RE: US Central Office power source
Anil, I am not aware of any CO's in North America running at -60VDC. I believe your assumption to be correct. Thx, Joe From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Anil Allamaneni Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 6:07 PM To: n...@world.std.com; t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: a...@occamnetworks.com Subject: US Central Office power source Greetings, Are there *any* CO locations in US that use -60VDC? I am assuming 99.999% of all CO's in US use -48VDC. Thanks. Anil a...@occamnetworks.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: ESD failure
Hi Ravinder, Might you have a suppression device installed that triggers above 3KV? Thx, Joe * Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 804-8400 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ajm...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 8:57 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: ESD failure Hi Gurus, My device now generally passes 7 -8 kV contact discharge, but sometimes fails at 3 kV (I am testing from 1 kV to 8 kV, 1 zap per second for about 15 seconds). Can someone explain the reason for this behavior. Thanks. Regards, Ravinder Server PCB and Flex Development Hitachi Global Storage Technologies *** Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. Mark Twain This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Malaysian Requirements for C.O. Equipment
I could've sworn I had this information, but can't seem to find it for the life of me. Has anyone had the pleasure of selling C.O. Equipment in Malaysia? If so, what where the applicable requirements regarding telecom, EMC and safety? To clarify, this product would not connect to the PSTN and does not provide connections to outside plant, only internal to the Central office. The more details, the better - Certification agencies, contact info, lead time, cost, etc. Thx, Joe * Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: D of C again
Doug, I agree with the D of C, but where does it state that the technical file must also be held by the representative in the EU? Maybe I missed that one. I am speaking with regards to the EMCD and LVD. It's not a big deal if it is required, although it would be easier to keep the files in a central location and minimize copying. Thx, Joe * Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com From: douglas_beckw...@mitel.com [mailto:douglas_beckw...@mitel.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:19 AM To: lfresea...@aol.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: D of C again And the answer is The D of C must be signed by the responsible person designated by the manufacturer. The signatory does not have to be located in the EU. The manufacturer must designate a representative in the EU who will hold the certificate and the technical file. This could be an agent, distributor. A copy of the D of C that states the directives complied with must be placed in the user manual. Note, this does not have to be signed, but it must state where the signed original can be obtained. i.e. the EU representative's contact details. Doug Beckwith (OOPO) lfresea...@aol.com Sent by: To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org owner-emc-pstc@majordom cc: o.ieee.org Subject: D of C again 04/29/03 09:13 AM Please respond to Lfresearch Hi folks, I've been asked by a US manufacturer who's signature if any should appear on the D of C, and should they be located on European soil. Is there a clear consensus? Thanks, Derek N. Walton Owner L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility Poplar Grove, Illinois, USA www.lfresearch.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: D of C again
Derek, I have just finished reading the EMCD and LVD regarding this very concern, so my answer is limited. My interpretation is that the US Manufacturer can affix the CE Mark, generate the D of C and sign the D of C. It is the responsibility of the importer to ensure compliance and make available the D of C. It is the responsibility of the Manufacturer or his EU Rep to make available all technical docs, which do not necessarily need to reside on EU soil - just be available. Ultimately, it looks like all responsibility falls on the importer, though, when the Mfr does not reside in the EU. As I am moving forward with this position in mind, any comments would be greatly appreciated as well. Thx, Joe * Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:13 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: D of C again Hi folks, I've been asked by a US manufacturer who's signature if any should appear on the D of C, and should they be located on European soil. Is there a clear consensus? Thanks, Derek N. Walton Owner L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility Poplar Grove, Illinois, USA www.lfresearch.com
RE: Thermocouple glue
Why? From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Thermocouple glue My use of thermal grease was discontinued several years ago by request of various agency engineers reviewing test data/technique. And more recently, during my ISO 17025 audit, the NCB auditor explicitly directed me to never use thermal grease for thermocouple application. And auditors from other NRTLs/NCBs have emphasized, at least verbally, that thermal grease is not acceptable. R/S, Brian -Original Message- From: Ron Pickard [ mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:19 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Thermocouple glue To all, I'm surprised that no one hasn't mentioned this yet. In the past for this application, the securement that I was introduced to was fiberglass tape and that white thermal grease. The tape exhibited high thermal stability and was used to secure the thermocouples, but left adhesive residue when removed after a temperature test. The thermocouple was inserted into the grease which offered excellent thermal conduction from the measurement point to the thermocouple. The downside to this grease, as anyone who's used this grease would say, is that the grease is messy to the extreme and it generally could not be completely removed from any surface that it came in contact with. And, it always found a way to get onto unintended surfaces including clothing. But, as a plus, the thermal grease would stay put physically over a very wide temperature range.
C.O. Battery Voltages - EVERYWHERE
I'm interested in obtaining information on the percentage of C.O.'s worldwide that are utilizing -60VDC as their battery voltage. It is my understanding that a majority use -48VDC although some still use -60VDC. Any and all information/references would be helpful. If there are references that are country specific or carrier specific, that would be valuable information as well. Any charts/spreadsheets out there similar to the mains supply charts I've seen would be excellent. Thx, Joe * Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Italian Homologation process
Hi Mark, OK, here we go again. I'm going to give you my position on this and you will most assuredly hear from others with their position. You state which interfaces you DO NOT have but you do not state which interfaces you DO have. So, I am going to assume that you do not connect directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of the public telecommunications networks. My interpretation is that the RTTE Directive does not apply. The applicable Directives to LEGALLY ship your product into the EU are the EMCD and LVD. The standards are most likely EN 60950 and EN 300 386-x. I do not believe that EN 300 019 is a legal requirement for sale in the EU. Your customer, however, will most likely impose procurement requirements which could include EN 300 019 and protocol testing (depending on your interfaces). In summary, to LEGALLY ship, satisfy the EMCD and LVD. You need to request the test requirements from your customer and consult with your local test lab with the specifics of your product. OK, have at me. Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com From: Gandler, Mark [mailto:mgand...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:07 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Italian Homologation process Hi, do you know if is it any homologation process involve in order to sell in Italy? The product does not have any telecomm ( phone/DSL ) interfaces, but it should be installed in Central Office type environment. Should DoC and Environmental testing (ETSI 300 019) be enough? Is any protocol testing involved? Where can I find any official information? We have been requested to provide certificate of homologation of the products from Ministry of Communications. Any information and comments will be highly appreciated. Thanks, Mark Gandler Ciena This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
NEBS Server
I've been asked by a colleague if I knew of a NEBS Level 3 compliant server platform. The only requirement to which I was made aware is: less than $3000 minimum 800MHz uP speed minimum 512MB Ram If anyone has any leads, please respond off-list. Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 804-8212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Temp chamber
Dave, Before we got our own chamber, I rented out time at a local lab. If I recall correctly, I paid approximately $300 per day for a 32 cu. ft. model and something like $700 per day for a walk-in. I'd have him call the local labs for quotes. Thx, Joe *** Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com From: Dave Wilson [mailto:davewilson...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:11 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Temp chamber Hello Group, An ex-colleague of mine is looking to use a temperature chamber for a short time to do some tests, in the Bay Area. Anyone know of a way of doing this without too much expense? Thanks in advance, Dave Wilson Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety
Daniel, I'm not exactly sure how that comment pertains to this discussion or any discussion on this forum. Would you please elaborate. Thx, Joe From: Daniel Forrest [mailto:daniel.forr...@at.flextronics.com] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:21 AM To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'Stone, Richard A (Richard)'; 'Brent DeWitt'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety I can only presume that both the EMC Directive and the LVD will never account for the fact that the guy was American. From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:35 PM To: 'Stone, Richard A (Richard)'; 'Brent DeWitt'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety Richard, I think that you may be getting things mixed up. The aspect of Functional Safety that was being discussed is when a safety hazard results from the equipment under consideration being exposed to a level of em radiation greater than that which it was designed for. We are not discussing whether it is possible to increase emissions due to a single fault. In fact this topic has been discussed in the LVD Working Party with a particular situation as follows. The issue was caused by an electronically controlled bread-toaster. The consumer had put his newspaper on the (cold) toaster - presumably due to lack of space in his kitchen. He then received an incoming call on his mobile 'phone, which turned his toaster on (due to lack of immunity). The hot toaster then set the newspaper on fire. Personally, I am not convinced that simply carrying out single fault testing will ensure that there is no safety hazards in all cases. It really depends on the design of the electronics in the equipment. Perhaps the design requires two separate transistors to be turned on by two independent microprocessors in order to create some kind of hazard. However, if the immunity of the system is poor then both of these microprocessors could generate signals that turn both of these transistors ON. Of course, this is just a thought experiment and I have no personal experience of this being a problem in real life. With safety it is very difficult to prove that a hazard can not exist by inspection of the design when - as Ken Javor said - Genius has its limits, but ignorance has none. While I am on line, I never said that the content of the article was technically good, only that it was interesting! It has certainly caused a stir. Regards, another Richard. From: Stone, Richard A (Richard) [mailto:rsto...@lucent.com] Sent: 12 February 2003 13:23 To: 'Brent DeWitt'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety its not the fault of a component that concerns me For EMI interference,just running normal., a very loud radiator could interfere with something else, wheel chair controller, as mentioned, thats why testing is critical...now for the fault! Not an expert, but a component fault,typically may make something not work, but worse emissions as a result? anyone have information on this event? thanks, Richard, From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:39 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety Gregg, As an EMC engineer and a member of the IEC committee that wrote the 2nd edition of IEC 60601-1-2, I find your challenge interesting. First, I have to say I was not impressed with the referenced article. Facts were played a little bit too loose for my preferences. That said, I strongly believe that EMI is an inseparable portion of product safety. You mention that EMC interferes and I agree. When it interferes with a wheelchair controller and drives the patient into traffic or causes an infusion pump to triple the drug delivery rate, it can kill. I don't believe I have enough product safety experience to say if those same failures could have been caused by single component faults, but I suspect that a real world examination of the product has a significant possibility of missing the single component that was effected. I can say from 15 years or so experience that it takes much less than a microwave oven to cause medically critical control electronics to misbehave. Regards, Brent DeWitt Datex-Ohmeda Louisville, CO From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gregg Kervill Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:14 PM To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'drcuthbert'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC-Related Functional Safety I fully agree with Richard Hughes - it is an interesting article but those of us who have conducted Flight Safety work will find it VERY weak is its content and treatment. Whilst EMC interferes (unless you are sitting in a microwave oven) - it is Product Safety (or the lack thereof) that kills! Furthermore I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the EMC related fatalities could not
EMI Contract Position Chelmsford. MA
Group, This guy mentioned it's about a 3 month job if anyone's interested. I don't know anything about this so please reference the contact info below if you are interested. Thx, Joe EMI Design consultant: Provide concise design feedback on existing product designs, including improvements to minimize EMI emissions and conduction. Ability to review and recommend design practices for Class A and Class B testing and acceptance. Timothy J. Wood Technical Recruiter Eliassen Group, Inc. (781) 246-1600 - phone (781) 213-8176 - fax tw...@eliassen.com www.eliassen.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
Philippines Certs
I am wondering if anyone might have an email address for any of the people listed below. I am interested in posing a question to the proper individual(s) at the NTC in The Philippines and this is the information I have. If anyone has the information I am seeking or another contact that would help, it would be greatly appreciated. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC) NTC Building, BIR Road, East Triangle Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines Atty. Joseph A. Santiago Commissioner Tel: (632) 924-4042; 924-4048; 924-3749; 921-3251 (Fe) Fax: (632) 921-7128; 924-4048 Aurelio M. Umali Deputy Commissioner Tel: (632) 924-4040 / 924-4087 (Contact: Nida Quenca) Fax: (632) 924-4087 Nestor C. Dacanay Deputy Commissioner Tel: (632) 924-3749, 924-4037 (Contact: Lolly, Tessie) Fax: (632) 924-3749 Thx, Joe * ...OLE_Obj... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 804-8212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: 48/60 Vdc Centralized Office Equipment
Peter, I am aware of the float voltages and agree that a 60VDC rating **should be** tested up to 72VDC. However, I still feel that DC tolerances are not adequately reflected in the body of the standard. Is the phrase influences of polarity intended to reference float voltages??? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:30 AM To: Joe Finlayson; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: 48/60 Vdc Centralized Office Equipment Joe - When the nominal CO supply voltage is 60Vdc and batteries are charging, the float voltage is closer to 72Vdc. Test houses are aware of this and take it into account when performing their evaluations. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services 2000 Ringwood Ave. San Jose, CA 95131-1749 V: 408-904-2081 F: 408-904-2095 M: 408-234-3529 peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson I see section 1.4.5 addressing the determination of the most unfavorable supply voltage for a test. The tolerance to be taken into account is clear for the determination of AC mains powered equipment. All it says for DC powered equipment is that the influence of polarity shall be taken into account. I see coming up with a potential of 60VDC either way. Was the intent here to state something I am missing? Thx, Joe --- 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: 48/60 Vdc Centralized Office Equipment
David, I agree that one should take into account a tolerance although I am not convinced that IEC 60950 actually addresses this (clearly anyway). Please correct me if I am mistaken as I have not investigated this situation. I see section 1.4.5 addressing the determination of the most unfavorable supply voltage for a test. The tolerance to be taken into account is clear for the determination of AC mains powered equipment. All it says for DC powered equipment is that the influence of polarity shall be taken into account. I see coming up with a potential of 60VDC either way. Was the intent here to state something I am missing? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: David Heald [mailto:dhe...@tellium.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:24 AM To: 'Peter Merguerian'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: 48/60 Vdc Centralized Office Equipment Peter, As someone who rates their products the same (well, without the label/manual discrepancy), I can say with confidence that the product is TNV-2 due to input supply deviations (60V ± a few). This isn't really as bad as it sounds, though, as the only real issue you will have is maintaining 1mm spacing around the TNV-2 circuits. Bridging components must also be of sufficient (Basic, I think, but I didn't check just now) insulation ratings, but even if they fail, the only requirement is that no more than TNV-2 voltages be present on secondary circuits or ground. Best Regards, Dave Heald -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:22 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: 48/60 Vdc Centralized Office Equipment Dear All, I have a client who insists on a 48/60 Vdc (slash) rating and wishes to consider the input to be SELV. He states in the manual the operating voltage tolerance 36-60 Vdc. In this case that the manufacturer specifies the tolerance in their manual, will the CO operators consider the 48/60 Vdc rating a SELV input; or a TNV-2 input because the float voltages on the nominal 60 Vdc supply can reach 72 Vdc - ie disregarding the specs in the manual? 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 --- 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
ESD Gun
I'm currently renting a Schaffner NSG435 ESD Gun and like the features. Would anyone be able to provide me with some leads where I might be able to get a deal (used is OK) on a comparable piece of equipment to purchase? I find the continuous feature to be a necessity as well as the ability to set the pulse frequency to 0.5 Hz (2 pps) or less. Any leads would be appreciated. Any solicitation is encouraged to be done off line. Thx, Joe *** Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.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
FW: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
All, Below is a response from Mark Bogers reinforcing my, as well as other's, position on the applicability of Network Equipment under the RTTE Directive. Based on this response, it is clear that the intent of the directive was not to include Network Equipment. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Mark Bogers [mailto:mark.bog...@skynet.be] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:45 AM To: 'jfinlay...@telica.com'; mark.bog...@cec.eu.int Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Network equipment isn't covered by the RTTE Directive. It is only covered by the EMC and LVD Directives and you need to ensure compliance with those. Please note, you might still have a problem in Italy as they retained an approval system for such equipment. My understanding is that that regulation will however be removed in the near future. Further information can be found on our website. Central entry point to those of the mentioned 3 Directives is on http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise. Mark Bogers -Original Message- From: jfinlay...@telica.com [SMTP:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: woensdag 2 oktober 2002 20:07 To: mark.bog...@cec.eu.int Subject:FW: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hello Mark, Roger Magnuson recommended I run this situation by you as you are, in his words, the contact point for RTTE issues. You could follow the thread, but I'll try to summarize the question instead. My company, Telica, Inc., would like to sell our Plexus 9000 in the EU. The Plexus 9000 does provide E1 as well as OC-3 and OC-12 interfaces although they are not intended to be offered to the General Public for sale. This product is classified as SELV per IEC 60950 and in destined only for the Central Office. As this product is Network Equipment, has no physical capability of connecting to a PSTN E1 port, etc. (our E1 cards accommodate 28 E1's per card and the connection scheme is a 60-pin telco connector) and will not be placed on the EU market for general availability (Network Operators only), does this product fall within the scope of the RTTE Directive? The general consensus seems to be no although there are some who feel it does. I would like to get an official ruling on the intent of the RTTE Directive to ensure we meet the full intent of the EU Directives. Regards, Joe *** Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Paul, I agree with your statements below. I also agree that test reports to the applicable interface standards may be required in other countries. I further agree that certain network operators within the European Union may require said test reports as part of their procurement requirements. My charter is to advise management of the *legal* requirements to ship a product into a particular region. However, spending money and allocating resources prematurely under the current market conditions would be frowned upon at my company. I have non doubt that I will end up testing to ETSI TBR's although we would rather delay project until it is necessary. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Paul Didcott [mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:34 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson' Cc: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, The situation is sublimely simple really. If the equipment will ever be sold as 'Terminal Equipment' (the RTTED definition has already been given in this thread), it falls within the scope of the RTTED. If it will only ever be sold direct to the public network operators within the EU/EFTA countries, and used internal to the network, it is outside of the scope of the RTTED. (NB: Network Operators will have there own 'procurement requirements'). As per my post on the 2nd Oct: E1 equipment designed for connection to a public telecom network service (i.e. as terminal equipment), must be CE marked for compliance with the RTTED. However, the applicable (harmonised) standards will be exactly the same for EMC and Safety compliance under the RTTED as would apply under the EMC Directive and LVD. Regarding your question: Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? For what it's worth, I have lectured on the application of the RTTED at least 1/2 a dozen times with Mark Bogers in attendance, as well as run seminars on the application of the RTTED within CEE 'Accession Countries' on behalf of the European Commission, in conjunction with Stewart Davidson (RTTED Committee Secretary). I'm not a betting man, but hope the above provides further clarity :-). A further note: Whilst the choice of standards under the RTTED is 'voluntary', compliance with the specified 'harmonised standards' provides a legal 'presumption of conformity', which simply means that the responsible person placing the equipment on the market has no need to provide further evidence of compliance. Hence there is a legal benefit in using 'harmonised standards', plus a commercial benefit as the usual EMC and Safety standards may be used in many countries outside of the EU. There is no need to use an accredited lab for compliance with the EMC/LVD or RTTE Directives. Although reports from 'recognised labs' are beneficial for many other markets. - Hence a rational compliance strategy is always advisable, giving due consideration to all potential markets. Best regards, Paul G Didcott Snr Approvals Consultant Compliance Management Dept. Tel: +44 (0) 1482 801801 Fax: +44 (0) 1482 801806 Laboratory Accreditation Services Ltd t/a KTL. Registered No. 4407692. Registered Office: KTL, Saxon Way, Priory Park West, Hull, HU13 9PB, UK. http://www.ktl.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is that the RTTE directive does apply for all types of radio or terminal equipment unless it has been excluded by article 1(2) or annex I and is in free circulation on the market in the EU. However, the RTTE does only specify the essential requirements in article 3 which equipment has to comply with. It does not regard any specific standard like E1. Peter, I think You must declare conformity to the RTT directive. What is the point not to do it? Regards Robert Robert Pausch, Regulatory Compliance Engineer and Compliance Project Manager Hewlett-Packard EMEA, Einsteinring 30, 85609 Dornach, Germany Tel: +49 (89) 9392 2352, FAX
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is that the RTTE directive does apply for all types of radio or terminal equipment unless it has been excluded by article 1(2) or annex I and is in free circulation on the market in the EU. However, the RTTE does only specify the essential requirements in article 3 which equipment has to comply with. It does not regard any specific standard like E1. Peter, I think You must declare conformity to the RTT directive. What is the point not to do it? Regards Robert Robert Pausch, Regulatory Compliance Engineer and Compliance Project Manager Hewlett-Packard EMEA, Einsteinring 30, 85609 Dornach, Germany Tel: +49 (89) 9392 2352, FAX: +49 (89) 9392 2336 Mailto: robert.pau...@hp.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:15 AM To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Richard, Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates to another piece of equipment with the proper isolation to outside plant conductors. My interpretation is that if there is no provision for physical connection to the PSTN, the RTTE does not apply. Any takers??? I'll copy the TREG and NEBS gurus on this one as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment: 1) Radio equipment 2) Terminal equipment. The Directive also contains the following definitions: 'telecommunications terminal equipment' means a product enabling communication or a relevant component thereof which is intended to be connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of public telecommunications networks (that is to say, telecommunications networks used wholly or partly for the provision of publicly available telecommunications services). 'interface' means (i) a network termination point, which is a physical connection point at which a user is provided with access to public telecommunications network, and/or (ii)an air interface specifying the radio path between radio equipment and their technical specifications It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with an E1
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Agreed. So, in Peter's case, he stated that his product is SELV and therefore is not designed or intended to connect to the PSTN. From that statement, I would venture to say that his product is Network Equipment (not CPE) and therefore does not fall within the scope of the RTTE Directive. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Paul Didcott [mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:59 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson' Cc: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Guys, As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the scope does not include Network Equipment. Correct. It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with an E1 interface, for instance. Correct. The RTTED applies to terminal equipment which connects to any public service of the network operator, whether that be a leased line service or PSTN service. Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive Incorrect. The RTTE scope statement, intended to be connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of public telecommunications networks, only relates to TE, not network equipment. The term 'indirect' simply means via another piese of equipment, e.g. such as a telephone connected to a PBX which connects to the public telecom network. Hence equipment connected behind PBX falls within the scope of the RTTED, for example. As has been mentioned, the LVD and EMC Directives CE marking still applies to equipment destined for use only 'within' the public network, for EU/EFTA Member countries. Hence, E1 equipment desined for connection to a public telecom network service, must be CE marked for compliance with the RTTED. However, the applicable standards will be exactly the same for EMC and Safety compliance under the RTTED as would apply under the EMC Directive and LVD. Hope this helps, B-regards, Paul G Didcott Snr Approvals Consultant Tel: +44 (0)1482 801801 Mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com KTL is now fully recognised by the DSL Forum as an Independent Testing Laboratory (ITL). Laboratory Accreditation Services Ltd t/a KTL. Registered No. 4407692. Registered Office: KTL, Saxon Way, Priory Park West, Hull, HU13 9PB, UK. www.ktl.com http://www.ktl.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 01 October 2002 23:15 To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Richard, Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates to another piece of equipment with the proper isolation to outside plant conductors. My interpretation is that if there is no provision for physical connection to the PSTN, the RTTE does not apply. Any takers??? I'll copy the TREG and NEBS gurus on this one as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment: 1) Radio equipment 2) Terminal equipment. The Directive also contains the following definitions: 'telecommunications terminal equipment' means a product enabling communication or a relevant component thereof which is intended to be connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of public telecommunications networks (that is to say, telecommunications networks used wholly or partly for the provision of publicly available telecommunications services). 'interface' means (i) a network termination point, which is a physical connection point at which a user is provided with access to public telecommunications network, and/or (ii)an air interface specifying the radio path between radio equipment and their technical specifications It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with an E1 interface, for instance. Peter, It is for the manufacturer to decide to which market, e.g. terminal equipment or central office equipment only, they whish to sell
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Peter, As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the scope does not include Network Equipment. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:33 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dear All, For an equipment where the E1 has been assessed for SELV under EN 60 950 (ie for intrabuilding use and not subject to overvoltages), does the equipment fall under the RTTE Directive or can the manufacturer declare compliance to the LVD and EMC Directives. If under the RTTE Directive, what telecom standard applies to the E1 intrabuilding interface? 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: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Richard,
Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention
but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide
range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a
product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does
not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is
included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides
in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates
to another piece of equipment with the proper isolation to outside plant
conductors. My interpretation is that if there is no provision for physical
connection to the PSTN, the RTTE does not apply.
Any takers??? I'll copy the TREG and NEBS gurus on this one as well.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe,
The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment:
1) Radio equipment
2) Terminal equipment.
The Directive also contains the following definitions:
'telecommunications terminal equipment' means a product enabling
communication or a relevant component thereof which is intended to be
connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of
public telecommunications networks (that is to say, telecommunications
networks used wholly or partly for the provision of publicly available
telecommunications services).
'interface' means
(i) a network termination point, which is a physical connection point at
which a user is provided with access to public telecommunications network,
and/or
(ii)an air interface specifying the radio path between radio equipment
and their technical specifications
It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since
it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with
an E1 interface, for instance.
Peter,
It is for the manufacturer to decide to which market, e.g. terminal
equipment or central office equipment only, they whish to sell their product
into. EN 60950 has nothing to do with it since this standard can be used to
evaluate either type of product - and other non-telecom ICT products as well
of course.
Simplistically, if the product does not have an input or output voltage in
the range 50-1000Vac, 75-1500Vdc then the LVD does not apply {ref. Article 1
of LVD}. Clearly, if the LVD does apply then certain editions of EN 60950
do provide a presumption of conformity with the safety objectives of the
LVD. If the LVD does not apply then that should not be taken as an excuse
to not comply with EN 60950, but that's another debate entirely.
If the RTTED applies then the EMC is not applied as such, because the EMC
requirements are then covered by the RTTED. However, this is largely an
administrative technicality because Article 3(1)(b) points to the EMC
Directive for its essential requirements, just as Article 3(1)(a) points to
the LVD for safety (minus any upper or lower voltage limit).
Well, that's enough personal opinions expressed on this matter for me...
Richard Hughes
-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [ mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com
mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com ]
Sent: 01 October 2002 17:52
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Peter,
As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the
Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the
scope does not include Network Equipment.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [ mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il
mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dear All,
For an equipment where the E1 has been assessed for SELV under EN 60
950 (ie for intrabuilding use and not subject to overvoltages), does the
equipment fall under the RTTE Directive or can the manufacturer declare
compliance to the LVD and EMC Directives.
If under the RTTE Directive, what telecom standard applies to the E1
intrabuilding interface?
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.itl.co.il
http://www.i-spec.com http
RE: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's
snip Anyway, we were only interested in CE marking (not UL/CSA) so we simply had the design reviewed and tested with our product. As for continuation, it was a custom part; so we added the compliance requirements to the part specifications. Yes, I know this doesn't give us complete control; but it does put the responsibility on the correct shoulders. We take responsibility for the product; and we did the testing. But it is up to the supply manufacturer to ensure that he uses the parts specified in the test reports. Our company paid for the testing and we shared the test report information with the manufacturer. So the only guarantee is the manufacturer's integrity. The main downfall of this approach was that I became the middle-man between the supply manufacturer and our test lab. One benefit of this approach is that it shortened design time. We didn't have to wait for the supply to be designed and tested; then integrate it into our test sample for a re-test. Everything was tested all at once. snip Chris, I once ran into a similar situation where we needed a custom supply and time was not on our side. I chose a different approach that was better for my company in the long run. I also had the supply evaluated with our product, but treated it as two separate projects. Project (1) was to evaluate the power supply for our supplier and Project (2) was to evaluate our product. The end result was a Component Recognition on the power supply and a Product Listing on our product. We had our cost, they had theirs. We had our certs, they had theirs. We then had a RC in our listed product and they had the FUS on their power supply. The lead time was relatively identical. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 12:34 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's Just a couple of notes from experience. We once used an open frame power supply without previous certification. It was done as a custom design because we needed AC or 12VDC operation. We found a small company that would do such a design (very interesting transformer by the way...AC primary, 12VDC primary, two secondaries, a bootstrap) Anyway, we were only interested in CE marking (not UL/CSA) so we simply had the design reviewed and tested with our product. As for continuation, it was a custom part; so we added the compliance requirements to the part specifications. Yes, I know this doesn't give us complete control; but it does put the responsibility on the correct shoulders. We take responsibility for the product; and we did the testing. But it is up to the supply manufacturer to ensure that he uses the parts specified in the test reports. Our company paid for the testing and we shared the test report information with the manufacturer. So the only guarantee is the manufacturer's integrity. The main downfall of this approach was that I became the middle-man between the supply manufacturer and our test lab. One benefit of this approach is that it shortened design time. We didn't have to wait for the supply to be designed and tested; then integrate it into our test sample for a re-test. Everything was tested all at once. Some may say that this isn't as good as a supplier who gets audited by UL or CSA; but I would argue that a supplier's integrity along with hipot/ground bond testing on your finished product are the most important aspects of your compliance program. Even if a manufacturer is audited by UL or CSA...they won't go to bat for you if there is a lawsuit.You're still only left with supplier integrity as your defense. Another point I wanted to bring out we had a product tested to CSA approvals. Inside, we used a power supply that carried a UL listing with C US subscript which said that UL tested it to both UL and CSA standards. A copy of the test report wasn't enough for CSA. Since UL did the testing, they wanted construction details. The manufacturer that we wanted to use refused to provide them (I have to agree on this one.) This left a very sour taste in my mouth regarding the whole C US dual approval issue. What is the point of UL providing a C US lising if CSA treats it as if it means nothing? Anyway, that isn't the issue...I wanted to bring out two points 1. There is occasionally an argument for using a power supply that doesn't have previous approvals. 2. Power supplies with previous approvals still don't guarantee a smooth ride through agency testing...especially when you get caught in the middle of a posturing contest between the agencies. If my message doesn't help clear the water; I hope it at least helps you figure out where some of the mud came from :-) Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com |
Int'l Requirements for Lab Trials and Shipments - C.O. EQUIPMENT
repost due to list server outage. -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:52 PM To: 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: Int'l Requirements for Lab Trials and Shipments - C.O. EQUIPMENT I've been trying to gather the information I need to generate a plan for international deployment of a CENTRAL OFFICE SWITCH powered by -48VDC with E1, OC-3 and OC-12 interfaces. Many have responded and provided some very useful information although there have been some discrepancies in the information I have received thus far. A majority of the confusion seems to be differentiating between commercial products that connect to the PSTN and C.O. Equipment which is installed in the PSTN. My concerns are the latter. I realize that some regions are difficult to assess until you've gone through the process. So, it would be greatly appreciated if some of you out there that have endured this pain in these regions that I'm about to list would provide some input (and indicate whether this is from experience or not). I am interested in in gathering the requirements for (1) What's required to get a product in for a lab trial and (2) what's required to ship for revenue. I'll post what information (or misinformation) I have now and please feel free to comment. Any and all input is welcome. China MII (Network Access License) Required CCC (Safety, EMC and Lightning) Certs Required (I was under the impression this product was outside of the scope, though) Must be a registered Chinese company to hold certs All tests must be performed in China - Lead time 6 months Test fees $25K - probably need local rep to assist All docs translated to Chinese Unknown what's required for Lab Trials South Africa SABS (accepts IEC CB and CISPR 22 reports), ICASA (accepts reports from accredited labs?) certs required for revenue shipments No requirements for lab trials Only Resident Company can hold certs Singapore IDA approval not required for Network Equipment PSB approval Required? No requirements for Lab Trials? Taiwan DGT and BSMI certs required No requirements for Lab Trials Poland PCBC required Any Telecom certs required? Europe CE Mark Required (ETSI 300 386-2, EN 60950) Mixed responses on lab trials (most responses are safety report with declaration/prominent notice of EMC non-compliance is OK) Japan No mandatory safety or EMC certs (I have or will have IEC CB Scheme Report as well as CISPR 22) JATE not required as C.O. Equipment does not fall under the scope My apologies for the long-winded email, but I wanted to be clear this time around. Thx, Joe * ...OLE_Obj... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email:jfinlay...@telica.com Web: www.telica.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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
Int'l Requirements for Lab Trials and Shipments - C.O. EQUIPMENT
I've been trying to gather the information I need to generate a plan for international deployment of a CENTRAL OFFICE SWITCH powered by -48VDC with E1, OC-3 and OC-12 interfaces. Many have responded and provided some very useful information although there have been some discrepancies in the information I have received thus far. A majority of the confusion seems to be differentiating between commercial products that connect to the PSTN and C.O. Equipment which is installed in the PSTN. My concerns are the latter. I realize that some regions are difficult to assess until you've gone through the process. So, it would be greatly appreciated if some of you out there that have endured this pain in these regions that I'm about to list would provide some input (and indicate whether this is from experience or not). I am interested in in gathering the requirements for (1) What's required to get a product in for a lab trial and (2) what's required to ship for revenue. I'll post what information (or misinformation) I have now and please feel free to comment. Any and all input is welcome. China MII (Network Access License) Required CCC (Safety, EMC and Lightning) Certs Required (I was under the impression this product was outside of the scope, though) Must be a registered Chinese company to hold certs All tests must be performed in China - Lead time 6 months Test fees $25K - probably need local rep to assist All docs translated to Chinese Unknown what's required for Lab Trials South Africa SABS (accepts IEC CB and CISPR 22 reports), ICASA (accepts reports from accredited labs?) and SATRA certs required for revenue shipments No requirements for lab trials Non-Resident Company can hold certs Singapore TAS approval Required? PSB approval Required? No requirements for Lab Trials? Taiwan DGT and BSMI certs required No requirements for Lab Trials Poland PCBC required Europe CE Mark Required (ETSI 300 386-2, EN 60950) Mixed responses on lab trials (most responses are safety report with declaration/prominent notice of non-compliance is OK) Japan No mandatory safety or EMC certs (I have or will have IEC CB Scheme Report as well as CISPR 22) JATE not required as C.O. Equipment does not fall under the scope My apologies for the long-winded email, but I wanted to be clear this time around. Thx, Joe * ...OLE_Obj... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 804-8212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com
RE: Grounding architectures for COs
Hi Marko, I'm curious what measures you and others take to protect against ESD, Lightning, etc when implementing a multi-point bonding scheme of signal ground to frame/chassis ground. I can definitely see the advantages for EMI. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Marko Radojicic [mailto:marko.radoji...@mapleoptical.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:22 PM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; 'John Juhasz'; 'Dorin' Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Grounding architectures for COs Greetings, Bonding of the different system grounds is, surprisingly, a very involved topic. Historically, CO equipment in North America (NA) has been Star-IBN (Isolated Bonding Network) sometimes referred to as ISG (Isolated Signal Ground). (I won't go into all the reasons behind it.) In Europe (EU), a Mesh-IBN, sometimes referred to as Common Bonding Network (CBN), is used. Battery Return is also problematic. In NA, it *must* be held isolated from CG/FG. In the EU, it *must* be bonded to the CG/FG! Both can be effectively deployed but the EU version is more robust to violations. In terms of pros and cons, multi-point bonding the signal ground (SG) and chassis ground (CG) is, by far, the most effective architecture for EMC applications as it offers EMI currents a lower impedance path back to the source. For all my high-speed, high-power designs, we've implemented this multi-point SG to CG architecture. The downside to this strategy is that you can no longer be Star-IBN *compliant* however you will be Star-IBN *compatible*. NA ILECs (Verizon included) have been accepting this grounding architecture for over a decade now so there is no new ground that you'll have to turn over. Hopefully this explanation has cleared up the situation a little. For further reading, I'd recommend ITU (formerly CCITT) K.27 (the granddaddy of grounding documents - Figure 1 is invaluable) as well as ETS 300 253 (Earthing and Bonding for Telecom). Cheers, Marko -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:03 AM To: 'John Juhasz'; 'Dorin' Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 John Dorin, Please clarify as I am not aware of a requirement to isolate Signal Ground from Frame Ground. Please reference GR-1089-CORE, Section 9.6.2 as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:john.juh...@ge-interlogix.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:12 AM To: 'Dorin' Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Be careful Dorin. For Central Offices, they need to be isolated. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Dorin [mailto:dorin.op...@alcatel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:12 AM Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Re: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Hi, I am looking for a comparison, pros and cons, on the signal ground connected versus not connected to the chassis in a telecom system. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Dorin --- 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
RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3
John Dorin, Please clarify as I am not aware of a requirement to isolate Signal Ground from Frame Ground. Please reference GR-1089-CORE, Section 9.6.2 as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:john.juh...@ge-interlogix.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:12 AM To: 'Dorin' Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Be careful Dorin. For Central Offices, they need to be isolated. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Dorin [mailto:dorin.op...@alcatel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:12 AM Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Re: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Hi, I am looking for a comparison, pros and cons, on the signal ground connected versus not connected to the chassis in a telecom system. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Dorin --- 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: NEBS/ETSI Equivalents for PAC RIM
George, I am aware of the NEBS and ETSI specs which apply to my product. My question is whether a product that has been evaluated to these requirements will be accepted by the Telecom Service Providers in Japan, China, Korea, etc. or do they have their own set of requirements. Also, are certain requirements that may apply to commercial products waived if the product is only destined for the central office? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Berkley [mailto:berk...@attbi.com] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:15 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'EMC PSTC' Subject: Re: NEBS/ETSI Equivalents for PAC RIM Joe, You'll want to look at ETS EN 300-386-2 for EMI/C and EN 300-019 for Environmental. George - Original Message - From: Joe Finlayson jfinlay...@telica.com To: 'NEBS Newsgroup' n...@world.std.com; 'EMC PSTC' emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: NEBS/ETSI Equivalents for PAC RIM I'm looking to get some feedback regarding carrier requirements in the PAC RIM for products destined ONLY for the Central Office. For those who have ventured into these regions with carrier class equipment, has NEBS and ETSI carried enough weight or have some countries/carriers required additional testing. I would also be interested in hearing whether Product Safety and/or EMC certifications are required or are declarations/reports sufficient when product is destined for the central office ONLY. I'll take whatever you have but my primary concern for now is: Japan China Australia/NZ Korea Any and all input, feedback, links, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Thx, Joe * ...OLE_Obj... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web: www.telica.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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
NEBS/ETSI Equivalents for PAC RIM
I'm looking to get some feedback regarding carrier requirements in the PAC RIM for products destined ONLY for the Central Office. For those who have ventured into these regions with carrier class equipment, has NEBS and ETSI carried enough weight or have some countries/carriers required additional testing. I would also be interested in hearing whether Product Safety and/or EMC certifications are required or are declarations/reports sufficient when product is destined for the central office ONLY. I'll take whatever you have but my primary concern for now is: Japan China Australia/NZ Korea Any and all input, feedback, links, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Thx, Joe * ...OLE_Obj... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 804-8212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: [URGENT] Need some information about NEBS..
Agreed. My point was that for those who believe there is a justification for not obtaining NRTL certs, your best bet is to get the mark on your product as this could likely create an obstacle when you try to make a sale. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:32 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Joe Finlayson; 'Peter Merguerian'; 'Tania Grant'; Michelle Cho / INT Compliance Subject: RE: [URGENT] Need some information about NEBS.. Joe - Your statement is not in all cases. Please refer to GR1089, 4.5.3, R4-3, -4, -5, 4.6.1, and CR4-29 Although not a requirement, refer also to 4.5.13, Item 10, related to R4-18. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson Peter, NRTL Listing is not a requirement for CO equipment per GR-1089 although every one of our customers (CO's) requires it. You'd meet the requirements of the standards but you'd have a tough time selling it. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian Tania, Your state that NEBS requires UL1950 safety testing. This may be true for CPE but not equipment sitting at the CO. Please correct if I am mistaken. 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 -Original Message- From: Tania Grant Michelle, I am providing you with a generic test matrix of several years back of an actual product that underwent NEBS compliance testing. I have stripped out any product references. Please note that test duration and cost will differ depending upon your particular product, and does not include any safety testing to UL 60950 even though this is also a NEBS requirement. Thus, the time and cost will increase. Also note that, depending upon your location, not all of these tests can be performed by a single test laboratory;-- you get to ship your product around. Be also aware that the same can happen even though the lab states that they will take care of everything (then they sub-contract it to other labs!). You will also need to have one or more of your people at the labs to assist in EMC immunity testing ESD testing, to package and unpackage units/modules/equipment. Packaged tests require that certain parameters are tested prior to packaging (you need a viable product), then come the packaging stress tests, then you unpackage the equipment and repeat tests to see which parameters failed. Brutal it is, as Mike stated. The test duration increases as you find that certain parts of your product need to be redesigned. As was also previously stated, you need to make sure that the whole engineering team reads the GR-63 and GR-1089 standards and understands the requirements. No sense spending money on lab tests for obvious failures. Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Michelle Cho Dear all, I need some help about something called NEBS(Network Equipment Building System). The whole procedure... What exactly the NEBS is and where can I do the testing? How much? How long does it take? Thanks in advance! Michelle --- 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: [URGENT] Need some information about NEBS..
Peter, NRTL Listing is not a requirement for CO equipment per GR-1089 although every one of our customers (CO's) requires it. You'd meet the requirements of the standards but you'd have a tough time selling it. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 5:23 AM To: 'Tania Grant'; Michelle Cho / INT Compliance; emc- p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: [URGENT] Need some information about NEBS.. Tania, Your state that NEBS requires UL1950 safety testing. This may be true for CPE but not equipment sitting at the CO. Please correct if I am mistaken. 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 -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:07 AM To: Michelle Cho / INT Compliance; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: [URGENT] Need some information about NEBS.. Michelle, I am providing you with a generic test matrix of several years back of an actual product that underwent NEBS compliance testing. I have stripped out any product references. Please note that test duration and cost will differ depending upon your particular product, and does not include any safety testing to UL 60950 even though this is also a NEBS requirement. Thus, the time and cost will increase. Also note that, depending upon your location, not all of these tests can be performed by a single test laboratory;-- you get to ship your product around. Be also aware that the same can happen even though the lab states that they will take care of everything (then they sub-contract it to other labs!). You will also need to have one or more of your people at the labs to assist in EMC immunity testing ESD testing, to package and unpackage units/modules/equipment. Packaged tests require that certain parameters are tested prior to packaging (you need a viable product), then come the packaging stress tests, then you unpackage the equipment and repeat tests to see which parameters failed. Brutal it is, as Mike stated. The test duration increases as you find that certain parts of your product need to be redesigned. As was also previously stated, you need to make sure that the whole engineering team reads the GR-63 and GR-1089 standards and understands the requirements. No sense spending money on lab tests for obvious failures. Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com mailto:taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Michelle Cho / INT Compliance mailto:m...@intcompliance.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: [URGENT] Need some information about NEBS.. Dear all, I need some help about something called NEBS(Network Equipment Building System). The whole procedure... What exactly the NEBS is and where can I do the testing? How much? How long does it take? Thanks in advance! Michelle
RE: T1/E1 compliance requirements
Bob, You'll need to comply with the Intrabuilding Lightning requirements of GR-1089. I'm not sure about the 12 mil question. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Bob Patel [mailto:whizpla...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 11:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: T1/E1 compliance requirements Hi! I had recently posted a question to SI on the testing requirements for T1/E1 i.e. EMC requirements and I wanted to get some more feedback from this list to make some decisions. For our current T1/T3 products we don't for any lightning tests since our product sits in the CO and presumably we will not be connected to the outside world. Is this a correct statement? ALso, in this design our signal traces were made 12mils wide from the connector to magnetics and magnetics to connector. Why 12 mils? Is it for over current condition or to pass some specific tests? Because we never did any tests to test this? Thanks Bob __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Industry Canada CS-03
Jim, You may want to post this question on TREG forum if you receive minimal responses as you'll find a larger audience of telecom types to help you out. I believe the email address to post a message is t...@world.std.com. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Lyons, Jim [mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:37 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Industry Canada CS-03 In the past, we have certified our analog leased-line modems for Canada under CS-02. With CS-02 no longer used, I am told that the analog leased-line modems (no loop start, battery voltage, or ringing voltage) are now covered under CS-03. Our equipment connects to the network using a voice-type miniature 6-position plug, and would seem to fall under option (2) in section 3.4.4 of CS-03. Under CS-03, the maximum in-band signal power is -9dBm. In researching some older test reports from a reputable, but now defunct, Ottawa based test house done against CS-02, I see one report where the in-band signal power limit was 0dBm. Another report, however, shows -9dBm as the limit. My first question is Do analog leased-line modems need Industry Canada certification at all?. My second question is What is the maximum in-band signal power allowed for analog leased-line modems?. Jim Lyons Manager - Product Compliance GTECH Corp. --- 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: ESD - time between successive discharges
Amund, My experience has been that the labs would prefer to perform the ESD tests at a rate of 1 pulse/second (pps) for the sake of efficiency. If the product passes then it was completed in the least amount of time and everyone's happy. If the product fails at 1 pps, then you are allowed to decrease the pulse rate until the product passes. If it still fails at lower rates (say 0.1 pps - one ESD event every 10 seconds), then you probably have problems. I've had products fail at 1 pps and pass at 0.5 pps. It took longer to run the test, but it passed and met the requirements of the standard(s). My interpretation of the requirements is that there is no maximum limit between ESD discharges. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: am...@westin.org [mailto:am...@westin.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 4:07 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 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,
RE: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2)
It has to do with the limited protection of the carbon blocks at the point of entry. I'm not sure without looking through the docs, but I believe the carbon blocks clamp voltages above 600V or something. -Original Message- From: Martin Lindquist [mailto:mlind...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2) All, This sorta brings up a question that's been stumbling around in the back of my mind, and that is: How do you get lightning _Inside_ a building? What is the justification for Intrabuilding Lightning? Ok, two questions. Martin -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Paolo Roncone Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:23 AM To: david_ster...@ademco.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2) David, thanks for your reply. In the meantime I checked IEEE 802.3 and found out about the 10Mb/s spec (I'll get back to the guy who gave me the 2 Mb/s info and try to understand..) As for the application, we are NOT connecting this Ethernet line outside the building. Our line would connect two racks in the same room or a rack and a PC in the same or another room but NOT in another building. Paragraph 4.5.9 of GR1089 says: These tests apply only to network equipment that will neither interface with the telecommunications outside plant nor serve off-premises equipment. That's why we applied these surges (not the First-Level and Second-Level as specified in previous paragraphs). Regards, Paolo At 10.03 27/03/2001 -0500, david_ster...@ademco.com wrote: Per 8802-3 Ethernet specifications (ANSI/IEEE 802.3), 10base2 Ethernet is 10 Mb/s. This applies to all off-the-shelf Ethernet; very little non-standard equipment was produced. You may only have 2 Mb of bandwidth but the signals move at 10 Mb/s when they move. The 8802.3 specification allows earthing the shield at a single point between two nodes. Loading the 10base2 with capacitors interferes with the impedence. It will fail 8803-2 because maximum link distance is reduced. Most people use fiber between buildings. It is cheaper than conduit. David -Original Message- From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paolo...@tin.it] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:37 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2) Ooops,... I mentioned the wrong data rate of the coax 10b2 Ethernet. I re-checked with the design guy. It's 2 Mb/s not 100 Mb/s. That may allow for some more pF's for surge protection between signal and return.. Regards, Paolo From - Sun Mar 11 06:57:15 2001 Return-Path: feedb...@travelocity.m0.net Received: from fac204.m0.net ([209.10.46.156]) by mtiwgwc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id 20010311054926.isgn5452.mtiwgwc23.worldnet.att@fac204.m0.net for matt.campane...@worldnet.att.net; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:49:26 + Message-ID: 3263706896.984289765...@m0.net List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:49:25 -0800 (PST) From: Travelocity.com feedb...@travelocity.m0.net Reply-to: feedb...@travelocity.m0.net To: matt.campane...@worldnet.att.net Subject: The Insider from Travelocity.com Errors-to: feedb...@travelocity.m0.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=---=_NEXT_e52c3de83b X-cid: 3263706896 X-Mozilla-Status: X-Mozilla-Status2: X-UIDL: 3263706896.984289765...@m0.net -=_NEXT_e52c3de83b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Super Savings Abroad Dear Matthew, Spring is nearly here, and that means it's time to think seriously=20 about planning your next trip, whether it's for spring break, summer=20 vacation, or just because you're tired of being cooped up in the=20 house. Whatever your reason for traveling, consider going a little=20 further afield this time. International travel isn't as expensive or=20 as complicated as you might think. And, as always, we're here to=20 help. Travelocity.com has loads of online information to help you=20 decide where to go--and great deals to help put your trip within the=20 reach of your budget. It's a big world out there--it's time to=20 discover it!=20 In this issue: Featured This Month - Win a Trip to Scotland - Barcelona - Mexico - Copenhagen - Dublin - Brazil - Rome - Travelocity's Been There - Today's Real Deals Site Features - FREE Issue of Travelocity Magazine! Travelers Network - Traveler Reviews - Tips Advice=20 - Travel Tips=20 Special Offers - Spring Skiing Specials! - Le M=E9ridien Exclusive Offer - Exclusive Offer from LimoCenter! ***FEATURED THIS MONTH*** Win a Trip to Scotland Enter to win a trip to Scotland. One lucky winner and guest will=20 receive the vacation of their choice: a golf vacation, a hiking=20
RE: Air Flow Meters
OK, thanks for all the replies. It appears I am in search of a Hot Wire Anemometer. I've found several on the web, but all seem to use a telescoping probe for measurement, probably for air ducts. Does anyone know of a model that uses a wire for measurement so I can affix it to a modular plug in card, thus sealing the chassis. My goal is to measure air flow rates in each of 21 slots while the cards are installed (thus sealing the chassis for realistic air flow). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 8:41 AM To: 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: Air Flow Meters I'm interested in doing an air flow analysis on a per-slot basis for a modular chassis. Can anyone share their experience in using their favorite test tools for this function. One of my colleagues had mentioned that he recalls the use of a thermocouple-type lead that was used at his previous place of employment that measured air flow. Any knowledge of this type of product would be greatly appreciated as well. Thx, Joe * OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email:jfinlay...@telica.com Web: www.telica.com
Air Flow Meters
I'm interested in doing an air flow analysis on a per-slot basis for a modular chassis. Can anyone share their experience in using their favorite test tools for this function. One of my colleagues had mentioned that he recalls the use of a thermocouple-type lead that was used at his previous place of employment that measured air flow. Any knowledge of this type of product would be greatly appreciated as well. Thx, Joe * ... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 804-8212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com
RE: Product Marking
Vitaly, I believe you misinterpreted my statement. I was not implying that you test to a standard and then arbitrarily place an NRTL mark on your product. The original question was, If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed ...snip...would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? My point was that if you have the product tested by NRTL X and do not affix the logo of NRTL X, your product is not considered to be NRTL Listed as it will not audited at the factory. Does it comply with the standard? - yes. Can you print on a label that it complies? - yes. Can you tell your customers that your are NRTL Listed, no. This, in addition to the other valuable input, validates the fact (for me, anyway) that the NRTL mark should be affixed to the product, especially since you just went through all that work!! My apologies if I misinterpreted the intent of the original question. Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:26 PM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost Subject: RE: Product Marking Joe - It is the other way around: you can mark your product only if it's NRTL Listed. Manufacturers are supposed to obtain Authorization to mark from an NRTL Lab which performed safety evaluation. There's no Mutual Agreement allowing arbitrary mark alternation: you can't use UL mark if, let's say, you obtained Authorization from ITS (all marks were born equal but some marks are more equal than others). Product Listing results in Follow up Service, it is required for continuous use of the mark. Vitaly Gorodetsky The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the reader -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [SMTP:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:45 PM To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost Subject:RE: Product Marking My understanding of the NRTL marking is that if you don't mark it, it is not considered Listed. It doesn't matter if it has been tested or not. I believe the issue is that if the NRTL is performing a factory audit, they will only review marked product. Therefore, if you do not mark it, you can not claim NRTL Listing. -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee
RE: Product Marking
My understanding of the NRTL marking is that if you don't mark it, it is not considered Listed. It doesn't matter if it has been tested or not. I believe the issue is that if the NRTL is performing a factory audit, they will only review marked product. Therefore, if you do not mark it, you can not claim NRTL Listing. -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1
...right from UL's web site: http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/311101.html -Original Message- From: Veit, Andy [mailto:andy.v...@mts.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:45 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1 Folks- Can someone give the scope of UL 3111-1? Or tell me how is it's scope differs from UL 3101-1? I have a copy of UL 3101-1, and it appears that it is very similar to IEC 1010-1, but I don't have a copy of UL 3111-1 (yet!). I read a message in the IEEE-PSTC archive where someone said that UL created the standards 3111-1 and 3101-1 from IEC 1010-1, but there were no further details about how the standards differ. Thank you- -Andy Veit Andrew Veit Systems Design Engineer MTS Systems Corp Ph: 919.677.2507 Fax: 919.677.2480 1001 Sheldon Drive Cary, NC 27513 --- 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: F-Squared Labs
Anyone can get a list of all email addresses on this forum by simply requesting it. I doubt that happened in this instance as I never received the solicitation. -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:24 AM To: 'John Juhasz'; 'Russell, Ray' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: F-Squared Labs So it looks like the chap @ F-squared Labs got a hold of our e-mail addresses, somehow, because I also received it and not through the IEEE server. Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive Kanata, ON K2K 3C8, Canada Voice: 613.599.6430, X.8277 Fax: 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:52 PM To: 'Russell, Ray' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: F-Squared Labs Group, Please accept my apologies for posting a reply to a message that I had thought (incorrectly 'assumed') came via the emc-pstc listserv (I must've been seeing things - that happens with age). John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Russell, Ray [ mailto:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com mailto:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com ] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:41 PM To: 'John Juhasz' Subject: RE: F-Squared Labs John, I share your opinion that commercial advertisements should not be included on this newsgroup. So I am confused. I did not receive the mail from F-Squared labs, I only received it from you, via the IEEE newsgroup. Ray -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [ mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com ] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:25 AM To: 'mna...@f2labs.com' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: F-Squared Labs Mark, This is my own opinion, but it may/may not be shared by others here . . . While I personally welcome posts from anyone who offers sound regulatory information, especially those from laboratories (we have a few regular contributors who are lab managers), everyone here has been good at policing themselves from posting commercial advertisement. Please feel free to comment and interject into this forum. We would welcome your expertise . . . Regards, John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia -Original Message- From: Mark naber [ mailto:mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com ] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:21 AM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com Subject: F-Squared Labs Who? F-Squared Laboratories? F-Squared Laboratories can test and certify a product that you manufacture or brand label if it... · is electrically-powered, · is considered a hardware product, or, · is a mechanical, process control, or medical device, or a laboratory instrument. We can get your products into one or more of the US, Canadian, European and/or International Markets, via FCC/CISPR, Product Safety, EMC/EMI, Environmental or Hazardous Location testing. On a regular basis we test and certify products to countless US and Canadian Standards, and various European Union Directives and International Standards and Country Deviations, so that you can obtain applicable approvals or certifications for; · NRTL for North America, to include field-labeling, · EMC for North America, the European Union and International markets · Industrie Canada, equivalent to FCC Pt. 15 testing in the US, · FCC - Declaration of Conformity, Verification or Certification, · HAZ-LOC (Hazardous-Location) for the US Canada, · Ex Marking and ATEX Directive for International Markets, · CE Marking (LV, EMC Mechanical Dir.) for the European Union (EU), · CB Scheme for 30+ countries, which includes Asia and Australia, and, · IEC for other International Markets. Our website www.f2labs.com http://www.f2labs.com http://www.f2labs.com http://www.f2labs.com http://www.f2labs.com speaks about our capabilities in an introductory manner. Of course detailed literature is always available upon request. Please give us an opportunity to provide you with a competitive bid for your next project. Our quick turnaround service is as attractive as our pricing! Call me directly at 301.368.2590, or contact me via email at mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com . Lastly, feel free to print this out for your files, and also forward to others!! Cordially, Mark W. Naber
Thermocouple issues
I am in the process of performing a thermal evaluation and am using thermocouples to measure surface temperatures of IC's, etc. I'm finding that the thermocouple tape that I'm using tends to experience a degradation of the adhesive as the temperatures increase (in the 80-100°C range) causing the thermocouples to separate from the surfaces. I'd appreciate any advice that could point to a higher performing tape/adhesive for such an application. Some of the IC's are quite small which doesn't leave much surface area for adhesion and I am using as many as 40 thermocouples per card. Thx, Joe * ... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: DC circuits /+60 V
Scott, My experience of going through a IEC 60950/UL 1950/CSA 950 evaluation with a -48VDC powered product resulted in the following. The entire box was treated as a SELV circuit requiring Operational Insulation. UL does not necessarily require dielectric testing for Operational Insulation. I used method (c) to comply with the requirements in section 5.4.4. Per UL PAG 5.4.4-001, there was no short circuit testing required as the PCB was rated 94V-0, as are most PCB's these days. The beauty of this was that no dielectric testing was required and therefore no production line testing. Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: Scott Lemon [mailto:sle...@caspiannetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:17 PM To: Emc-Pstc Bulletin Board (E-mail) Subject: DC circuits /+60 V Hello Group, I have a good idea (first hand knowledge) of what UL looks for with respect to dc supply circuitry /= 60 Vdc (e.g. telecom equip supply). UL considers (with caveats on the supply) that it is SELV secondary with operational insulation requiring 500 Vac/707 Vdc dielectric withstand performance to ground/other secondary circuits. Can anyone identify how other agencies/test houses (using 950 based standards, like within the EU) are classifying SELV level telecom dc supply circuits, particularly with respect to the dielectric withstand performance?? Is 1000 Vac/1414 Vdc used or 500 Vac/707 Vdc? What is the rationale either way? In lieu of the dielectric testing, how are the other options for operational insulation in IEC/EN 60950 (clause 5.4.4) viewed (generally acceptable)?? I have heard varying opinions on the above and would like to collect even more! Thanks in advance! Best Regards, Scott Lemon Caspian Networks - RTP email: sle...@caspiannetworks.com phone: (919) 466-0315 fax: tbd --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Jim, That summary was very informative. I would be interested in the feedback generated from Richard Kluges proposal to suppliers and service providers as mentioned in your attached letter. This will be an interesting topic at the NEBS 2000 Conference in Baltimore next week. Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 3:54 PM To: emc-pstc; Collins, Jeffrey Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Hello Jeffrey, Basically, to demonstrate compliance with GR-63-CORE, no altitude testing is required assuming you have passed the standard temperature and humidity profile. The rationale is that, at that altitude, heating the facility will be the primary concern, not cooling it. According to the national weather service, the expected ambient high temperature at that altitude is less than 20C. If a facility at that altitude lost HVAC, it probably would start cooling off rather than heating up. Thus the reason there is no test method. It was simply intended as a design criteria that should be considered. However you can demonstrate compliance above and beyond the current GR-63-CORE for altitude by raising the temperature limits during the operational temperature and humidity testing by 1 degree C per 1000 foot of altitude that you want to simulate. This assumes you do not have components that may be altitude sensitive. It also assumes worst case conditions for the amount of heat that your product may be generating. However, some ILEC's may want to see an actual altitude test depending upon the equipment type and application. In this case Richard Kluge at Telcordia has developed a proposed altitude exposure test and he has a paper that was written in December of 1999 covering the rationale etc. Telcordia now has an altitude chamber and is conducting a study to determine if altitude is a potential concern based on the design of modern telecommunications equipment for the next revision of GR-63-CORE. Attached is the Telcordia document from Richard Kluge, note that the temperatures recommended for testing at altitude are much lower than 50C, and thus are looking more at determining component altitude sensitivity rather than reduced air density and temperature. Adobe Portable Document These are solely my opinions, and not necessarily those of my employer Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com -- From: Collins, Jeffrey[SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com] Reply To: Collins, Jeffrey Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 8:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude * Temperature at max Altitude * Relative Humidity * Length of time at Max Altitude Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
David, This particular test profile is one which I have recently tried to shed some light on as well. I am curious where you come to the conclusion that the application of the criteria for altitude references Table 4.5. The requirement (R4-8 anyway) states, All equipment shall be functional within the limits specified in Table 4-4 when installed at elevations between 60 m (197 ft) below sea level and 1800 m (5905 ft) above sea level. I would think this would be overkill as you seem to imply that this would encompass another 8-day test profile. Referencing Table 4.5 would also imply that the temperature limit at 4000M would be 55 degC where the limits of Table 4.4 clearly state a temperature limit of 50 degC. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone else could share their experiences on this requirement. What do the RBOC's expect to see for test results? I figured I'd post this on the NEBS Forum as well to reach a wider audience. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:42 PM To: 'Collins, Jeffrey'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- 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:
Career Opportunities - delete if not interested
For anyone interested in an exciting new career opportunity at a hot pre-IPO company, take a peek at the career opportunities at Telica. If your qualifications fit any of the job descriptions below, please feel free to forward your resume by responding to this email. Thx, Joe * ... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com Component Engineer Job description The position requires an individual who will work with Operations and Engineering to develop and maintain component specifications, select electronic components for use in new designs, maintain awareness of component availability, cost, planned obsolescence, and possible replacements. Responsibilities also include qualifying components for product use, analyzing and resolving component issues, and performing failure analysis. Strong communication/presentation skills are needed for quick closure of internal and external component issues. Must be multi-task orientated. Qualifications: BS technical degree or ASEE with related experience. ISO certification experience a plus. Reliability Engineer Job description The position requires an individual who will work with Operations and Engineering to develop an overall reliability process and methodology across all product lines. Strong communication/presentation skills are needed for quick closure of internal and external reliability issues. Must create an on-going process to insure total reliability of product including MTBF, FITs, and System reliability. Must be multi-task orientated. Will create hardware/software related test methodologies and procedures. Familiarity with HALT/HASS processes. Responsibilities include performing reliability analysis and test functions, data gathering, report generation and problem resolution. Qualifications: BS technical degree-Strong background in HALT/HASS, and DVT. ISO certification experience a plus Systems Test Engineer Primary Function: Writing and developing Manufacturing system test plans for ATM and cell-based products. Responsibilities (to include, but not limited to): 1. Analyze / read system functional specifications to determine manufacturing test plans. 2. Write manufacturing test plans according to results of system functional specifications. 3. Maintain test scripts for manufacturing tests. 3. Interface with engineering to determine requirements and understanding of the product. 4. Define test environment (the set-up in the Manufacturing Lab). 5. Determine test equipment needed. 6. Attend cross-functional team review meetings. 9. Interact with development and manufacturing engineering to resolve issues. Qualifications: BSEE or equivalent experience, with hands-on experience in the following areas: ATM and cell-based products and voice and telecom to include Switches. Successful candidates will possess a good working knowledge of the test equipment used to test telecommunications products. Strong communication skills, along with consistent follow-through. A minimum of 5-10 years industry experience with datacom or telecom and a familiarity with Expect/TCL scripting a plus.
RE: Equipment Rental
Bob, I just sent mine back. Electro Rent (770) 813-7081 I dealt with a gentleman by the name of Barry Kennedy and he shipped the equipment out same day when I needed it. The price was about $3,400.00 for the first month and broken down per day after that (same as monthly price). Good Luck, Joe Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 2:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Equipment Rental I need to rent the following equipment (preferrably in Darlington, U.K.): * Antennas (EMC 30-1000 MHz) * Spectrum Analyzer/EMI Receiver * Pre-amp (30-1000 MHz) Anyone know of a company? Regards, Bob Heller --- 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
Temperature Meters
Hello Group, I'm in the market for a multi-channel (12-15+, the more the better) temperature meter and would appreciate some leads. I found a model MTT-40 on the EDD web site that seems to fit my needs but would like to shop around to see what's out there. Any input regarding features with pro's and cons would be greatly appreciated. Could someone also explain the differences between the options of glass braid and teflon thermocouple wire. The only difference shown on the web site was the max temperature supported. Thx, Joe * ... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: modest proposal
Am I the only one receiving posts in duplicate? It seems that this has happened at least a dozen times. Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:28 PM To: geor...@lexmark.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: modest proposal Thank you, Thank you, and applause 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 geor...@lexmark.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:20 PM To: m.r...@ieee.org Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: modest proposal Martin, Your post included the following: * We, the ugly Americans, want the world to conform to our native language. We're too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. You may be partially right, but I believe there is a much simpler explanation. It is human nature to do only that which we are motivated to do. The English speaking world has been fortunate in not having to learn another predominate language to conduct global business. This is probably due to the fact that most non-English speaking countries do not agree that French, German, Spanish, etc. are an acceptable alternate global langauge. Therefore, English may have won only by default. Here is what I remember of the U.S. interest in other languages. Prior to WWII U.S. schools taught Latin as a way to learn the root of words. There was a little French, German, and Spanish taught. After WWII, it was thought that we should be learning Russian, as the other major technical country. Then, in the '70's or so, it was thought that Japanese may be the main other language to learn. In summary, Americans have never had any reason to pick one particular other language to learn. Many have studied other languages, but more for personal than business reasons. Personally, I studied Spanish in high school, and German a few years ago, but am not fluent in either,as there are few opportunities to practive what little I learned. There are people in every country that are too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. But I find that educated professionals will learn what they need to learn to conduct business in their chosen career. Finally, I greatly respect and am thankful for the many non-English speaking peoples who have learned this very difficult langauge for global business purposes. For this reason, I am never critical of their English spelling or errors in grammer. I can only imagine the result of my trying to use German, French, etc.! Regards, George Alspaugh --- 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: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires
I've received 4-5 with a subject but no content in the message body as well. Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: John Allen [mailto:john.al...@rdel.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 10:28 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC' Subject: RE: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires This the second message I have received this afternoon that is blank except for the title John Allen -- From: jrbar...@lexmark.com[SMTP:jrbar...@lexmark.com] Sent: 22 March 2000 19:17 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires --- 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
Lightning Surge Equipment
I am trying to gather information on equipment capable of performing, at minimum, the lightning tests of Bellcore GR-1089-CORE 4.5.9, Intrabuilding Lightning Surge. I am specifically interested in opinions of different equipment, cost and extent of functionality (is there a cost savings for equipment whose functionality is limited to this test?). Any input on used equipment would also be helpful. I am initially interested in pre-test if that makes a difference. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thx, Joe * ... Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com Web:www.telica.com
RE: Correction factor for power supply cords.
I recently had a product UL Listed to 1950 where the cordage accommodated a 15A attachment plug. The product was de-rated to 12A from 15A following the verbiage in Clause 3.2.1. The cordage itself or any other components down the line to the power supply were not taken into consideration during the evaluation aside from being rated for 12A minimum. If UL had a documented interpretation of this requirement, perhaps in their PAG's, I would have needed components rated minimum 15A between the wall and power supply. Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 11:22 AM To: jrbar...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Correction factor for power supply cords. This interpretation is news to me. I thought that the derating was based on requirements of the NEC and was specifically addressing the power plug (plug cap) itself. Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: jrbar...@lexmark.com [mailto:jrbar...@lexmark.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 8:59 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Correction factor for power supply cords. Kelly, UL 1950 has a D1 (more restrictive) deviation in clause 3.2.1: Where equipment is intended to be connected to a source of supply by a power supply cord, the attachment plug shall be rated no less than 125 percent of the rated current of the equipment. UL's interpretation of attachment plug includes not only the plug that goes into the wall outlet, but the entire path between the wall outlet and your power supply, including: * Wall plug. * Cordage. * IEC-320 plug. * IEC-320 appliance inlet. John Barnes Advisory Engineer Lexmark International --- 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: Static Switch
...and to go one step further, here's piece of info I received from a ULDS representative: snip UL's on-line access to our Certifications Database is scheduled for public access by the end of March of this year and it is free of charge. Please keep checking our home page (www.ul.com) for the announcement. snip If this is true, the job of verifying UL Listed and Recognized components, etc. would be much easier. Let's see how it turns out. Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: Paul J Smith [mailto:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 1:20 PM To: dfitz...@apcc.com Cc: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Static Switch TRY WEB SITE http://www.ul.com/info/ulds.htm SITE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING TEXT. Need to verify that a product is UL Listed and which Standard was used for the evaluation? Can't find the part for your product? Expanding into new markets and need to know if UL Recognized Components are available from manufacturers in other countries? Changing your product design to include plastic materials, but you don't know which ones are suitable for outdoor use? Design specifications call for low voltage Appliance Wire, and you need to find a supplier in your area? Where do you turn? Let UL Data Services find the answers! What is UL Data Services (ULDS)? ULDS is a team of researchers available to search and retrieve up-to-date, non-proprietary information from UL's vast Listing, Recognition and Classification systems.Results are available quickly - usually within 24 hours. Only a minimum amount of information about your specifications is required to conduct a computer directed search Regards, Paul J. Smith- Teradyne, Boston dfitz...@apcc.com on 02/29/2000 11:10:50 AM Please respond to dfitz...@apcc.com To: t...@world.std.com, emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: Static Switch I am attempting to locate manufacturers of static switches rated up to 1 MW that are recognized to UL 991. Any help would be appreciated. http://www.apcc.com - This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list adminstrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or 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 adminstrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com, or 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
Enforcement of NRTL Mark on Telecom equipment
My understanding is that it is a requirement in the US/Canada that any equipment intended to connect to the telephone network must have an NRTL Mark. Can anyone advise where this requirement is called out (NEC??) and how it is enforced? Thx, JoeReceived: from sw.microcom.com (207.31.204.1) by smtp.microcom.com with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id F87F; Thu, 10 Apr 97 17:22:11 -0400 Received: from sw.microcom.com (root@localhost) by sw.microcom.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA01777; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by sw.microcom.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA01773; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id QAA07708; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:12:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: europe.std.com: daemon set sender to treg-approval using -f Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id QAA07693; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:12:08 -0400 (EDT) From: grant.pi...@adn.alcatel.com Received: from adn.alcatel.com (postman.adn.alcatel.com) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA10152; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:12:06 -0400 Received: from by adn.alcatel.com with SMTP (1.40.112.8/16.2) id AA099543085; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:11:26 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 16:11:01 -0400 Message-Id: H31a006f38dd@MHS Subject: What is RC1 ? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, t...@world.std.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name=What Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: treg-appro...@world.std.com Precedence: list Reply-To: t...@world.std.com
