for cardio : which standard apply? Jim, thanks for your suggestions. Our product will be sold at least in Europe and US, so we need CE marking, but not only that, I suppose. Though there are some similarities between 60601-2-25 +A1 and 60601-1-2 2nd ed, I think there are important differences too, to the extent that the latter is in general more severe (more tests prescribed). Best regards, p.p. - ESAOTE S.p.A. Paolo Peruzzi Research Product DevelopmentDesign Quality Control Via di Caciolle,15tel:+39.055.4229306 I- 50127 Florence fax:+39.055.4223305 e-mail: paolo.peru...@esaote.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: IEC 601-1 : Insulation between applied part and signal input
Hi Pierre, How is the skiing this year? Regarding your question, you need to look at the system standard, 60601-1-1, for interconnecting components of a medical electrical system. Generally, a computer does not meet the enclosure leakage requirements and thus requires some kind of an isolation device between the computer and the medical device. This could be an optical coupled RS 232 port as you described. This maybe the best way to achieve electrical safety. There are other ways such as the use of the EQUAL POTENTIAL GROUND wire. This is a quick answer but you need to study 60601-1-1 to determine the correct method of protection and also labeling requirements. Best of luck and Happy New Year. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Pierre SELVA Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 4:25 PM To: Forum Safety-emc Subject: IEC 601-1 : Insulation between applied part and signal input Hello from the Franch Alps, I need your help to determinate which insulation is required between an applied part (lin to the OV of the product thru a capacitor) and one signal input in a medical product, against IEC 601-1 requirements. The signal input is connected to the parallel port of a computer. I understand that the insulation has to be a supplementary one. Does this mean that I need to have a galvanic insulation (with optocoupleur, for example) or can I use another system ? Thanks a lot for your contribution. Bonnes fêtes de fin d'année et meilleurs voeux pour 2002 (happy new year and best whishes !) eLABs Pierre SELVA 18 Rue Marceau Leyssieux 38400 SAINT MARTIN D'HERES - FRANCE Phone : 33 (0)6 76 63 02 58 Fax : 33 (0)6 61 37 87 48 e-mail : e.l...@wanadoo.fr mailto:e.l...@wanadoo.fr ps.el...@laposte.net mailto:ps.el...@laposte.net ==
RE: Field Strength - Substitution Method
Sam, You should also consider the radiation may be from multiple sources on the EUT. Polarization of the source may not be the same at the substitution antenna. Try 0, 45, and 90 degree polarization of the bi-con. A tuned dipole would also give you better results as a bi-con has a very high SWR. This gives you addition loose which you may not have accounted for. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Cortland Richmond Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 12:26 PM To: Sam Wismer; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: Field Strength - Substitution Method Sam, I think you did it right with one AF and one gain. There's a problem with that method. You need more information needed to make the _results_ right. Given a certain power at the antenna terminal, and a known gain and efficiency, you can calculate the free-space field strength at some distance due to RF applied to that antenna. Then you add loss or gain due to reflection from the ground plane. This gets you down to some fairly reliable way to estimate what field strength will be created over a ground plane at some distance from an antenna. What you don't have -- and what, I think, is most difficult -- is a model that reliably correlates a substitution antenna as a source with the equipment under test. A rack seven feet tall and two feet on a side -- with wires overhead and off to its sides -- will NOT radiate the same as a dipole. And it will differ more from an antenna as its dimensions become larger than the antenna. I would expect differences to become more pronounced, in other words, at higher frequencies. This is what you saw. Cortland (my own opinion and not that of my employers) --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: -2dB margin
Hi George, I don't think the margin makes any difference in applying the 80/80 rule. If you have a series produced product you must apply the 80/80 rule using a sample size of not less than 5 and not more than 12 pieces. See Clause 11, Assessment of conformity of equipment, of CISPR 11: 1999. Happy New Year to all! Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of George Stults Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 2:43 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: -2dB margin Hello Group, I've been looking into the 80/80 rule for CISPR 22 compliance for mass produced equipment. I have found a description of the statistics in CISPR 22 :1997 Section 7.1 and 7.2. Its been my understanding that for testing at OATS, if the product has 2dB or less margin, then these statistical methods are required. Is that correct? And, where does the reference to '2dB margin' come from? Thanks in advance George S. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Enclosed OATS facilities in snow country
We plow the snow away from around the building. Unfortunately the building is up on a small rise but it does make it easy to get the snow line below the ground plane. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Bill Owsley Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:10 PM To: geor...@lexmark.com; Patrick Lawler Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Enclosed OATS facilities in snow country The IBM Greenock lab had an OATS with a very steep roof line, sharp A frame, and the heat to keep folks warm inside kept the lower edges somewhat free of snow. I don't recall any concerns, because the snow was not on top. - Bill At 01:06 PM 12/12/2001 , geor...@lexmark.com wrote: Once upon a time, before we were spun off from IBM, and I was the EMC manager here, I faintly recall that the IBM Boebligen lab in Germany had an OATS facility. I also faintly recall that snow on the rooftop did impact the measurements needed. Note that OATS structures are normally constructed with non-conductive materials, e.g. wood, plastic, etc. A layer of snow represents a plane of conductive material, albeit not a great conductor. However, these are memories from the distant past. Surely there are some still using OATS facilities where winter snow is a problem. George plawler%west@interlock.lexmark.com (Patrick Lawler) on 12/12/2001 12:40:35 PM Please respond to plawler%west@interlock.lexmark.com (Patrick Lawler) To: EMC-PSTC emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Enclosed OATS facilities in snow country I saw some photographs of an enclosed OATS facility in an area subject to snow. How does snow accumulation on the roof affect performance measurements? Does it affect the NSA figures? Is the effect significant enough that attempts are made to keep the roof snow free? Or does the normal attempt at keeping the inside test area warm enough for people take care of snow build-up? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. Bill Owsley, ows...@cisco.com 919) 392-8341 Compliance Engineer Cisco Systems 7025 Kit Creek Road POB 14987 RTP. NC. 27709 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: EMI guard bands
Cecil, We design our products for -10 dB limit, accept -8 dB for a lab prototype pre-production) and allow -6 dB for production units. We feel this is not conservative based on past history of measurement uncertainty and production variations. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of cecil.gitt...@kodak.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 7:46 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMI guard bands From: Cecil A. Gittens I am in the process of putting a document together for products that are tested for Radiated Conducted Emissions that should have a Guard-band of 6 dB for FCC or CISPR22 class A or B. Does it depend if the product is class A or B? Does anyone have any pointers or suggestions? Thanks. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: emc for FDA
Brian, For medical use 60601-1-2. They prefer the 9-2001 version. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of MCA Compliance Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 12:53 PM To: Emc-Pstc Post Cc: Brian McAuliffe Subject: emc for FDA Do FDA specify their own EMC requirements/standards or do they use those of the FCC (Part 15?) ? Brian --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: FDA FCC
Jon, If you look at Sec. 18.101 Basis and purpose, part 18 only applies to medical equipment that emits electromagnetic energy on frequencies within the radio frequency spectrum in order to prevent harmful interference to authorized radio communication services. The Ultrasound equipment that I am familiar with does not emit electromagnetic energy that would cause interference. They also comply with CISPR 11 class A or B emissions requirements depending on where they are used. Do you certify your Ultrasound equipment to Part 18? Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jon Griver Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 8:20 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FW: FDA FCC Jim, Yes and no. Yes. Medical ultrasound equipment is explicitly included in the scope of Part 18 under Section 18.107(f). I assume the logic is that RF circuits are required to generate the ultrasound. No. Section 18.121 excludes non-consumer medical ultrasound equipment, except for a few sections of Part 18 that deal mainly with allowed frequencies. Best Regards, Jon Griver http://www.601help.com - The Medical Device Developers' Guide to IEC 60601-1 Jon, Ultrasound equipment does us use RF directly to treat or diagnose patients. I don't believe Ultrasound equipment falls under part 18. The FDA is now recommending the use of IEC 60601-1-2; 2001 for EMC. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jon Griver Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 2:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FDA FCC This is not quite the whole story. Medical devices must get FDA approval, including EMC aspects. However, medical equipment is also subject to FCC regulations. FCC Part 15 exempts medical equipment (Sec 15.103), though it is still subject to the general requirements of the FCC in that devices found to cause interference can be stopped from operating. Medical devices that intentionally use EM radiation are subject to FCC Part 18. This includes ultrasound equipment, diathermy equipment, microwave therapeutic devices. Regards, Jon Griver http://www.601help.com - The Medical Device Developers' Guide to IEC 60601-1 Hi, In the USA, it is the FDA. For most medical products, the FDA determines that your product is Substantially Equivalent to a legally marketed device. This is the FDA 510(k) process. They issue you a letter that allows you to legally market the device. For EMC, the FDA usually wants to see that you comply with IEC 60601-1-2. Ned Ned Devine Program Manager III Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 616 248 9671 Phone 616 574 9752 Fax ndev...@entela.com e-mail -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:15 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FDA Hi all, What is the basic differences between FDA and FCC ? Don't laugh, yes I know it is a silly question, but if you want to certify medical equipment, are the requirements covered in the FDA or in the FCC regulations ? As you understand, within this field, I'm a really novice ... Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on
RE: FDA FCC
Jon, Ultrasound equipment does us use RF directly to treat or diagnose patients. I don't believe Ultrasound equipment falls under part 18. The FDA is now recommending the use of IEC 60601-1-2; 2001 for EMC. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jon Griver Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 2:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FDA FCC This is not quite the whole story. Medical devices must get FDA approval, including EMC aspects. However, medical equipment is also subject to FCC regulations. FCC Part 15 exempts medical equipment (Sec 15.103), though it is still subject to the general requirements of the FCC in that devices found to cause interference can be stopped from operating. Medical devices that intentionally use EM radiation are subject to FCC Part 18. This includes ultrasound equipment, diathermy equipment, microwave therapeutic devices. Regards, Jon Griver http://www.601help.com - The Medical Device Developers' Guide to IEC 60601-1 Hi, In the USA, it is the FDA. For most medical products, the FDA determines that your product is Substantially Equivalent to a legally marketed device. This is the FDA 510(k) process. They issue you a letter that allows you to legally market the device. For EMC, the FDA usually wants to see that you comply with IEC 60601-1-2. Ned Ned Devine Program Manager III Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 616 248 9671 Phone 616 574 9752 Fax ndev...@entela.com e-mail -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:15 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FDA Hi all, What is the basic differences between FDA and FCC ? Don't laugh, yes I know it is a silly question, but if you want to certify medical equipment, are the requirements covered in the FDA or in the FCC regulations ? As you understand, within this field, I'm a really novice ... Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave
RE: ESD - time between successive discharges
Just to give you an idea of how we handled this in 60601-1-2, we said: The time between discharges shall have an initial value of 1 s. Longer time between discharges may be required in order to be able to distinguish between a response caused by a single discharge and a response caused by a number of discharges. That is, each discharge should be evaluated independently. The time between them must be considered based the type of equipment being tested. Hope this helps and is WG13's implementation of this problem. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Michael Hopkins Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:48 AM To: am...@westin.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: ESD - time between successive discharges Seems to me the time between discharges is the same as the time between pulses (I believe that was the intent). I don't have the standard in front of me, but I think the max rate was 1/second, which means you could go slower. In most tests I've seen, the several discharges at one point are run at the 1/second rate, but then there could be several seconds or more between the discharges at that point and the discharges at the next point. At least one company actually runs tests at much higher discharge rates and with many more shots/point than IEC recommends (the new draft of ANSI C63.16 goes to 50 shots/per point). Michael Hopkins Thermo KeyTek - Original Message - From: am...@westin.org To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 4:06 PM Subject: ESD - time between successive discharges Dear members, From IEC61000-4-2 and several EN-product standards, they specify the time between successive discharges to be at least 1 second. But what is the maximum time between each pulse ? I can not see that it is stated in any standards. I guess the test labs use 1 pulse pr second. I feel that the pulse rate can have influences on the EUT performance, so 1 second compared to 3-5 seconds might be the difference between PASS and FAIL. Any suggestions ? Best regards 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. 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, --- 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: Medical devices in Japan
Nick, I have a contact in Japan if you need it. I do know that Japan just approved the 2nd Edition of IEC 60601-1-2 but what I am not sure of is if JTA requires compliance or what the transition date might be. If you would like me to look into this, contact me directly. Best regards, Jim Jim Conrad Conrad EMC Consulting P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936 USA Phone: 978-468-3909 E-Mail: jc...@shore.net -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Nick Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 10:02 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Medical devices in Japan I've been asked if I know what the regime is for medical devices in Japan. I don't know anything about this, but if there's anyone out there who can give me a brief idea or possibly even some URLs to look at, I'd be grateful. Anyone in the business of providing consultancy in this area please let me know and I'll likely put the enquirer in touch direct. Thanks and regards Nick. --- 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: Test Equipment ...
Just to add to Tanias comment, all medical electrical equipment is exempt from part 15. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tania Grant Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:16 AM To: Doug McKean; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: Test Equipment ... Doug, et al, FCC Part 15 addresses digital devices only. And they continue to use the term digital over and over again. The scope of FCC Part 15 does not address analog devices, whether they be industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment. However, the FCC are exempting (and some say temporarily) digital devices that are used exclusively as industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment. Therefore, no, a company that makes analog test equipment does not have to EMC test such products. (And someone tell me please how exactly they would test them if they wanted to!) taniagr...@msn.com mailto:taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Doug McKean Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 5:46 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: Test Equipment ... Price, Ed wrote: Doug: The rationale that I recall is that test equipment is expected to be used by people who understand the nature of electrical measurements and safety. These people will have the knowledge and resources, beyond those of a typical consumer, to recognize and ameliorate interference and other problems. Further, it is argued that compliance measures might hinder absolute accuracy and sensitivity of measurement equipment. Also, that test equipment is not usually manufactured in numbers comparable to typical consumer equipment, so the impact on a society is less. IIRC, there is a somewhat shorter and simpler explanation buried somewhere in Part 15. Okay, follow me on this for just a minute. 47 CFR, 15.103, Exempted devices. (c) A digital device used exclusively as industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment. The important word is digital. Why just digital? Does this mean if a company makes analog industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment, that equipment MUST be tested? Regards, Doug McKean (slowly becoming more confused ...) --- 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: EN 61000-4-2 ESD Requirements
Hi Santo, You didn't say what type of products you are making but for Medical Electrical Equipment complying with the 2nd ED of 60601-1-2 it will be 8 kV air and 6 kV contact. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Sandy Mazzola Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 2:21 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-4-2 ESD Requirements Members, Is there anyone who can let me know the status of any forthcoming increase in the EN 61000-4-2 ESD requirements of +/- 8 Kv air and +/- 4 Kv contact. Also any editorial comment on whether the current requirements are realistic would also be appreciated. Thanks Have a great day Santo Mazzola Regulatory Engineer Symbol Technologies Inc 1 Symbol Plaza Holtsville, N. Y. 11742-1300 Phone: (631) 738-5373 Fax: (631) 738-3318 E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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: EN 55011 Fundamental ISM frequencies
Doug, Doug asked: Do the unrestricted limits for the ISM frequencies really apply to both radiated and conducted or to only radiated emissions? I think yes and here is why. The 2nd ED of 60601-1-2 required testing to 61000-4-6 at a level of 10V at the ISM frequencies below 80 MHz and 3V everywhere else. Hope this helps. Best regards, Jim P.S. I hope the main return path for the ISM transmitter is not back through the power lines! Jim Conrad Conrad EMC Consulting P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936 USA Phone: 978-468-3909 E-Mail: jc...@shore.net -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of POWELL, DOUG Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:21 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Cc: HARDMAN, BRYAN; JOHNSON, J. D. Subject:EN 55011 Fundamental ISM frequencies Dear groups, My company is a manufacturer of equipment defined in EN55011 (CISPR 11) as Group 2, Class A products and a question has come up regarding the ISM frequencies that I am hoping you can clarify for us. Tables Ia and Ib of the standard list the fundamental ISM frequencies and their associated limits (or lack of). Since column 3 (column 2 of Ib) is titled Maximum radiation limit, it has been thought by every compliance engineer in my company, that these forgiveness bands only apply to radiated emissions. However, paragraph 3.3 states that ... The limits for terminal voltages and radiation do not apply to these ISM frequencies ... It appears that there is a discrepancy in the language if these two references. So the question is this: Do the unrestricted limits for the ISM frequencies really apply to both radiated and conducted or to only radiated emissions? Any opinions or discussion on this would be greatly appreciated. -doug = Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Ft. Collins, Co 80525 mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com www.advanced-energy.com = --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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: Status of Frequency extension of EN 61000-4-3
FYI, IEC 60601-1-2: 2ED, EMC for Medical Electrical Equipment requires 3/10 V/m testing to 2.5 GHz! Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pettit, Ghery Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 11:19 AM To: 'Sandy Mazzola'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Status of Frequency extension of EN 61000-4-3 Sandy, Whether or not IEC (or EN) 61000-4-3 has its applicable frequency range extended, there is no effect on EN 55024:1998 or CISPR 24 until such time as these documents are amended to increase the frequency range for the test. As a member of CISPR SC G WG3, I can tell you that there is no proposal in CISPR to increase the frequency range for this test in CISPR 24 at this time. Of course, we're meeting in Bristol, England next week and anything could happen, but I don't expect this to come up. Given the speed(?) with which changes work their way through the system, it would be 2 or 3 years before CISPR 24 could be amended if we started next week, then a 3 year transition period in the EU, so if a successful effort to increase the frequency range of this test were to start next week, you'd be looking at 5 to 6 years before it became mandatory in Europe. Other countries using CISPR 24 (Korea and Russia, for example) might act faster, but still nothing could happen until CISPR 24 was amended and I would expect that to take 3 years. Bottom line - don't start placing purchase orders for new equipment just yet. Ghery S. Pettit, NCE Intel -Original Message- From: Sandy Mazzola [mailto:mazzo...@symbol.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 8:04 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Status of Frequency extension of EN 61000-4-3 To all, My question pertains to EN 55024:1998, Information Technology Equipment-Immunity Characteristics, flowing down to EN 61000-4-3 :1997, Radiated Immunity. I am looking for the status of a frequency extension to EN 6100-4-3 radiated Immunity. EN 61000-4-3:1997 lists 80 MHz to 1 GHz as the test frequency range. Is anyone aware of the Radiated Immunity requirements being extended to 3 Ghz or higher sometime in the near future. If there are any drafts proposing this can you list the draft number. Finally, if no present plans exist could anyone venture a prediction for when and if the radiated Immunity frequency will be extended. Thx Sandy Mazzola Santo Mazzola Regulatory Engineer Symbol Technologies Inc 1 Symbol Plaza Holtsville, N. Y. 11742-1300 Phone: (631) 738-5373 Fax: (631) 738-3318 E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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: New Immunity/ESD Specs.
IEC 61000-4-2 (2001-04) Consolidated Edition 1.2 https://domino.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/all/3391D5E5625356F8C1256A3B001 1096C?OpenDocument was just published by the IEC CO. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Juhasz Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 4:49 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: New Immunity/ESD Specs. Hello all . . . A 3rd party statement was made to me today about 'new' immunity specifications for ITE. More specifically for ESD. I am currently using EN 50082-1:1997 for the immunity series, my ESD being EN 61000-4-2:1995. Is there anything newer going to be introduced any time soon? Thanks John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY --- 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: Medical Directive
I don't think my first reply went out. This a second try. Sorry Cyril. Best regards, Jim Cyril, Please see my answers to your questions below: -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Binnom, Cyril A Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 7:46 AM To: emc-pstc Subject:Medical Directive Group: I am attempting to send ITE equipment to the European Union, and the unit will be used in a hospital environment. I have no problem testing to the Medical or EMC Directive, whichever is applicable, but I am in need of some clarification My questions are: * I have been told that if the unit is mobile, (which it is) then the Medical Directive applies. There is no patient interface but it will be in a hospital environment. I your device does not have a PATIENT APPLIED PART, you do not have medical electrical equipment and do not have to comply with 60601-1. However, you must ensure that it does not get used in the PATIENT vicinity, i.e. within 1.5 meters of the patient (see Figure 201 in IEC 60601-1-1) You may have a Medical System if this device attaches to Medical Electrical Equipment in which case IEC 60601-1-1 will apply. The software should comply with 60601-1-4. * Will EN 60601-1-2 (EMC) be upgraded in the near future as I do not want to test to the current standard and have to go back in a year or two and retest the unit, and if so is there a proposed standard for review. IEC 60601-1-2: Second edition will be published in July. Completely new. Uses 61000-4-XX for immunity. New test levels. Harmonics requirements. Exclusion for ITE, etc. * Does the unit under EN 55011 have to be tested to Class B or Class A limits for hospital use. I have been told that in Sweden and Germany, Class B is mandatory. The hospital environment is considered Class A. Sweden has finally agreed. Germany has always accepted Class A in the Hospital. Check clause 4 of CISPR 11. * A demo has been requested A.S.A.P. Does the demo have to be CE mark, (it will not be sold) or is there room or a clause that allows this one unit to be shipped to the EU while compliance is being completed. I am under the assumption, that the demo will be used in the hospital during this time. You MUST have the CE mark if you plan to show it in an EU country. Best regards, Jim Regards, Cyril A. Binnom Jr. EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240 (770) 447-6928 Fax binno...@lxe.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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: HP684XA harmonics analyser software
Hi Chris, I spoke with Agilent in Rockaway a couple of weeks ago and they assured me they will be addressing A14 with a software update. That is the good news. However, it will not be ready for another 4 -6 months!!! Best regards, Jim Colgan, Chris wrote on 2/28/01 8:41 am: Hi all Does anyone know if Agilent have written a software upgrade (for A14 of EN61000-3-2) for their harmonics analysers yet? The Agilent website won't tell and their contact link is broken. 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. 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 Healdapplication/ms-tnef
Re: IEC 606010-1-2
It is the same as 60601-1-2; 1993, i.e. CISPR 11, class A or B depending on the environment. Best regards, Jim owner-emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 1/25/01 2:34 pm: Any advance info on conducted emissions for the new standard? thnx Brian O'Connell Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc. --- 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 Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, M.A. 01936 Phone: 978-468-3909 attachment: winmail.dat
RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
Al, It relaxed the limits for almost all products except ITE, TV's, etc. I do not remember all the details since I have not had to apply it yet. Essentially the harmonic current limits are no longer relative based on the power consumption of the device but based are on absolute values as if the product was drawing 15A(not sure of this exact #). But essentially anything will pass now. You can purchase A14 on the IEC web site at www.iec.chThere is also a 75 watt exemption. Products less that 75 watts automatically comply. Best regards, Jim' Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: Allan, James [mailto:james_al...@milgo.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 2:53 PM To: brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)'; 'jc...@shore.net' Subject:RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. In a nutshell how did A14 change 61000-3-2. I don't have a copy of A14 yet. 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: Jim Conrad [SMTP:jc...@shore.net] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:09 AM To: brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)' Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Yes, you can use the A14 for the January 1, 2001 compliance. Just be sure to add 61000-3-2 A14 to your DOC. Best regards, Jim Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:43 AM To: emc-pstc (E-mail) Subject: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its January 2001 compliance date? As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies, the amendments are of great importance to me. --- 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: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
Yes, you can use the A14 for the January 1, 2001 compliance. Just be sure to add 61000-3-2 A14 to your DOC. Best regards, Jim Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:43 AM To: emc-pstc (E-mail) Subject:EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its January 2001 compliance date? As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies, the amendments are of great importance to me. --- 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 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests
Gert, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your reasoning on this matter as I have just been thought similar reasoning on a standard I am working on, IEC 60601-1-2, EMC for Medical electrical equipment. The group responsible for writing IEC 61000-3-2, IEC SC 77A WG 1, has agreed with our interpretation of public low voltage distribution systems, that is, it is the same as CISPR 11 Class A environment, Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other than domestic and those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies buildings used for domestic purposes. However, as you mentioned, these standard are subject to change and my understanding is that both harmonics and flicker requirements will apply to all environments in the future. I hope this helps. Jim Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 1:18 PM To: Jim Conrad; bfag...@us.tuv.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests File: Gert Gremmen.vcf be careful Jim, In Europe one harmonic standard has no power to exclude the requirements of another harmonic standard that is applicable to the apparatus. Especially those of EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3 !! The target of the EMC-directive is covering all essential EMC requirements: -Low frequency -High frequency -Radiated -Conducted for -Emission -Immunity and the permutations of the above. This does not mean that testing is required; you just sign for compliance. Any proof of compliance, even reasoning may be sufficient. In some cases you will need the opinion of a third party (CB). As some harmonized standards (55011) are older than these requirements, some incompatible statements may occur. These will be ruled out slowly when newer versions of the standard appear. Normally every standard will be updated once every 4 years. Be especially careful with all exceptions and notes in standards that for some (not) obvious reason try to exclude certain categories of equipment from some difficult to meet requirements IF a such-and-so-note is printed on the equipment. These have no value in Europe for ce marking. Basically most Class A (EN 55022 and 55011) are not easy to be sold in Europe due to the very strict definition of heavy industrial environment. In fact, if there is no very stringent (functional) reason why an equipment cannot meet Class B emissions, it should. No clauses allowed Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jim Conrad Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:17 PM To: bfag...@us.tuv.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests Hi Bruce, Your customer is correct. If the device is classified as a Class A (according to CISPR 11), you do not need to comply with flicker requirements. Jim Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of bfag...@us.tuv.com Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 6:04 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests Hello group! I've got a customer in our EMC lab that makes a laboratory instrument incorporating heaters with a typical 3-4 amp input current at 230vac. He is failing the flicker test due to the design of the heater control. They are undertaking a redesign but would like to keep selling product in the interim. They have come up with an interesting interpretation of the scope of EN 61000-3-3: the standard specifies that the tests are applicable to products connected to the public low voltage distribution systems but if you take a typical industrial location or even a typical commercial location, isn't it true that these locations are fed by a dedicated transformer at the building that isolates them from the public network? I guess the question becomes - what is considered the public network? What if the marketing of the product was restricted to industrial locations? My initial reaction to the question was that anyplace you can plug or wire into at typical 230vac is considered the public network, especially considering the mixed residential / commercial buildings common in Europe. Anyone care to comment? Bruce Fagley Sr. Specialist, EMC Industrial Products TUV Rheinland 12 Commerce Rd. Newtown CT. 06470 203-426-0888 ext 119 203-426-4009 fax
RE: EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests
Hi Bruce, Your customer is correct. If the device is classified as a Class A (according to CISPR 11), you do not need to comply with flicker requirements. Jim Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of bfag...@us.tuv.com Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 6:04 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests Hello group! I've got a customer in our EMC lab that makes a laboratory instrument incorporating heaters with a typical 3-4 amp input current at 230vac. He is failing the flicker test due to the design of the heater control. They are undertaking a redesign but would like to keep selling product in the interim. They have come up with an interesting interpretation of the scope of EN 61000-3-3: the standard specifies that the tests are applicable to products connected to the public low voltage distribution systems but if you take a typical industrial location or even a typical commercial location, isn't it true that these locations are fed by a dedicated transformer at the building that isolates them from the public network? I guess the question becomes - what is considered the public network? What if the marketing of the product was restricted to industrial locations? My initial reaction to the question was that anyplace you can plug or wire into at typical 230vac is considered the public network, especially considering the mixed residential / commercial buildings common in Europe. Anyone care to comment? Bruce Fagley Sr. Specialist, EMC Industrial Products TUV Rheinland 12 Commerce Rd. Newtown CT. 06470 203-426-0888 ext 119 203-426-4009 fax --- 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
