RE: Rack populating??-Rationalize it!!
Two EMC issues were discussed how to populate rack for radiated emission test and correlation of radiated emission tests at different test distances. For some EUTs there are too many possible mix and match configurations, with different or same modules, that testing all of them in order to identify the worst would be practically impossible. There is also no guarantee that full rack will be worse than less populated rack. Switching power supplies under different loads might have different EMC profiles. Cavity created by empty slots could resonate and increase certain emission levels. There is no good way to identify worst case configuration. But reasonable effort should be there and procedure to maintain test consistency and repeatability. CISPR SC G developed 2 dB procedure to determine representative ITE configuration for EUTs with multiple ports and/or modules of the same type. Procedure is in Third Edition CISPR 22:1997 Section 8.1 EUT Configuration. CISPR 11:1997 has procedure from Second Edition CISPR 22:1993 Section 9.1 which requires one module/cable of each type. Reference test distance is test distance at which limit is specified. Other test distances could be used, but test at the reference distance would take precedence. Manufacturer who decide to test product at other than reference test distance will assume the risk of poor correlation of test results, resulting in costly over or under EMC design. Potential customer or enforcement agency could re-test EUT and decide on further actions based on test data at the reference distance. My 2 cents... Mirko Matejic --- 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: Request recommendations for an EMC lab at a reasonable distan ce from Nashville
Paul, For a pre compliance test: * use your spectrum analyzer and antennas; * loan or rent if you don't have them, or * ask local lab for a hand. For a final EMC compliance testing in TN, you could use NVLAP accredited lab: Philips Testing Service One Philips Drive, P.O. Box 14810 Knoxville, TN 37914-1810 Contact: Mr. Fred A. Fisher Phone: 423-521-4720 Fax: 423-521-4786 E-Mail: fred.fis...@knox.pcec.philips.com For a list of NVLAP accredited laboratories look at http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/214.htm Regards, Mirko Matejic --- 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: 1-10 GHz Source.
Marvin, Your generator would be an excellent, handy tool to periodically verify radiated test site integrity up to 10 GHz. Is there a chance to make it commercially available? Mirko Matejic --- 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: APLAC
Raymond, At the enclosed web site, click on Mutual Recognition Agreements then APLAC where is a document signed back in 1998. http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/214.htm http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/214.htm Mirko -Original Message- From: raymond...@dixonsasia.com.hk [SMTP:raymond...@dixonsasia.com.hk] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 2:09 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:APLAC I recently heard that China National Accreditation of Laboratories (CNACL) and Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) signed MRA end of last year. It said UK is a member of APLAC and UK is member of EEC. Thus the certificates issued by the member of CNACL are recognised by Asia countries, UK and EEC countries. Can anyone tell me where I can locate the official announcement about above recognition. Thanks, Raymond Li Dixons Asia Ltd. ** Legally privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee(s) legally indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message, and notify us immediately. If you or your employer does not consent to Internet e-mail messages of this kind, please advise us immediately. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or endorsed by my firm or employer unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. Please note that neither my employer nor I accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). --- 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: Dithered clocks and EMC
Theoretical explanation of how variable clock frequency reduces radiated emission levels is given in US Patent 5,430,392 /netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=/netahtml/srchnum. htmr=1f=Gl=50s1='5,430,392'.WKU.OS=PN/5,430,392RS=PN/5,430,392 Clock system and method for reducing the measured level of unintentional electromagnetic emissions from an electronic device /netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=/netahtml/srchnum. htmr=1f=Gl=50s1='5,430,392'.WKU.OS=PN/5,430,392RS=PN/5,430,392 from 1993. http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm Mirko --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC and product safety split?
I don't think we should split EMC and Safety distribution lists. We could refrain from posting humorous and similar messages unrelated to EMC and Safety. Mirko --- 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: broad band EM noise
Method I used to identify culprit poles was to drive a car along the street with AM radio on, tuned at frequency without a signal. Noise from the radio was much louder near culprit poles. A phone call to the power company with a list of culprit pole numbers led up to the solution. Mirko --- 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: RF absorbers - 61000-4-3
David, You might still have fighting chance to generate satisfactory field uniformity in the semianechoic room over the area appropriate to the size of your product. For products smaller than 5ft x 5ft, you can use lesser number of points to determine field uniformity. If you do so, you can delete a maximum of 25% of those with the greatest deviation. Best bet would be to consult shielded room manufacturer. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation
Richard, It was correlation between two OATS' at opposite sides of Atlantic. Correlation for a desktop PC size product with cables and peripherals was within couple dB. Correlation factors needed frequent updates and program was soon abolished. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation
Barry, Request was to measure radiated emission levels in compact semianechoic room and predict measured levels at a specific OATS. In order to achieve this goal I proposed to adjust room antenna factors, or to introduce correlation correction factors for measurements in a room. Measurements in a semianechoic compact room would be for information only, not to known existing standards and not intended to substitute OATS. Years ago I did similar correlation improvement between two OATS'. At OATS #1 readings closely predicted readings at OATS #2. Don, Could you elaborate REFRAD? Mirko Matejic Foxboro Company Foxboro, MA - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Chamber and OATS Coorelation
Richard, You could improve correlation by adjusting chamber antenna factors for a correlation differences which you can get from NSA measurements one at OATS the other in the chamber with a fixed antenna height. You could also determine correlation differences by comparing measured field strength levels from battery powered comb generator. Fixed vs. 1-4m antenna height among other factors will always create unpredictable correlation for a specific test setup. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Emissions using clamp
Derek, Absorbing clamp for use in the frequency range 30 - 1000 MHz is described in CISPR 16-1:1998, Section 13. There were many attempts in CISPR SC G by Swiss and Swedish national committees to introduce absorbing clamp as the alternative test method to OATS for information technology equipment. Proposals were supported with numerous documents demonstrating correlation, but method was not adopted in CISPR SC G. Concession was made in CISPR 22, 2nd Edition, 1993, Section 12 Measurement of disturbance power, where clamp method was allowed in countries which already had provisions for using clamp in their national standards while subject remained under consideration. This provision was removed from CISPR 22, 3rd Edition, 1997. According to CISPR 16-1 absorbing clamps are suitable for the measurement of disturbance from some types of equipment. For example limit of disturbance power for household appliances and electric tools is set in CISPR 14. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: TC85/WG11
Bob, Charles Zegers, Secretary of US National Committee/IEC, tel: (212) 642-4936, e-mail: czeg...@ansi.org should be able to help you. Mirko - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: CFR's
Dick, You can download CFRs at no charge from: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/ Mirko - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462
You must register on http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/online/ to get the access to MIL-STDs Mirko -Original Message- From: Matejic, Mirko Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 10:22 To: 'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 MIL-STD-461E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT issued on August 20, 1999, 253 pages is available in Acrobat Reader format, 970 KB on: http://assist.daps.mil/eAccess/index.cfm?ident_number=35789 Mirko -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 9:43 To: 'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 Jose: The best source of information about MIL-STD-461 is the standard itself. All of the requirements are defined very thoroughly (well, maybe not so thorough for Methods CS103, CS104 CS105) within the document, and an Appendix A is provided which gives you a discussion of the purposes, problems and rationale behind each of the Test Methods. Remember that the D revision has now been superseded by the E version. What used to be MIL-STD-461D and the separate MIL-STD-462D have now been combined into a single document, which is MIL-STD-461E. New equipment should be qualified to the E version, but existing equipment may still be tested under the version in effect at the time of the original qualification. So, don't throw away your B, C or D versions. Ed - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Russian Telecom Standard, 7153-85
Tania, To open first web site and get standard in Russian language you'll need Netscape Navigator. http://www.espo.ru/techno/class.htm The other web site with standard in Russian language could be opened with either Netscape Navigator or MS Explorer. http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hub/7154/standards.htm Mirko -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 21:02 To: emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com; 'Ron Pickard/Hypercom/US' Subject: RE: Russian Telecom Standard, 7153-85 Ron, Sorry, but the web site is not in the Russian language but in some software language hell! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Ron Pickard/Hypercom/US [SMTP:rpick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:22 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Russian Telecom Standard, 7153-85 To all, The Russian telecom standard is question is 7153-85, Standard telephone (Handset) Common technical requirement. To my knowledge this standard has not been offically translated into English, however, some English tranlations may exist. The reportedly most important part of this standard, as can be seen on the following web sites, is in Russian. It has also been reported that these sites have the most current information. http://www.espo.ru/techno/class.htm http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hub/7154/standards.htm Does anyone out there have an English translated version of this standard? If so, please be kind enough to reply to me privately. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Near field magnetic probes
Antonio, Ignore near field probe calibration for a moment and focus on the real H-field receiving system sensitivity and its signal to noise ratio. As you correctly stated, magnetic component falls rapidly with a distance and low magnetic field amplitude will present a practical problem at 5 to 100 m at GSM frequency. If you can substitute, my suggestion would be to measure E-field in the far field region or if you can't substitute H-field in the near field region. Good luck, Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Reflector for Radiated Immunity Testing
In order to provide acceptable field uniformity for immunity testing to radiated field, you need to eliminate, attenuate or control reflections/standing waves. Ferrite tiles only on parts of the shielded room floor, walls and ceiling could do it, the question is to identify minimum tiled area. Conclusions based on test results would be interesting topic to report at any future EMC Symposia. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Reflector for Radiated Immunity Testing
Brian, The other, bit lesser corporate exercise program you could consider would be to roll-over GND plane over ferrite tiled floor. GND plane could be chicken mesh grounded at etches. Did you measure NSA with floor tiles in place? Mirko -Original Message- From: Brian At Work [SMTP:bkundew...@qtm.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 5:24 To: Bailin Ma; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Reflector for Radiated Immunity Testing Barry, The reflector takes the place of the absorbing material that goes on the floor between the EUT and the antenna. We have a 10 meter semi-anachoic chamber in which we perform both emissions and immunity tests. To perform the radiated immunity test we have to haul in 42 tile panels weighing 30lbs each and set them into place. After the test, we have to pick them all back up again. We look at it as our corporate exercise program. . - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Alternative to LISN
Derek, Voltage probe is a very simple device comprising capacitor, resistor and optional inductor. Description and circuit diagram are given in CISPR Publication 16-1. If you need copy of relevant two pages, please let me know. I would suggest to protect front end of your analyzer by having it connected to the voltage probe only for a short period of time during measurements and avoid to shut off EUT during that period. You could also protect front end of analyzer with commercially available pulse limiter (could cost as much as 2nd hand LISN) or you could make one from discrete components (two resistors and two diodes). I would also suggest to compare power line disturbance levels of a EUT with a current of less than 30 Amps measured with a voltage probe and a LISN to establish correlation. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Just a reminder: Colorado Product Safety Technical Committee meeting notice for September 15, 1999
I'm sorry, my automatic spell checker did a terrible change, waste should be vast. Mirko -Original Message- From: Matejic, Mirko [SMTP:mmate...@foxboro.com] Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 5:50 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Just a reminder: Colorado Product Safety Technical Committee meeting notice for September 15, 1999 Dear EMC-PSTC Recipients: In order to keep value of this valuable international compliance distribution list, please refrain from posting announcements/reminders of chapter meetings with no interest to a waste majority of recipients. Message could be posted on a chapter web page and/or distributed to a chapter distribution list. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Just a reminder: Colorado Product Safety Technical Committee meeting notice for September 15, 1999
Dear EMC-PSTC Recipients: In order to keep value of this valuable international compliance distribution list, please refrain from posting announcements/reminders of chapter meetings with no interest to a waste majority of recipients. Message could be posted on a chapter web page and/or distributed to a chapter distribution list. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Average Measurements above 1 GHz
John, Characteristics of average measuring receivers for measuring disturbance levels in the range from 9 kHz to 1 GHz are given in CISPR Publication 16-1. Limits for radiated disturbances above 1 GHz are peak detector levels, the only detector to be used for determining compliance above 1 GHz. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: New ISO9000-2000
Nezam, New ISO9000 (-2000 ???) standards are not yet approved. I can send you current committee drafts, but keep in mind that those are still DRAFTS. Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company -Original Message- From: Nezam Najafi [SMTP:nezam.naj...@madge.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 10:31 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: New ISO9000-2000 To All: Dose anyone have any information concerning a draft copy of ISO9000-2000 that will supersede ISO 9001 and ISO 9002. I do appreciate any response in advance. Regards, Nezam Najafi Sr. Compliance Engineer Madge Networks, Inc. 625 Industrial Way West Eatontown, NJ 07724 Voice: 732-460-6825 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EU Authorized Representative
Hi Darrell, I enclosed official response from DG3 to the same question from November 1998. Manufacturer is responsible to draw up EC DoC and sign it as well, regardless of residency. Mirko Matejic ENCLOSURE: From: elena.santi...@dg3.cec.be Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 1:11 AM To: mmate...@foxboro.com Subject:Re: DOC Signatory The manufacturer is obliged to understand both the design and construction of the product to be able to take the responsibility for the product, i.e. for it being in compliance with all provisions of the relevant New Approach directive(s). As regards conformity assessment, the manufacturer's responsibility depends on the procedure applied. As a general rule, the manufacture must take all measures necessary to ensure that the manufacturing process assures compliance of the products (e.g. to operate a quality system), to affix the CE marking to the product, to establish a technical documentation and to draw up EC declaration of conformity. New Approach directives do not require the manufacturer to be established in the Community. Thus, the responsibilities of a manufacturer established outside the Community are equal to those of a manufacturer established in a Member State. Elena Santiago - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Source for Attenuaters
Brian, Try Mini-Circuits, 800-654-7949, www.minicircuits.com/99c-108.pdf, DC-1500 MHz 1W attenuators are $16.95. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES
I remember many discussions on different CISPR Subcommittees on Swiss and Sweden's proposals and numerous papers presented on EMC Symposia in eighties and early nineties to replace OATS with absorbing clamp type measurements or to add clamp method as the alternative. All these proposals were rejected. Keep in mind that correlation between two good, acceptable 'reference' OATS using the same measurement distance is not that great, could be as poor as 8 dB just due to a NSA deviation. How much more dB would be acceptable, that is the question. I wish you and other EMC test method developers throughout the world good luck and success in developing acceptable alternative method to OATS. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Korean approvals
APLAC Mutual Recognition Agreement MR002 (1997) is available at: http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/214.htm Further details including implementation schedule are available from NVLAP and A2LA. Mirko Matejic -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 5:30 AM To: t...@world.std.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Korean approvals Korea (KOLAS) is a signatory of APLAC (Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) along with the United States (NVLAP and A2LA). It is my understanding that, in the near future, this will change the way Korean approvals are done. I am not sure of the details...can anyone shed further light on what exactly APLAC will accomplish? == = Graham Rae Dulmage grdulm...@sympatico.ca on 06/17/99 12:08:00 AM Please respond to t...@world.std.com To: t...@world.std.com cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: Re: Korean approvals Bill, If you are not a Canadian Corporation and/or applicant you should have a rep or agent in Korea. This is the fundamental difference between the situation for a Canadian company. When the MRA was written this point was not clarified for non-Canadian applicants such that the process has been to have an agent, though in some cases non-Canadian applicants have obtained approval in their name in Korea without the agent being the applicant, though the agent/rep had to be involved. KTL also received safety accreditation from RRL for telecom equipment within the last few days. Details should be available from KTL shortly. Regards G. Rae Dulmage, B. Comm., President TelApprove Services Corporation (613) 257 3015 http://www.angelfire.com/on/telapprove -- From: Graham Rae Dulmage[SMTP:grdulm...@sympatico.ca] Sent: 16 June 1999 04:43 To: t...@world.std.com Subject:Re: Korean approvals Even if you are not Canadian you can still test at KTL. A number of companies have done this. The MRA between Canada and Korea has a clause that forbids or precludes rules of origin being applied. If you are not Canadian or do not have a Canadian facility the application requirements are a bit different. KTL's reports are accepted for non-Canadian applicants by RRL. Regards G. Rae Dulmage, B. Comm., President TelApprove Services Corporation (613) 257 3015 http://www.angelfire.com/on/telapprove Bill Ellingford wrote: Hi Treg world Unless you are Canadian and use the KTL test facility, you will almost certainly be looking at assessment by the MIC / RRL in Korea. Obtain a CENELEC CB scheme safety test report first as this will simplify the safety submission but make sure you submit the safety to the Korean CB scheme lab. They will then variffy the report for RRL. Going direct to RRL will involve a high level of testing which includes parts that are accepted elsewhere under different approval schemes. The MIC (Ministry of Information Communications) and the RRL (Radio Regulations Lab) both publish data on the www. The data includes contact information. http://webdb.mic.go.kr/e_home/ http://www.mic.go.kr:7070/english/intro/intro.htm Cheers. Bill Ellingford Motion Media Technology -- From: Dorababu R.[SMTP:drasa...@cisco.com] Sent: 15 June 1999 15:00 To: t...@world.std.com Subject:Re: Korean approvals The KTL definitely helps, and also you will get information from the following sites. http://www.typeapproval.com ( for Asia Pacific region) http://www.cclab.com thanks Dorababu Karen Bollard wrote: Try checking with KTL http://www.ktl.com Apart from doing all testing in Korea itself, they are one of the few labs accredited to do the Korean testing. They'll also help with the approval applications. -Original Message- From: Sehat, Shaniza [mailto:sehat...@gateway.com] Sent: 15 June 1999 10:38 To: 't...@world.std.com' Subject: Korean approvals Hello all! Can anyone provide the info on the Korean approvals for IT Equipments (PC, adapters, monitors, modems especially)? Thank you, Shaniza Sehat Email: sehat...@gateway.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: CISPR11 conducted emissions: add the LISN attenuation?
Patrick, CISPR 11, other CISPR Publications and FCC conducted emissions limits apply to the EUT port. LISN insertion loss should be added. In most cases, especially at higher frequencies correction for LISN's insertion loss is negligible to the overall test accuracy and therefore could be ignored. The same rationale is applicable to insertion loss of cable between LISN and RF measuring receiver. Practical advice would be to apply correction of measured conducted emissions if it is over 0.5 dB. Mirko Matejic Co-author of CISPR 11 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Martinique
Does anyone have any information regarding EMC compliance requirements for industrial control equipment in Martinique? I would appreciate any lead you could give me. Mirko Matejic (508) 549-3185 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Official Answers
Richard, At the page http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg03/directs/dg3b/newapproa/eurstd/harmstds/reflis t.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg03/directs/dg3b/newapproa/eurstd/harmstds/refli st.html choose compliance area of interest and you'll get name and number of official EC contact point. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Derek, As Art Wall told you, at this point FCC does not see enough justification to enforce compliance with EMC immunity standards. FCC might change their mind, don't worry. Procedure will require wide prior consultations with industry and end users. Sometimes Europe is too organized, remember recent discussion about odors, I would add harmonics, flicker, magnetic field, etc... and created heaven for test labs. Mirko -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 10:12 AM To: rehel...@mmm.com; n...@conformance.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Folks, I posed the question of Immunity standards being enforced in the USA to Art Whal(?) of the FCC. He did not see the need for immunity enforcement. After a lengthy discussion I formed the opinion that it is most likely the FCC will never press this issue, it will have to come from another STDs body. Pity the USA isn't as organized as Europe;-) Derek. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer
Mike, Enclosed is recent interpretation from DG3: As a general rule, the manufacture must ... draw up EC declaration of conformity. New Approach directives do not require the manufacturer to be established in the Community. Mirko Matejic From: elena.santi...@dg3.cec.be Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 1:11 AM To: mmate...@foxboro.com Subject:Re: DOC Signatory The manufacturer is obliged to understand both the design and construction of the product to be able to take the responsibility for the product, i.e. for it being in compliance with all provisions of the relevant New Approach directive(s). As regards conformity assessment, the manufacturer's responsibility depends on the procedure applied. As a general rule, the manufacture must take all measures necessary to ensure that the manufacturing process assures compliance of the products (e.g. to operate a quality system), to affix the CE marking to the product, to establish a technical documentation and to draw up EC declaration of conformity. New Approach directives do not require the manufacturer to be established in the Community. Thus, the responsibilities of a manufacturer established outside the Community are equal to those of a manufacturer established in a Member State. Elena Santiago -Original Message- From: Mike Hopkins [SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:48 AM To: 'bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph: 1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity issued by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community.. Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, ... or his authorized representative established within the Community can sign the Declaration. Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN61000-4-3 Hints and Tips
Brian, You could reduce calibration time by using commercially available software, remote controlled antenna polarization and field probe positioner. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: machinery directive related questions
Moshe, Your question 2. indicates an operational problem at a customer site which needs to be fixed. There are many different ways to fix this particular problem, you suggested few. To be more specific, more information would be needed. Mirko Matejic -Original Message- From: mvald...@netvision.net.il [SMTP:mvald...@netvision.net.il] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 9:59 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: machinery directive related questions .. 2. The machine complies with ESD (up to 8KV) immunity, but still I have safety related incidents at customer sites, which are obviously related to ESD (they are simulated at 10KV). What are my options? Should I do nothing? Should I fix the design (up to ?KV)? Should I just document the issue, require antistatic carpets/humidifiers etc from the user? Thanks in advance Moshe - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Required Margin for EMI?
Scott, There is no requirement for a minimum passing margin built into FCC Part 15, CISPR 22 or EN 55022. Minimum passing margin of 2 dB was mentioned in old, now obsolete VDE EMC specifications. There is 2 dB rule in CISPR procedures to determine representative configuration in a case of multiple units, ports, cables, etc. Accredited test laboratory must have uncertainty calculations for each test method, but it should be ignored when they compare measured value with limit. It is a good practice to pass specification with a margin in order to compensate unavoidable manufacturing mechanical and electrical tolerances, correlation, repeatability, and uncertainty issues, etc. Sale opportunity could be lost due to a low passing margin. It would be a good idea to fix the product and get better margin, keep tighter manufacturing control and have more often manufacturing audits until then. You can always challenge test house and if not satisfied change them, but you'll probably be better off to fix marginal product. Mirko Matejic -Original Message- From: s_doug...@ecrm.com [SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 9:50 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Required Margin for EMI? Hello all, When doing EMI scans of ITE, I have always worked with a margin of 2 dB less than the actual limit. No test house I have ever been to will give a meets the requirements... without having this margin. Can anyone point out if this is an actual requirement built into any of the standards, i.e. EN 55022 or FCC Part 15, etc. and if so, where is it in writing? I understand about measurement errors, product to product differences and repeatability of testing issues. Just want to know if the 2dB margin is actually written into law. Thanks for your comments. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN55011:1998, Antenna Distance...
Eric, FYI, phrase or any other reason, delayed document approval and it missed deadline for CISPR 11:1997-12 Third Edition. In my opinion delay was well justified. 3 meter semi-anechoic chamber is acceptable if it complies with CISPR Publications 11:1997-12 and 16-1:1993-08. In anticipation of next edition of CISPR 16-1, you can verify Alternative test site to Publication 22:1997-11 Section 10.3.5 and Annex A. Regards, Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN55011:1998, Antenna Distance...
Development of international standard takes a time. Modification takes even longer. CISPR approval criteria are at least 67% in favor and no more than 25% against votes by participating National Committees. CISPR Sub-Committee B developed Amendment to CISPR 11 to allow measurement at a closer distance. It is in translation process to French and will likely be published early next year. CENELEC could adopt the same change to EN 55011 even sooner. The first paragraph of Clause 7.1.3 is modified as follows: The separation between the antenna and the equipment under test shall be as specified in Clause 5. If the field strength measurement at the specified distance cannot be made because of high ambient noise levels (see Sub-Clause 6.1) or any other reason, measurement may be made at a closer distance. When this is done, the test report shall record the distance and the circumstances of the measurement. For the test site measurements, an inverse proportionality factor of 20 dB per decade shall be used to normalize the measured data to the specified distance for determining compliance. Care should be taken in measurement of large test unit at 3 m at frequency near 30 MHz due to near field effects. Regards, Mirko Matejic CISPR SC B member -Original Message- From: b...@namg.us.anritsu.com [SMTP:b...@namg.us.anritsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 10:36 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Re: EN55011:1998, Antenna Distance... Hi Eric, You made very good points about the problems in both new and current EN55011. Especially the 30 meter issue that you brought up last June. The problem is how to establish an effective communication channel to TC110 of CENELEC. Can our colleagues in Europe help? Best Regards, Barry Ma __ From: Eric Lifsey eric.lif...@natinst.com, on 10/13/98 3:49 PM: .. Legacy Problems in Current and New Editions: - Class A explicitly calls for 30 meter antenna distance. - Class B explicitly calls for 10 meter antenna distance. ... - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Lab qualification
ISO/DIS is available at: http://web.ansi.org/reports/master.asp?room=22 http://web.ansi.org/reports/master.asp?room=22 -Original Message- From: Matejic, Mirko [SMTP:mmate...@foxboro.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 7:07 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject:RE: Lab qualification ISO/DIS 17025 is DRAFT industry standard which has been produced as the result of extensive experience of the implementation of ISO/IEC Guide 25: 1990 and EN 4500l :1989 both of which it will replace. It contains all of the requirements that testing and calibration laboratories have to meet if they wish to demonstrate that they operate a quality system, are technically competent, and are able to generate technically valid results. It is likely that it would be adopted with some modifications. Voting on this document terminates on 1998-12-09. If you have suggestions or comments on this document, please let me know. File will be posted soon on http://www.rcic.com http://www.rcic.com IEC standards. My suggestions are along the line of already posted responses. Consider only test laboratories accredited by NVLAP, A2LA or any other accreditor having MRA with either of them. Let them assess test laboratories for you. Personal visit to the laboratory could be valuable. Regards, Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Ozone...
Can somebody confirm information I picked on the radio that each Shuttle launch causes a major damage in the Ozone layer? Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Lab qualification
ISO/DIS 17025 is DRAFT industry standard which has been produced as the result of extensive experience of the implementation of ISO/IEC Guide 25: 1990 and EN 4500l :1989 both of which it will replace. It contains all of the requirements that testing and calibration laboratories have to meet if they wish to demonstrate that they operate a quality system, are technically competent, and are able to generate technically valid results. It is likely that it would be adopted with some modifications. Voting on this document terminates on 1998-12-09. If you have suggestions or comments on this document, please let me know. File will be posted soon on http://www.rcic.com http://www.rcic.com IEC standards. My suggestions are along the line of already posted responses. Consider only test laboratories accredited by NVLAP, A2LA or any other accreditor having MRA with either of them. Let them assess test laboratories for you. Personal visit to the laboratory could be valuable. Regards, Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN 61000-3-3 Voltage Fluctuations
Bob, Standard development committee documents are not copyrighted and could be distributed freely. Aim is always to get inputs in the standard development stage. It must be understood, that committee documents are exactly that, they are not adopted standards and could not be used for product qualification. Regards, Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Doubt on Measuring with Spectrum Analyser
Muriel, You asked for comments on your CONDUCTED emissions testing procedure in a presence of ambient noise. Provide clean ac power to LISN. Either have clean ac power generator or insert 10 kHz low pass filter between ac power line and LISN. In addition, add common mode filter as already commented. Method you suggested is not acceptable for final compliance measurements. i record the signal with the product tested at off and when i turn the product on, i subtract the signal of on minus the signal of off. this means that i subtract the ambient noise from the noise being generated by the product itself. Test method might be useful during engineering work, in which case you are allowed to use any test method you want. Mirko Matejic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: USA Today article.
I share John Kehs' position on the subject. Topic is well within the scope of EMC-PSTC. Kate MacLean posted information about the article without any finger pointing. Kate, we all appreciate your effort to bring it to the attention of this forum. Mirko Matejic -Original Message- From: John Kehs [SMTP:jk...@windermeregroup.com] Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 7:15 AM To: Steve Kuiper; EMC-PSTC Subject:Re: USA Today article. Well Steve, if you would have read the message from Kate, she was emphasizing the fact that we must be careful with all data that is collected or found. The article was published in 3 different sources. This is definitely a proper discussion topic for the group. I did not see any gossip nor any finger pointing at anyone... Maybe the police can mime it to him... -Original Message- From: Steve Kuiper aegisl...@email.msn.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 1:26 AM Subject: USA Today article. Kate, It's probably safe to assume NOT every participant on this listserver is going to have access to or have an interest in reading the USA Today news article you've mentioned so opinions formed and expressed based upon less than all the facts would be an exercise in futility. Your comment about a leak from an independent test lab suggests that it originated from MET or ATT whether it was or was not printed in USA Today. What I do know is this! A couple of years ago while working for an independent test lab, I had met the president of MET Labs for the first time. It's no doubt in my mind that even today the president and his staff are still the honest, courteous, genuine hard-working professionals I have come to know. Conveying suggestive opinions through the use of gossip is one of those unspoken truths that exists primarily out of ones need for grabbing headlines, hence, your message came to my attention and I have responded. However, I don't see where it is appropriate for this discussion. Regards, SJK Question: If the police arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain silent?? Kate MacLean wrote: Does anyone have any further knowledge (which they can share) about the implications made in this article? It talks about an anonymous email being sent from Lucent in NJ to CNBC and Tellabs, alleging problems with test data for Ciena products. The article says that the products were at that time being tested by ATT and Metlabs, and it also says that the email may have helped scuttle the deal betwen Tellabs and Ciena, and drop Cienca's shares by 85%. Apparently, Lucent is investigating all this internally. I would have a hard time believing that such a leak could originate in an independent lab. It really is a very serious situation. Any comments/views on this? - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Antenna gain vs. factor
Hi Frank, Antennas are characterized by either antenna factors or antenna gain. Antenna factors are used for the reason of simplicity. Antenna gain is an indicator of how much specific antenna is more efficient from the isotropic radiator. To get actual field strength level we will need antenna gain and isotropic antenna factor at each frequency if antenna gain is used instead of antenna factor. Antenna factor one value per frequency is being used instead of two (antenna gain and isotropic antenna factor). Mirko Matejic -- From: F.Goto To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Antenna gain vs. factor List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, August 06, 1998 7:32PM Hi All, I have another question from our EMC department. Help from anyone knowledgeable in the area would be appreciated. I would like to know about NSA Measurement(Normalized Site Attenuation). The expression on ANSI 63.4 and CISPR 16 states, A=V(Direct)-V(Site)-AF(T)-AF(R)-AF(TOT) Where A :Normalized Site Attenuation V(Direct):is direct connection from one antenna to another antenna. V(Site) :is maximum signal measured with the receive antenna scanned in hight AF(T) :Antenna factor of transmitting antenna AF(R) :Antenna factor of Receiving antenna AF(TOT) :Mutual impedance correction factor Why do we use AT(T) instead of Antenna gain? Sincerely, Frank F. Goto A-pex International Co., Ltd. 1st Engineering Department 248-1 Kusube-cho Ise-shi, Mie-ke 516-0014 Japan Tel: +81-596-24-6717 Fax:+81-596-27-5631 go...@a-pex.co.jp http://a-pex.co.jp - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: More on the X-TAL Osc.
Derek, Try to lift all these 50 and 100pF caps from GND and connect them directly to GND pin of the brain chip. Exercise could be tricky with SMT. If there are more GND pins, use nearest to x-tal pins. Sometimes there are resistors, two in series and one across x-tal, but leave them for later. Do not connect other circuitry unless you calm down brain chip. Later on you may add resistor in series with clock output pin, value depends from circuitry 56 to 1000 Ohms. Regards, Mirko
Re: Copy of: Conducted Emissions Test
Video camera in the original posted question was powered by 24 Vac. I assume power supply would be step-down transformer, either wall mounted or on a short power cord. Regardless of the source of 24 Vac, if camera is going to be ultimately powered by the ac power line, conducted emission should comply. Mirko Matejic ENCLOSURE: From: WOODS, RICHARD To: 'EMC' Subject: Conducted Emissions Test List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 1:44PM My company plans to OEM a video camera that requires a 24 Vac power source. .
RE: Conducted Emissions Test
Richard, I agree with your understandings. It would be risky and open to arguments if understood otherwise. Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company -- From: WOODS, RICHARD To: 'EMC' Subject: Conducted Emissions Test List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 1:44PM My company plans to OEM a video camera that requires a 24 Vac power source. The OEM's test data indicates that they did not perform a conducted emissions test according to EN 55022, yet they have issued a DoC. It is my understanding that the OEM must perform the conducted emission test. Since they do not market or specify a particular power source, I understand that they may test with any source that they may choose. I further understand that if my company markets or specifies a particular power source, it is our responsibility to ensure that the final combination complies with the conducted emissions limits. Are my understandings correct? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic.
Looking for Directive 89/391 and 90/270
I would appreciate a hint where to get list of harmonized standards to Directives 89/391 and 90/270, both addressing health and safety at workplaces. Regards, Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company
RE: EN55013 (2).
Kaan, I developed and proposed flow chart - Decision tree for peak detector measurements, at least six years ago at U.S. National Committee for IEC TAG for CISPR SC G. I presented the same document later that year in Berlin to CISPR SC A and SC G on behalf of U.S. National Committees. Proposal has been approved with minor modifications suggested by Israel and Japan National Committees. It is published as CISPR Publication 22:1997 Annex B (normative), page 85 and will be propagated as applicable throughout other CISPR publications. Intention of that document was to formalize rather common practice to use peak instead of quasi peak or average detector for conducted disturbance measurements at 150 kHz to 30 MHz. Use of peak detector speed up the measurement process. If product fail the test by using peak detector, there would be still a chance to pass the test by using prescribed QP or AVG detectors. Document allows use of peak detector instead of QP and AVG and QP instead of AVG. It does not mandate it. In a case of dispute, precedence results are with prescribed QP and AVG detectors. Document did not affect limits. Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company
RE: Antenna Factors of 3 Antennas
Look for ANSI C63.5, telephone: 212.642.4900, http://www.ansi.org Mirko Matejic -- From: Bailin Ma To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Antenna Factors of 3 Antennas List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 11:33AM Hi, Is anybody kind enough to give me a hint where I should go to find information on how to calibrate antenna factors of three antennas by using those three antennas themselves. Thank you. Best Regards, Barry Ma 408-778-2000 x4465 408-778-0239 Fax
RE: abstract: GTEM correlation paper
Ideal correlation between GTEM and OATS is not expected. Few years ago in a Public Notice FCC laid out conditions for accepting final compliance data from GTEMs. Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company Foxboro, Massachusetts
Re: Antenna Correlation
Cortland, My comment is to a Latin sentence which according to my recollection should be: Morituri te salutant, meaning they who will die are greeting you. Gladiators greeted Imperior prior entering arena with lions. Greetings, Mirko -- From: Cortland Richmond To: TDonnelly; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: Antenna Correlation List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 10:09AM .. Let the games begin! (Te morituri salutamus) Cortland
NE EMC Chapter, 9/24/97
You are invited to the joint meeting of IEEE Boston Section EMC Chapter and New England Product Safety Society will be held on Wednesday, September 24, 7:00 PM, at EMC Corporation, 42 South Street, Hopkinton, Massachusetts. Training by recognized expert in addition to refreshments will be offered. You can not lose by attending this informative meeting. Electromedical Device EMC, Product Safety and the FDA GMP by Wayne HUNTER, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wisconsin This presentation will provide information about EMC requirements for electromedical device manufacturers. EMC is now required for Electromedical devices under section 820.30 of the FDA Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). GMP will require all electromedical manufacturers to provide information in regard to intended EMC environment as well as verification data for new products. The impact of the new FDA GMP on product safety will be reviewed. The new GMP went into effect on June 1, 1997. This requirement directly affected finished device electromedical device manufacturers and indirectly sub-contractors of electromedical device manufacturers. Additional information will be presented in regard to FDA design controls included in the Code of Federal Regulations. What changes will be required if you are currently CE marking your product? Will other countries harmonize with the CE mark requirements? What is the current status and timetable for the MRA with Europe? Discussion of the answers to these and other questions will be included. Wayne Hunter is a member of the US National Committee EMC Technical Advisory Groups for CISPR, IEC, NEMA, ANSI, and the IEEE. If you need more information, contact Mirko Matejic at (508) 549-3185, email: mmate...@foxboro.com. More information about meeting is available at URL: http://www.ece.neu.edu/ieeebost/articles/articles.html
RE: China
Richard, You could check following sources: Ms. Wang Suying Chinese Standardization Institute Senior Director of Department P.O. Box 1101 Beijing, China Tel: 4012382 if you want to call Ms. Wang Suying be prepared to communicate in Chinese. Mr. Gao Yougang Chairman of China National E-Commission, URSI Chairman of EMC Chapter, Beijing Section, IEEE P.O. Box 171, Beijing University of Post Telecommunications Beijing, 100088, China Tel: 2013388-2451 Fax: 2028643 Chinese National Committee of the IEC China State Bureau of Technical Supervision P.O. Box 820 Beijing, China Dr. Shaozeng Lu, President (6 years old info) Mr. Guang Jin, Secretary General (6 years old info) Tel: +86 (1) 89 50 98 Fax: +86 (1) 401 1016 Good luck, Mirko Matejic Foxboro, Massachusetts
Re: Korea in a Nut Shell
Hello Eric and Ryan, First Korean EMC test laboratory has been accredited on June 30, 1997 by NVLAP, Lab Code: 200040-0 for testing emissions to FCC Part 15. LG Electronics, Inc. Quality and Reliability Center 36, Munlae-dong, 6-ga Youngdungpo-gu Seoul 150-096 KOREA Contact: Mr. Hong Do-Jae Phone: 82 2 630 3006 Fax: 82 2 630 3050 Regards, Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company Foxboro, Massachusetts, USA Tel: +1 508 549-3185 -- From: eric.lif...@natinst.com To: hait...@soback.kornet.nm.kr Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Korea in a Nut Shell List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, August 01, 1997 1:49PM ... Yes, I am aware that the FCC does not have NVLAP setup for Korea. I'm afraid I don't have much influence on such matters, and I agree it is not a fair situation. I plan to submit for NVLAP soon, but I don't enjoy the idea. ...
RE: EMC - European Commission's Guidance Document published
Bill, I found guidelines at: http://www.open.gov.uk/radiocom/emc.htm There is no date of release on it and annexes are not included. Document is on 59 A4 pages. Page 60 is blank. Please check if this is referenced official version. Thanks, Mirko -- From: b...@lyons.demon.co.uk To: mail2n...@news.news.demon.net Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com; iclas...@gambica.org.uk Subject: EMC - European Commission's Guidance Document published List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, July 03, 1997 9:17AM I have been advised by our trade association, GAMBICA, that the official version of the European Commission's Guidance Document to the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC has now been published. It is available from the following Web sites (and, presumably, many others): http://www.open.gov./radiocom/ http://www.tapc.org.uk The document is in Word 6.0 format and, including its nine annexes, has 166 pages. Make sure your printer has plenty of paper! -- Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org
RE: Receivers, Digital Spectrum Analyzers, Analog Spectrum Analyzers
According to CISPR 16-1:1993, Section 5.3, the accuracy of measurement of sine-wave voltages by receiver (aSA, dSA or receiver) shall be better than +/- 2 dB. Therefore, deviation of measured value (sine-wave) with two acceptable receivers, dSA or aSA could be up to 4dB. Deviation could be over 4 dB for other than sine-wave voltages. FCC and ANSI measurements are based on CISPR receiver. Regards, Mirko -- From: dmck...@paragon-networks.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Recievers, Digital Spectrum Analyzers, Analog Spectrum Analyzers List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, June 30, 1997 5:10PM (2) Given the same EUT setup whatever you want it to be and the same antenna setup again, whatever you want it to be, how close should each measurement made by dSA, aSA, or reciever be? Identical?
Re: Distance of Measurements
Rene, You could not find that underlined statement in EN 55 022. However, limits for radiated disturbance are set at 10 meters in Tables 3 and 4. Other closer distances are acceptable by Note in 11.2.1 Antenna-to-EUT distance. If there are acceptable testing alternatives in CISPR and EN standards, ONLY ONE is reference and takes precedence over other acceptable alternatives in the case of a dispute. By the way how CISPR 22 (EN 55022) was written, reference test distances were given in Tables 3 and 4.. Regards, Mirko Matejic -- From: Rene Charton To: Matejic, Mirko; emc-p...@ieee.org; robert.m...@engineers.com Subject: Re: Distance of Measurements List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 9:58PM ???: Matejic, Mirko mmate...@foxboro.com Reference and therefore preferred test distance for measurements to CISPR 22 is 10 meters for both classes A and B. Measurements at closer distances, including 3 meters are acceptable. In a case of dispute results from 10 meters will take precedence. `^^ Where do I find this statement in EN 55 022 ? Thanks and regards Rene Charton
RE: Distance of Measurements, 55011
Eric, You are right and this muddy point hopefully will be cleared. CISPR SC B Interference from Industrial, Scientific and Medical Radio Frequency Apparatus is preparing Annex to CISPR 11 which will allow testing class A equipment at 10 meters and class B at 3 meters with 20*Log(D/d) limit relaxation as in CISPR 22. In a case of dispute measurements at 30 meters will take precedence. Preliminary discussions took place in Mandelieu-La-Napoule, France in October 1996 during regular CISPR meeting. Further discussions on the subject are expected in November 1997 during CISPR meeting in Japan. If agreement is reached, schedule of events could be: DEC 97 - JAN 98 DIS issued 6 months - Voting 6 months - for CISPR Secretariat in Geneva to translate it into French, prepare and print Annex DEC 98 - Annex available. CENELEC might move faster after NOV 97 and significantly sooner publish Annex to EN 55011. Mirko Matejic Member of CISPR SC B -- From: eric.lif...@natinst.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Distance of Measurements, 55011 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 10:36AM Shall I muddy the issue further...let me address an interesting section of EN 55011:1991. But first; for reference; Clause 5 of EN 55011 lists the limits and measuring distance for Class B at 10 meters, Class A at 30 meters. Section 8.1.3 entitled Radiation Measurements (9 kHz to GHz) speaks to the issue of high ambients and moving to a shorter distance to take measurements. However, the wording (IMO) indicates that the 20* Log(D/d) correction is not allowed. Let me quote: Note - Due to the unpredictability of the relationship between the measured values of the electromagnetic radiation disturbance and the distance from the equipment under test no correction is allowed for in the limits when measurements are made at a closer distance. no correction The key implication (IMO again) is that running Class A measurements at 10 meters must meet the limits specified at 30 meters! Please correct me (pun) if I'm wrong! To my knowledge, many labs are doing Class A measurements at 10 meters. (IMO, 10 meters is better because most sites need an additional RF preamp for 30 meter sensitivity; if not handled carefully, measurement uncertainty is worsened. Of course, EUT size and other factors exist.) CISPR-11 is due for an overhaul (and for other interesting problems too) and I hope they fix this one while they're at it. Regards, Eric Lifsey National Instruments
RE: Distance of Measurements
Robert, Reference and therefore preferred test distance for measurements to CISPR 22 is 10 meters for both classes A and B. Measurements at closer distances, including 3 meters are acceptable. In a case of dispute results from 10 meters will take precedence. Mirko Matejic Coauthor of CISPR 22, Editions 1 and 2 -- From: robert.m...@engineers.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Distance of Measurements List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, June 11, 1997 4:11PM For measuring emissions per CISPR 22B what is the proper distance for the placement of the antenna? Is it 3m? or 10m? [I'm running across reputable labs that claim there is nothing wrong with measuring everything at 3m, just like FCC B.] - Robert - robert.m...@engineers.com AJM Electronics --- ~ OLX 2.1 TD ~ You'd be surprised how much it costs to look this cheap.
RE: Host Computer (Test Bed)
Randy, Could you summarize and post responses you received on your posting? Thanks, Mirko
May 6-8, Boston
Join us at Electronics Industries Forum, World Trade Exhibition Center, Boston, Massachusetts, May 6-8 The EIF+97 Conference program has over 100 sessions organized into five major Summits, among them Technology and International Standards. Approximately 150 industry, government, and academic leaders will be speaking in these Summits. Chairmen of international EMC standard committees, FCC Chief, distinguished lecturers, recognized EMC and Product Safety experts accepted invitations to share their knowledge with the audience. If you are looking for update on FCC Part 15, CENELEC EMC specs in the pipeline or compliance design hints for your product at EIF+97 you will be at the right place. The EIF +97 Exhibition will bring together over 300 exhibitors, that are manufacturers of electronic devices, systems and components, with 10,000 decision-makers and qualified buyers from communications, medical, computer, networking and aerospace industries. If you are looking for a shielded room, antenna, LISN, ferrite suppresser, gasket, receiving system or EMC/Safety/Telecom test house at EIF+97 you will be at the right place. Special Focus Pavilion has been created as a special attraction on the exhibition floor. It will feature highlighted technology and advancements in the EMC. EIF +97 is sponsored by IEEE, IEEE EMC Society, Central New England Council, ERA and many other professional organizations. For information, please contact EIF +97 at phone: (800) 322-9332, fax: (203) 855-3003, Web Site: www.eifne.com Mirko Matejic IEEE EMC Society Boston Chapter, Chair Few confirmed presentations are: - Dan Hoolihan, Vice President, IEEE EMC-S, Medical Devices - ANSI Issues - Art Wall, Chief, FCC, Recent Advances in FCC EMC and Equipment Authorization Requirements - Ronald Storrs, Chairman, Swedish EMC Committee, Chair or member of EMC Standard bodies: IEC TC 65, CISPR, CENELEC, Update on European EMC Standards and Regulatory Issues - Stephen Berger, Vice Chair, IEEE EMC-S Standards Committee, Hearing Aid Digital Cell Phone Interference Issues - Joe Butler, IEEE EMC-S BoD Director of Technical Services, Shielding Effectiveness - Why Don+t We Have a Consensus Industry Standard? - Bill Ritenour, IEEE EMC-S BoD Distinguished Lecturer, ESD - A Tutorial - Lee Hill, IEEE EMC Distinguished Lecturer, Noise Filtering on Cables - Ron Brewer, IEEE EMC-S Distinguished Lecturer, EMC System Design - Peter Boers, Digital Equipment EMC Domain Manager, co-author of many European and U.S. EMC Standards, EMC: What are the Worldwide Regulatory Requirements And Their Impact on ITE Design, Marketing, and Importation - Richard Belanger, Digital Equipment, Group Manager, The Journey to a Compliant Product: International Regulatory Requirements And Their Impact on Product Design And Marketing; Today And in The Future - Michael Neuffer, Digital Equipment, Product Safety Domain Manager, International Product Safety: A Discussion of Product Liability Laws, Regulations, and Third Party Certification Agency Requirements for ITE - Valerie Watt, Digital Equipment, Manager, Telecommunications Domain and Test Laboratory - Eric Waters, Medical Device Directive Manager, TII, Medical Devices and International Regulatory Requirements: What are They and How You Can Assure Compliance to Them?
RE: Dipole antenna factors below 80 MHz
Hi Bob, Reference document for dipole antenna is CISPR 16-1:1993-08 Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus and methods. Antennas, including shortened dipole are defined in Section 15. Generic shorten dipole antenna factors are on Figure 13. You should calibrate your antenna at 80 MHz length and use factors specific for your shortened dipole antenna. Regards, Mirko -- From: bob_sy...@gilbarco.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Dipole antenna factors below 80 MHz List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, April 11, 1997 1:05PM Greetings, When making field strength measurements below 80 MHz, CISPR 22 says to tune the antenna to the 80 MHz resonant length. Should the antenna be calibrated at these frequencies with the 80MHz resonant length? Or does one use the antenna factors that were presumably derived using the actual resonant length? I can find no guidance in published standards on this subject. Thanks in advance, Bob Sykes EMC Engineer Gilbarco Inc. bob_sy...@gilbarco.com
RE: Accredited Calibration Labs
There is a relevant feature article Accreditation puts cal labs on the spot in the April 1997 issue of Quality. On line article is available at URL: http://qualitymag.com/0497fx.html Mirko Matejic
RE: EMC and Safety Standards for Hungary
My few years old info about Hungarian IEC Committee/ State standards organization is: Magyar Szabvanyugy Hivatal Ulloi-ut 25 PF.24 H-1450 Budapest 9 Hungary Tel: +36 1 118 30 11 Fax: +36 1 118 51 25 President: Dr. Laszlo Petrovai (Mr.) Please post your findings. Thanks, Mirko -- From: George Alspaugh To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC and Safety Standards for Hungary List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 8:41AM Kevin, A 1993 Guide to Applicants from MEEI mentions that some products must be tested for EMC, but does not list standard as same comment applies to such a broad range of products. Further states that MEEI will accept EMC test report from a few listed test facilities. However, this is a four year old document. However, to my knowledge, we are getting MEEI certification on nearly all our ITE printers with CB report and EU Declaration of Conformity. I would guess that MEEI is accepting DoU as proof of conformity to EN versions of CISPR 22. From: comp_lab%dscltd.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 03/19/97 02:37:47 PM Subject: EMC and Safety Standards for Hungary My information on Hungarian EMC is a little thin. Does anybody know the state of things for ITE equipment? Are they following the EC on this? Thanks for your help Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Canada 416 665-8460 Ext 378
FW: (fwd) NEW COMMISSION GUIDELINES
Draft - New EMC European Guidelines is available at: .. A copy of the new Commission Guidlines for EMC can be found at:- http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/newguide.html Webmaster Nutwood UK Ltd Mirko
RE: re:EMI Receiver requirements
Radiated field strength limits above 1 GHz are in the final stage of approval in all European and other International EMC bodies including all CISPR Sub Committees A to G, ETSI EE4, CENELEC TC 210, etc. Proposed limits in different committees were supported by U.S. TAGs (Technical Advisory Groups) as formally proposed over two years ago by Bernard Despres from France Telecom. Mirko Matejic Foxboro Co. -- From: Geoffrey Skanes To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: re:EMI Receiver requirements List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, February 26, 1997 9:56AM In message EMI Receiver requirements, you write: Yet more questions to pose to the forum..,. EMI Receivers - do spectrum analyzers used for radiated emissions measurements have to conform to CISPR 16 for FCC testing? How about FCC testing to CISPR 22 limits? Does the requirement for a CISPR compliant receiver end once you exceed the 1 GHz frequency barrier? I currently have a non-CISPR 16 compliant .10 KHz - 28.5 GHz capable HP analyzer. My question is can I use this for compliance testing? It seems to me that I can use it above 1 GHz, but not below. If this is true, can I expect new high-frequency CISPR requirements to be updated to include CISPR 16 compliant test equipment above 1 GHz? I am trying to decide what test equipment I need to purchase to allow FCC and CE-mark emissions compliance testing. Any info would be helpful! Regards, Randall T. Flinders EMC Test Engineer Emulex Corporation Randall: Presuming its a digital device you're testing, Section 15.31(a)(6) of FCC Part 15 states you have to use ANSI C63.4-1992 as the measurement procedure. In section 4.1.1 of ANSI C63.4-1992, you are instructed to use a measurement instrument conforming to ANSI C63.2-1987. ANSI C63.2 was re-issued in 1996 (ANSI C63.2-1996). In its scope (section 1.2), ANSI C63.2-1996 confirms that the required receiver characteristics agree with CISPR 16 as it pertains to the quasi-peak detector. That is, over the range 10 kHz to 1 GHz. Above and beyond this range, ANSI C63.2-1996 describes specific criteria for receiver bandwidth and detector function. So, in answer to your question, you cannot use a non-CISPR 16 compliant analyser for compliance testing (engineering, yes, I do it all the time). Above 1 GHz, review the specific criteria in ANSI C63.2-1996. Can you expect new high-frequency CISPR requirements in the future? I've seen working documents from, as I recall, CISPR G concerning new limits above 1 GHz for emissions. I don't know how likely these limits will be integrated into CISPR 22, but if limit levels are being bandied about, receiver characteristics can't follow too far behind. I hope this was helpful. Regards, Geoff Skanes EMC Engineer Nortel Technology
RE: NVLAP approved test Lab
Vi Van, There is no NVLAP accredited UK lab for FCC Part 15 it's my understanding that the FCC is not now accepting the DoC based on the test report from UK labs. Efforts are on the way to sign Mutual Recognition Agreement between US and EC and correct this situation. Reasonably updated list of NVLAP accredited labs for FCC Part 15 is available on URL: http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/fcctm.htm Mirko Matejic NVLAP Technical Expert -- From: Vi Van (MEPCD) To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: NVLAP approved test Lab List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, February 20, 1997 8:32AM Dear All, We are trying to find out the fastest way to get our PC approved for FCC. One way is self declaration by a NVLAP approved Laboratory. Does any EMC Labs in UK that are NVLAP approved? Thanks in Advance. Vi Van Mitsubishi PC.
EMC Meeting in NE
IEEE EMC Society Central New England Chapter invites you to the following meetings: Tuesday, February 11, 6:30 p.m. John Osburn, Austin, TX, Chair of 1997 IEEE EMC Symposium presenting The GTEM!What Is It, Where Has It Been, Where is it Going? In many cases GTEM! is the preferred alternative to both Open Area Test Site and Semianechoic Chamber. Technical overview of the GTEM!, performance values and limitations, will be followed by an overview of its measurement capabilities. The status of GTEM! cells in international regulatory acceptance will be described, and the future of the GTEM!, in both a technical and regulatory sense will be projected. Tuesday, March 18, 6:30 p.m. Jan Coenraads, NMi, The Netherlands and Ruud Jeltes, NMi USA, New Jersey presenting How to deal with the EMC Directive in +97 Presentation will focus on developments in European EMC Regulation and Standards, including recent: - developments in European EMC Standards as being drafted by CENELEC/ETSI; - developments in Guidance Notes issued by the Association of Competent Bodies; - problems related to in-situ testing of large installations; - released new Guidelines on the EMC Directive of the European Commission and new revision currently being drafted; - relation to and developments in other European Directives related to EMC aspects of products and - process of going through the requirements of the EMC directive. Jan Coenraads is Chairman of IEC-CISPR Sub Committee F, Interference from Motors, Household Appliances Lightning Apparatus and Secretary of CENELEC SC 210A, EMC from ITE, co-author of both editions of CISPR 22 and Secretary of the Association of Competent Bodies in Europe. Jan is appointed to assess Technical Construction Files and issue Competent Body Certificates. Ruud Jeltes is General Manager of NMi USA, a subsidiary of NMi International. Meeting will take place at Chomerics Facility, 77 Dragon Court, Woburn, Massachusetts. Complimentary cookies and drinks provided. Mirko Matejic tel: (508) 549-3185, email: mmate...@foxboro.com Chair, IEEE EMC Society, Central New England Chapter
RE: LISN, Surge and Burst
Frank, Michael Howard provides good calibration service, traceable to NIST, with very competitive prices and 3-5 days turnaround time at: Liberty Labs, Inc. 1346 Yellowwood Rd. P.O. Box 230 Kimballton, IA 51543 Tel: (712) 773-2199, Fax: (712) 773-2299 Email: mhow...@netins.net Homepage: http://www.netins.net/showcase/liberty/ They calibrate antennas, LISNs, Surge and Burst coupling/decoupling networks, attenuators, and offer volume discount for qty of 2 and up. Mirko -- From: Frank F. Goto To: 'EMC-PSTC' Subject: LISN, Surge and Burst List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 11:40PM I am trying to find a reliable calibrator for the equipment mentioned in the subject header. Can anyone recommend a few companies? Your help is appreciated. Sincerely, Frank Goto A-pex International Co., Inc.
RE: Uncertainty
George, IEC/ISO Guide 25 is the basis for ALL existing testing and calibration laboratory accreditation programs in the world including NVLAP and A2LA recognized by the FCC. Need to express measurement accuracy was recognized long time ago. Many experts are working together on national and international levels in order to come up with reasonable and easy to implement document on measurement uncertainty. Good starting point to learn more about ISO Guide 25, its current draft Rev. 5, standards and accreditation contact points could be URL: http://www.microserve.net/~iso25/ Your contributions and comments on ISO Guide 25 will be much appreciated by US representative on the working group, James Cigler, tel: (301) 975-4171, email: james.cig...@nist.gov. Mirko -- From: George, David L TR To: pstc corespondence out Cc: George, David L TR Subject: Uncertainty List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, January 23, 1997 2:44PM Rules are rules. Because we let NVLAP into the situation we now have a more ridged and rigorous certification system in the US than in Europe for some applications. If we are not careful how we implement the rules it will only get worse. There are many people in the government who have not been there and done that who want to design a system by which we all must live. Uncertainty is one of the issues. Michael Barge is on the ball and he has a good perspective. As I understand it most of you are applying Uncertainty too broadly. The rules should be applied only as they pertain to the certification requirements. For example, Europe has one application and the USA another. For minimum impact they should not be mixed. In the USA uncertainty only applies to calibration of test instruments and then only if you wish to become a NVLAP approved test lab. If we easily accept it for the entire EMC test protocol, NVLAP will gladly apply it to the entire certification procedure. Before we go off and rant an rave over this net, we should read the rules, understand what they say and know what the limitations are. Please read NIST Technical Note 1297 and note its applicability. It seems only the test labs are preaching accreditation, certification and Uncertainty while most of the producing companies just quietly integrate the testing into the quality process and leave it at that. I have news for the test labs. Trying to create a closed association with licensing and other impedances to block competition only raises the price of service. It does not improve quality of service and the competition will not be reduced. Why make it hard on yourselves? Dave George Unisys Regulatory Compliance
GTEM presentation in MA
You are invited by IEEE EMC Society Central New England Chapter on 6:30 PM, Tuesday, February 11 to presentation The GTEM!What Is it, Where Has It Been, Where is it Going? John Osburn, EMC Test Systems, L. P., Austin, Texas The GHz Transverse Electromagnetic Cell, or GTEM!, is a relatively new type of test instrument for making electromagnetic field measurements. It is an asymmetric rectangular cross section transmission line, with a 50 Ohm characteristic impedance, as well as a 377 Ohm field impedance. It is fully reciprocal, thus can be used for both radiated field emissions and immunity to radiated field measurements. In many cases GTEM! is the preferred alternative to both Open Area Test Site and Semianechoic Chamber. The presentation will begin with a technical overview of the GTEM!, including its Electromagnetic structure, performance values and limitations, and continue with an overview of its current measurement capabilities. Measurement procedures for the conduct of both radiated emissions and immunity will be outlined. The status of GTEM! cells in international regulatory acceptance will be described, and the future of the GTEM!, in both a technical and regulatory sense will be projected. John Osburn is a NARTE Certified EMC Engineer, a member of the IEEE EMC Society Standards Committee and active in standards development effort with the Society of Automotive Engineers and the American National Standards Institute. He is a Chairman of IEEE 1997 International EMC Symposium on EMC in Austin, TX. The Electromagnetic Compatibility Chapter meeting will take place in the cafeteria of the Chomerics Facility, 77 Dragon Court, Woburn, Massachusetts on Tuesday February 11 at 6:30 p.m. Coffee, sodas and cookies will be on Chomerics. If you need more information, contact Mirko Matejic at (508) 549-3185 or email: mmate...@foxboro.com.
RE: IEC801-2
Hello Fred, I recently assessed six EMC labs in Taiwan and all of them are in full compliance with applicable IEC, CISPR, FCC and EN specifications as well as with ISO Guide 25 General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories. All of them provide highly professional, high quality and repeatable EMC testing with test equipment daily verified and calibrated every SIX months, practice not very often in U.S. Answers to your questions: 1. Proficiency testing is required by different laboratory accreditation programs. Large companies with few EMC test facilities usually develop in-house programs to better handle site correlation. 2. EN and IEC ESD specifications define ground reference plane, horizontal and vertical coupling planes, position and connection of UUT and ESD generator. Different earthing methods of the test setup should not affect results of ESD test immunity. Without knowing other test details, I guess that your system (non)complies with the specification with a slim margin. Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company -- From: Fred Waechter To: emc-pstc discussion group Subject: IEC801-2 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, December 09, 1996 12:23PM This is in relation to testing a Class II, 2 wire system to the European IEC801-2 electrostatic discharge requirements. The system is used in an environment that may have no earth ground, or earth may be tied back at the substation, or earth may be tied at multiple points along the AC neutral, or an earth ground rod me be available at the users end installation. On application of an ESD pulse to this system, the energy in the ESD pulse will try to find the shortest path to earth ground. 1. Is there a preferred test method to insure conformity of testing between test laboratories, and also the users end installation as their methods of earthing may certainly differ? 2. Would different methods of earthing result in differing results due to differing amounts of system discharge before the next ESD pulse is applied to the system? These questions were prompted by results obtained at two different test laboratories. The systems passed when tested at an independent test lab. in Taiwan. The same units failed when tested by a lab. in the U.S. Thanks for your help.
Free EMC training on a hot topic
IEEE EMC Society Central New England Chapter invites you on 6:30 PM, Tuesday, December 10 presentation Ground Plane Gaps, Common Mode Voltages and Radiated EMI in Multi-Layer Printed Circuit Boards by Lee Hill, EMC Consultant Previous work in the EMC literature has demonstrated that the presence of common mode current on the external cables of electronic equipment is often the primary source of radiated EMI at frequencies above 30 MHz. In an attempt to reduce the magnitude of these currents to yield products that exhibit low levels of radiated EMI, many engineers have implemented segmented, gapped and/or narrow width ground plane geometries in mutli-layer PCB designs. The objective of the presentation is to review the results of recent research and experiments to explore and develop a better understanding of the inductance, common mode voltage, and the fundamental mechanisms responsible for radiated EMI from the PCB introduced by ground plane geometries. Lee Hill is an independent EMC consultant with ten years of experience in the design of electronic systems. He is sole proprietor of Silent Solutions, a private consulting firm specializing in high speed electronic systems design, analysis and resolution of EMI emissions and immunity problems. In 1994 he was appointed to serve as an IEEE EMC Society Distinguished Lecturer, and has authored numerous IEEE papers on EMI control. Mr. Hill was awarded the 1993 IEEE EMC Society President's Memorial Scholarship and the 1994 Missouri Collegiate Entrepreneur Award. He received the Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and electromagnetics from the University of Missouri-Rolla. Mr. Hill consults and teaches nationwide and is a course instructor for Hewlett-Packard's Design for EMC course. The Electromagnetic Compatibility Chapter meeting will take place in the cafeteria of the Chomerics Facility, 77 Dragon Court, Woburn, Massachusetts on December 10 at 6:30 p.m. Coffee, sodas and cookies will be on Chomerics. From Route 128 take exit 36, Woburn, Washington St. Proceed North after the traffic light (Bradlees on the right), past the U.S. Post Office on the left. Dragon Court is on the left, just before the gas station. Proceed about 1 mile to the Chomerics facility which is on the left. The cafeteria is located on the ground floor of the building across from building 78. A no-host dinner with the speaker will follow the meeting. If you need more information, contact Mirko Matejic at (508) 549-3185 or email: mmate...@foxboro.com
RE: EMC Directive...3
Enclosed document is third part of Guidelines on the application
of EMC Directive in Word 6.0 for Windows published by EEC DGIII
in Brussels in April 1996.
Because of the size of file, it will be posted in three pieces.
Regards,
Mirko Matejic
The Foxboro Company
begin 644 GUIDE3.DOC
MT,\1X*QN$`.P`#`/[_0!
M`0``$@$```#^``#_
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M___])P```/[___\H!08'
M`D*PP-#@\0$0```!(3
M%!46%P```!@9@```!L'0```!X`
M```?($B(P```0E)@```H```#^*0``
M`/[___\K+TN+P```#`Q,@```#,T
M-0```#8W./[_
M
M
M
M
M
M_U(`;P!O`'0`(`!%
M`X`=`!R`'D`
M```6``4`__\#``D``#`1@``
M`(838JNI+L!`P```$`$`0!#`\`;0!P`$\`8@!J
M
M`!(``@'___\`
M8@!7`\`@!D`$0`;P!C`'4`;0!E`X`=```
M@``?__
M__\$_P``
M``0```#8P```$\`8@!J`4`8P!T`%``;P!O`P`
M```6``$!`0(```#_
M``YCJG*2[`8;F,*JI+L!`-0-
M-!1`!-0-`0```/[___\#!`4!P@)@``
M``L,#0X/$/[_
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M__\!`/[_`PH``/\`0(``,``
M``!'$UI8W)OV]F=!7;W)D(#8N,!$;V-U;65N=``*35-7
M;W)D1]C`!!7;W)D+D1O8W5M96YT+C8``#L``P#^_PD`!@``
M`0$``/[_```#@$```#@
MA9_R^4]H$*N1``K)[/9,'`#```.!P```)@W`0`
M``#``0``.0!```,`(```LL`@``#0```%/=`(`
M`!8`@``@```+P```2X`(```X$`P``0```@#```3
M3`,``/__'@```@```!#
M.EQ-4T]1DE#15Q724Y73U)$7%1%35!,051%7$Y/4DU!3Y$3U0`
M```V@```$=5241%3$E.15,@3TX@5$A%($%04$Q)
M0T%424].($]($-/54Y#24P@1$E214-4259%(#@Y+S,S-B]%14,@3T8@,R!-
M05D@,3DX.2!/3B!42$4@05!04D]824U!5$E/3B!/1B!42$4@3$%74]RE90`S
MP`D$`4#``#$1```W,`
M``U00X`7@``K```
M``!``LK%X```L7@```*QK%X```L7@``
M%%9?5E\```!67P```%9?5E\```P```!B
M7P``@```Q?```N5E\68@``90```)I?FE\``!8`
M``P7P```+!?L%\```P7P```+!?L%\`
M``#\7P```+E@N6Y8```'P```-A@``0
M:$``)#X80``'@```'MB``!4SV(```T!```68@``
M``L7@```+!?```G`@``0`'`+!?
ML%\`L%\```P7P```!9B
ML%\```L7@```*QL%\`
MFE\```P7P```+!?L%\```P7P``
M`*QL%\```L7@```+!?_%\`
MP%X``#@```#X7@``7@```*QK%X```L
M7@```*QL%\```#\7P```+!?``!,L%\`
M
M``U4
M:4@;6%N=69A8W1UF5R('1A:V5S(%L;!M96%S=7)ER!N96-EW-AGDL
M(EN(]R95R('1H870@=AE(UA;G5F86-T=7)I;F@')O8V5SR!E;G-U
MF5S(!C;VUP;EA;F-E(]F('1H92!M86YU9F%C='5R960@')O9'5C=',@
RE: Please Help! Need EMI Shield for LCD Panel!
Brian, You may contact specialized manufacturer in shielded, transparent windows at: IVC Displays Tel: (011) 44 1332 864-900 28-30 Derby RoadFax: (011) 44 1332 865-409 Melbourne, Derbyshire DE73 1FE United Kingdom Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company -- From: Brian Kunde To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Please Help! Need EMI Shield for LCD Panel! List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, July 29, 1996 9:21PM Now that I need one I can't find one. I am in need of a transparent shield that will go over a 9 inch diag. LCD Panel. Years ago I had vendors knocking down my doors with these cheep shields that where made from a fine conductive screen material with a small frame and a drain (ground) wire. Does anyone know a company that still makes these things? How about the raw material (I can make them myself)? Thanks in advance, Brian Kunde bku...@qtm.net LECO Corp.
Mark your calendar, 25-SEP
Dear Fellow Compliance Colleague, You are invited to the joint meeting of IEEE New England Section EMC Chapter and Northeast Product Safety Society, Inc. on Wednesday September 25, 1996 7:00p.m. featuring presentation and follow up discussion: A Close Look at the New EC Power Line Harmonics Requirements by Isidor Straus, Curtis-Straus, Littleton, Massachusetts. Last fall, the European Commission adopted the new IEC/CENELEC on power line harmonics, IEC 1000-3-2/EN61000-3-2, as a mandatory requirement under the EMC Directive. The standard restricts the harmonic components of the current drawn by all AC mains connected equipment operating at less than 16 Amperes per phase, and applies to all equipment using more than 75 Watts. The EMC community knew of the standard and expected it to be designated under the EMC Directive. The manner in which it was adopted, however, came as a great shock: there was virtually no transition period. Equipment was expected to comply with the new requirements as of the beginning of 1996. The standard way of designing electronic power supplies-both linear and switching, was essentially outlawed overnight! The authorities are working to soften the blow by introducing a transition period, but the fact remains that in the near future, if not immediately, electronic equipment must be designed with the harmonic requirements in mind. This knowledge has caused a lot of consternation in the EMC community. Electronic power supplies commonly incorporate full-wave diode rectification and a bulk storage capacitor as the input to further linear or switching regulation circuitry. It is the threshold action of these components that causes current to flow in a narrow period near the peak of the applied mains voltage. The addition of an additional pulse-width modulated inductor can change this current profile, but that technology is not yet widely disseminated and will initially command a premium. At this time, it is important to know whether or not a product actually needs to have a specially engineered power supply, or if it can use an older one. Although the standard technically applies to equipment drawing more than 75 Watts (approximately 1/3 Ampere), in fact a more careful analysis shows that equipment drawing substantially more power-up to nearly 200 Watts--can still meet the harmonic requirements. The 75 Watt level is not a cast in stone limit-it is used because it contains a large enough safety margin that equipment at that level is so unlikely to fail the requirements as to not be worth testing. The talk presents a mathematical analysis which profiles equipment harmonic currents as a function of RMS current and conduction phase angle. These parameters can easily be measured with common equipment. Armed with this information, it is possible to decide early in the design cycle whether the new harmonic requirements will impose any hardship. Isidor Straus has been professionally involved with product compliance issues, with an emphasis on electromagnetic compatibility matters, since 1977. He is presently the Chief Scientist at Curtis-Straus, LLC, of Littleton, Massachusetts. Curtis-Straus provides a wide range of regulatory testing and consulting services. He also serves as a managing editor of the periodical Compliance Engineering. Previously, he was a co-founder of Dash, Straus, and Goodhue, Inc., where he was Vice President of Engineering until 1988. Mr. Straus holds a BSEE from M. I. T., and a Master's of Science degree in finance from Boston College. Mr. Straus is also registered as a Professional Engineer in Massachusetts. Directions: The meeting will take place at EMC Corporation on September 25, 1996 at 7 p.m. We gather at EMC at 7:00 p.m. for networking and munchies, courtesy of EMC, the technical meeting starts at 7:30 pm. EMC Corporation is located in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. Take Route 495 to Exit 21B. Bear right at the bottom of the ramp and turn left onto South Street at the traffic light. EMC Corporation's Training Facility is located at 42 South Street, which is the first right after turning onto South Street. The meeting will be held in the EMC's Customer Briefing Center. Prior to the meeting, socializing will be at O'Tooles Pub/North Pond House on South Street, on the right side, about a 1/2 mile past EMC's Customer Briefing Center from 5:00 to 6:45 p.m., where food and drink may be purchased. For more information, please call Mirko Matejic at (508) 549-3185. Further information on NPSS, Inc. can be found at: http://www.safetylink.com/npss.html Further information on IEEE EMC Society and link to many related sites can be found at:http://www.emclab.umr.edu/ieee_emc/
RE: EMC testing laboratories in the Denver Colorado area
Hello Joan, There is a capable NVLAP accredited EMC test lab: TUV Product Service , Inc, 40 Meadow Road-PWS Lyons, CO 80540 Call Tim O'Shea, tel: (303) 449-4165, fax: (303) 449-3004 Manufacturer could test product themselves without involvement of third party testing under the certain conditions: products should not be subject to any other Directive which require involvement of Notified Body. Successful verification of compliance to the applicable directives must be complete. Cost of testing equipment and qualified labor cost to operate it could be much higher than testing at the third party, if you do not have many products and if you do not intend to offer testing service to the outside customers. Cost of test equipment including special room could easy start from few hundred thousand dollars. Certified laboratory is not necessary for testing to European EMC directive, but laboratory's third party accreditation, especially based on ISO Guide 25 might be helpful in a case test results are challenged. There are many other qualified EMC test houses in Colorado and elsewhere in U.S., and my suggestion will be to start with third party EMC testing and learn more specifics on what kind/size/cost of EMC test equipment and resources will be needed for your products. Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company, Foxboro, Massachusetts -- From: joan.legerski.windsor.industr...@ix.netcom.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org; interested.part...@ix.netcom.com Subject: EMC testing laboratories in the Denver Colorado area List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, July 18, 1996 10:01AM Message: If anyone has any information about locations of EMC testing laboratories in the Denver, Colorado area I would appreciate it. Also please provide any information about manufacturers doing European EMC immunity testing themselves. How expensive is the equipment? Do we need to construct special rooms? Is it possible to do testing without the manufacturers having a certfied laboratory? Is it also possible to do testing without a third party certifiying the restults? Your cooperation is appreciated. Joan Legerski
RE: HP App Note
Jerry, Compliance Testing to the IEC 1000-3-2 (EN 61000-3-2) and IEC 1000-3-3 (EN 61000-3-3) Standards HP Application Note 1273 56 pages, published in 1995 provides solid information on testing power supplies to the requirements (harmonics and fluctuations) and just touched design for compliance. Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company -- From: j...@bangate.compaq.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: HP App Note List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, June 24, 1996 11:47AM Good Morning, I recently saw in a trade magazine an announcement that Hewlett Packard had an app note avaliable that dealt with designing and measuring power supplies to the requirements of IEC 555 (harmonics, fluctuations etc.). Does anyone know the app #, and if it is avaliable from HP via it's www page ? Thanks all, Jerry F.
RE: Radiated Emissions Above 1Ghz.
Brian, EN 55022:1994, Clause 1 Scope and object reads: Procedures are given for the measurement of the levels of spurious signals generated by the ITE and limits are specified for the frequency range 9 kHz to 400 GHz for both Class A and Class B equipment. No measurements need be performed at frequencies where no limits are specified. No limits (and methods of measurements as well) were specified at frequencies above 1 GHz, so no emission measurements at frequencies above 1 GHz need be performed. EN 55011:1991 Clause 1 Scope and object, Sub-Clause 1.3 reads: Procedures are given for the measurement of radio frequency disturbances and limits are laid down within the frequency range 9 kHz to 400 GHz. Limits for the emissions at frequencies above 1 GHz were given only for the range 11.7 GHz-12.7 GHz, for the remainder of the range limits are under consideration, so no emission measurements need be performed.. New EN standards for radiated emissions at frequencies above 1 GHz are in the development stage for over two years. Regards, Mirko Matejic -- From: Brian Kunde To: RCIC Subject: Radiated Emissions Above 1Ghz. List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, May 30, 1996 8:25AM The EN55022 and EN55011 standards do not show (as far as I have been able to find) emission limits over 1Ghz. Does anyone know how we are to test products with fast clock speeds who+s harmonic could cause emissions problems over 1Ghz in Europe? Are newer versions of the standards coming out which may address this? If so, any idea of what the limits might be? Thank you, Brian Kunde LECO Corp.
