RE: EN61010-1 scope

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

The opening paragraph of the Scope of 1010-1 states it covers "electrical
equipment intended for professional, industrial process, and educational
use, including equipment and computing devices for
* measurement and test;
* control;
* laboratory use;
* accessories intended for use with the above (eg. sample handling
equipment)"

The basic intent here is industrial.  950 covers ITE, which I believe
emphasizes home or office computing, printing, etc., equipment.

Other opinions?  I think that's the simple answer.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:30 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN61010-1 scope



I am trying to determine if a particular device should be safety certified
under EN 60950 or EN 61010-1. It would be appreciated if someone would
provide me with the scope of EN 61010-1. Thanks.

Richard Woods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Battery Capacity

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

A couple of comments on battery capacity (based mostly on experience)...

A battery may certainly be defined as OK by the manufacturer if it has only
1/2 its original capacity, but it rarely is defined that way by the user.  A
battery showing that capacity is not long for this world and will rapidly
drop to 1/3, 1/4, etc., of original capacity.  The reason is that whole
batteries do not fail, one cell fails.  A high quality battery has cells
which are well matched chemically.  As they age, one inevitably ages more
quickly than the others - this process can be accelerated or retarded by the
care taken in charging and discharging (and can sometimes be reversed by
certain battery conditioning recharge algorithms.)  For example, in
lead-acid batteries, one does not want to drive the battery voltage much
below 1.75 volts per cell, as there is very little charge actually left in
each cell at this point and further discharge will only serve to drive one
cell into deep discharge, which risks chemical damage.  Again, all this is
generally explained ad nauseum in the literature supplied by the
manufacturers.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Recommendations for a portable spectrum analyzer?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Many thanks to everyone who responded.  I've got a few models to go with
now, and I'll start looking.
 
A substantial help.  Thanks again.
 
Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for a portable spectrum analyzer?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Dear List,

I am looking to purchase (new or used) a good general purpose spectrum
analyzer, mostly for use with an EMCO sniffer loop set for locating "hot"
boards, shields, and cables, panel joints which are leaking, etc.  The
frequency range of interest is up to a few GHz (this is to assist with EN
55011 emissions testing).  I also want to get something that other engineers
and techs don't shy away from.  So, I don't need or want anything incredibly
fancy, and I'm not trying to set up an open field site.  Just reliable and
straightforward to use.

Any brand name and model suggestions?

My thanks in advance.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Test Engineering Manager
Affymetrix, Inc.


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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: 61000-3-2 Class D

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

My impression all along has been that the likelihood of a product being
placed in great numbers into domestic establishments is what defines Class
D.  Commericial television sets and personal computers fit this definition
very well, thus their specific mention in the standard.  They certainly may
be sold and installed into industrial locations, but a very large number are
marketed and sold to domestic installations.  A PC manufacturer may ship
thousands and thousands of PCs to Europe, and large numbers of these will be
connected directly to the "low voltage" AC power supply (your friendly wall
socket).  The Great Debate aside, the concern is the 

I believe that if your product is being marketed exclusively to industry,
even if it incorporates a PC, the overall product can be assigned to Class
A.  The PC, as sold to you by Dell or Gateway, would conform to Class D,
because you're buying essentially the same thing as Mr. Homeoffice.

Please note that all the above is true only with the incorporation of A14
into the harmonic emissions standard.

I hope I've stated that clearly.  If not, please jump in and correct me!

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.



-Original Message-
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 7:50 AM
To: Paul Chan; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Fwd:61000-3-2 Class D



forwarding for paul_c...@hkstc.com

Reply Separator
Subject:61000-3-2 Class D
Author: "Paul Chan" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   3/2/01 8:57 AM

Dear Group,
 
I have read from here about PC, TV are definitely Class D.  Can anyone
suggest
the how this discision made?

Best Regards
Paul Chan
HKSTC


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: ESD protection

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Hello Ravinder,

Your question is a bit difficult to answer.  You appear to have reached some
conclusions on what is going wrong in the circuit, but do you have really
good information on the problem?  I had a similar problem in an instrument
that had been designed prior to the widespread introduction of ESD tests.
It had divided grounds between analog and digial, just as you are thinking
here.  Close examination revealed that the two grounds would bounce
differently, causing logic problems and occasional lockups due to IC
substrate voltages going to unexpected levels.  So, dividing grounds without
understand exactly what's going on can be counterproductive.

In this case, actually closing the grounds together under the critical ICs
ended the problem (the separation at that point was not at all critical).
Simply put, you need to either (1) get the ground to stop bouncing so much
or (2) get all the associated PC lines to bounce in the same way.   For
example, it seems that your ASIC ground is bouncing, but the PC lines are
not.  Do they come from another board, perhaps?

If your group is considering a board re-spin, you owe it to yourself to
invest a few days with a good fast storage scope to track this monster as it
moves through your system, seeking True Ground (whatever it thinks that is).
Only then will you begin to gain an appreciation for how it moves and the
nature of the malfunctions.  You may be able to provide alternate
high-frequency paths and solve the problem without a board re-spin (and be a
hero).  I can assure you, however, that the board re-spin has no guarantee
of success unless you dig in there with a good scope.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ajm...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:11 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: ESD protection



Hi,
My question concerns providing ESD protection to analog circuitry on a
card.  Currently, I have a common ground for the entire card (2S2P).  For
reasons, the card has to be tied to chassis.  ESD discharge (air or
contact) to the chassis causes ground level to move up, thus reducing noise
margin and causing circuit malfunctioning.  The ASIC chip in question has
both analog and digital circuits, with separate decoupling capacitors for
analog and digital power.

Connecting a small (120 pF) capacitor directly across the analog power and
ground pins seems to provide some improvement in the ESD immunity.  We are
considering a board redesign.  Will it help if the ground plane below the
ASIC is sectioned to provide a separate analog ground, connected to main
ground at one location only near the decoupling capacitors, perhaps through
a small inductor.  Will this introduce other problems.  Any other ideas
!

Regards, Ravinder
PCB Development and Design Department
IBM Corporation
Email: ajm...@us.ibm.com
***
Always do right.  This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
 Mark Twain



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Final EMC Testing In-House

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Keep in mind that some of these tests call for a rather specific table and
floor with grounded planes and very specific distances.  When I've seen this
done properly, it was an extensive (and possibly expensive) job.  Look
carefully at the EN documents, particularly the appendices which typically
describe the setups.  Bringing in a good EMC consultant might save you a lot
of head-scratching.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
[mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 12:24 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Final EMC Testing In-House



Group,

We are planning to perform final EMC testing in-house for the following
tests per EN 61326:

EN 61000-4-2 ESD
EN 61000-4-4 Line Transients
EN 61000-4-5 Surge
EN 61000-4-6 Conducted Immunity
EN 61000-4-11   Voltage Interruptions
EN 61000-3-2 Harmonics
EN 61000-3-3 Voltage Fluctuations

With the exception of purchasing test equipment that meets the standards,
what else is required for us to perform final testing?  Please note that we
are not planning to perform Radiated Emissions and Radiated Immunity
testing.

Your help is appreciated

Joe Martin
Applied Biosystems





---
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: PFC

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Don't forget that 61000-3-2 has been amended with A14, which gives you the
option of avoiding the special wave shape criteria and classifying most
items (excepting PCs and televisions) as Class A.
 
Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Steve Austin [mailto:aus...@cassindustries.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:34 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: PFC



Jon,

There is no specific requirement for power factor correction as far as I
know.
 The Harmonics Emissions Standard BS EN 61000-3-2 1995 became mandatory
01/01/2001, this sets limits for the harmonic disturbance permitted on the
mains  - so it adds up to the same thing. .

It applies to all equipment having a mains input power consumption over 75
watts.

Your type of equipment must meet limits defined as being Class A or Class D.
Units fall within Class A unless they have a wave shape lying within a
"special wave shape", in which case they are Class D.
Class D limits are more onerous.

Computers, monitors and televisions must meet Class D limits, irrespective
of wave shape..

You need a copy of the standard for the limit tables and the "special wave
shape".

Regards

Steve Austin
< aus...@cassindustries.com  >


- Original Message -
From: Jon Keeble < j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au
 >
To: < emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org  >
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:24 PM
Subject: PFC on 150w mains to DC switcher


>
> I have selecting a 150w universal input (110-240 VAC nom) four rail
switcher
> for
> use in a product (digital audio workstation) to be shipped to USA, Japan,
> Europe etc.
>
> The supply has a CE mark. I notice, however, that there is no PFC stage,
> and no mention of PFC in the supply data sheet.
>
> I thought that PFC was required in Europe - could someone please confirm /
> deny this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jon Keeble
> ---
> Hardware Engineering Manager
> FairlightESP Pty Ltd
> Phone +61 2 8977 9931
> jkee...@alpha.net.au  



---
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 software for pcb layout

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Try

http://www.pads.com/SI_intro.htm

Hyperlynx (Now Owned & Distributed by PADS).

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:20 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: l...@sensormatic.com
Subject: EMC software for pcb layout



Hello friends,

Our PCB staff is looking for layout tools to enhance EMC compliance. Any
suggestions?

Best regards,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

---
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: Decoupling Capacitors

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

A moving and passionate tale with a moral:

DO NOT let anyone screw with your PC boards!  Every one of these stories,
from internal tracks that break, to creepage failures due to copper thieving
squares, to bypass capacitors disappearing because "they don't matter all
that much anyway" trace back to someone further down the line screwing with
the DESIGN of a PC board.  I have similar stories.  The PC board is not just
a green thing onto which your components go!  It is as much a part of the
design as anything else, and as the frequencies go up and up and up, they
will be ever more so!  Would you casually let the board stuffing house
substitute an HC for an LS, or put a bipolar transistor in place of a FET
because they come in the same package?  Of course not!

The best thing to do is to have your PC fab house and board-stuffing house
review the design (and do all the point-to-point checks), locate all the
potential fab problems, and then incorporate these into a final design.
Past that point, the board cannot change one molecule's worth without an ECO
that you know about.

It is ENGINEERS that spend the late nights and get called on the carpet when
things get screwed with.  Don't let it happen to YOU.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

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

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

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

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

RE: Color or marking of buttons - safety question

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Absolutely.  There will be redundant independent sensors allowing power and
movement only when the cover is closed and latched.  The button is to allow
one to shut down in an organized way and then unlatch the cover, make some
adjustment, and resume where you left off.

If someone managed to break the interlock and get the cover open, the moving
parts would instantly halt and be safe, but the actions in process at the
time would be interrupted in an unrecoverable way and you'd be forced to
reset and start over.

The sensors, latch, etc., will be done so they cannot be easily fiddled with
or reset.  It will take an ingenious, persistent, and fiendish mind to get
around them.

Thanks for everyone's comments on this!  This forum performs a huge huge
service.

Paul O'S.

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:57 AM
To: 'Rich Nute'; ed.pr...@cubic.com
Cc: paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Color or marking of buttons - safety question


You want to take into consideration what kind of interlock you are
using as well. Make certain that it can't be easily reset accidentally, or
you have people in places you don't want them when the power comes on.
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 5:08 PM
To: ed.pr...@cubic.com
Cc: paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Color or marking of buttons - safety question






Hi Ed:


>   Since the manufacturer is providing an official (or maybe authorized)
path
>   into the equipment for normal operator intervention, should the internal
>   "dangerous" parts also be color-coded or otherwise flagged?

No.  

When the interlock is de-activated, the requirement 
is that there is no hazardous condition in the space
formerly interlocked.  Therefore, no need to warn or
otherwise identify hazardous parts because there are
no hazardous parts (when the door is open).

We make printers with moving parts.  When you open
the door, the printer carriage stops.  In Paul's
case, you press a button rather than open the door.
That is of no consequence in the safety function.

An interlock governs a space that has two operating
modes, one being hazardous and the other being non-
hazardous.  In order for the space to be hazardous,
the interlock requires the door to be closed.  In
order for the space to be non-hazardous, the inter-
lock requires the moving parts (in this case) to be
stopped.  (In Paul's case, the button enables an
orderly shut-down where a door switch might not.)

Here are two, common household items with interlocks:

microwave oven.  
door closed:  hazardous microwave energy inside.
door open:power disconnected; no hazardous energy.

CD/DVD player:
door closed:  hazardous laser light.
door open:laser power disconnected.

These devices happen to use door switches.  But, 
they could just as easily use a solenoid door lock
and a button.  (My front-loading washing machine uses
this technique, but I think it is to avoid flooding
rather than protection against injury!)  :-)


Best regards,
Rich





---
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: Power Transformers and the applicability of -3-2 and -3-3

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

I would say that unless isolation from the public power supply is somehow
guaranteed as part of your installation procedures, you must assume that
your equipment comes under -3-2 and -3-3.  Basically, if it's got a plug and
pulls less than 16 Amps at European mains voltages, you need to comply.

What softens the blow here is amendment A14 to -3-2, which allows you to
reclassify just about everything except PCs and TVs from Class D to Class A.
This bypasses the harmonic current per Watt limits contained in Table 3 of
-3-2 and makes things a bit easier.  The logic here is whether something is
LIKELY to be plugged directly into the public supply, and in what numbers.
PCs and TVs are domestic and ubiquitous, so get take the rap as Class D.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

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

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

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

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

Color or marking of buttons - safety question

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

We have an instrument with moving parts protected by an interlocked cover.
The moving parts are accessible to the operator once the cover is opened.
However, to release the interlock, a PAUSE or STOP button is pressed which
allows the instrument to stop in an orderly way and then release the cover.

Best as I can tell, a red pushbutton, with PAUSE or STOP legend and the ! in
a triangle (to refer the operator back to the manual) would do the trick.  I
want to avoid, however, any implication of other functions due to the red
color.  Are people on the list aware of regulatory problems brought on by
the use of red pushbuttons?  Are there some good publications on the
subject?

Many thanks,

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

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

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

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

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

RE: Beta Shipments

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Can anyone direct me to the EC rules which govern beta site installations?

For example, what if a contract is signed with the beta site, specifying
that the unit is not yet evaluated, and specifying terms of beta testing and
timeframe.  Would that qualify as "under the control of the manufacturer"?
Having your own people run the thing, even at a remote site, rather defeats
the intention of a beta test, and it's a bit hard to believe that this is
how it's really done.

Thanks,

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

Lou Guerin wrote:

"For Europe you have less leeway,  you can show the product at a trade show
with a PROMINENT label declaring that the product has not been evaluated for
compliance to the appropriate LVD and EMC directives.  The directives
prohibit the "placing on the market" or "putting into service" any product
that does not conform to the directives. This only allows you to demonstrate
the product at the customer's site if it is always under the control of the
manufacturer. For a Beta unit, you would need to send one of your people to
operate the equipment until it is returned to your factory or you get
approvals on that configuration."

---
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: Battery Requirement

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Several of the countries you list will accept "CE" standards, or have
identical internal standards.  I can think of several areas of concern:

1.  Even a "sealed" lead-acid battery can produce some amount of gas during
charging.  There are concerns raised in standards such as IEC 1010-1 and IEC
950 about buildup of explosive gasses.  Your battery compartment will need
to be at least slightly vented.  Your charging system should be designed to
prevent excessive heat generation (ususally due to extreme overcharging) in
single-fault situations (current limiter failures, lead-acid cells shorting
or going open, etc.).

2.  If the battery can be replaced by the customer, then doing so must not
create an unsafe condition.  You must deal with the probability that a
battery will be installed backwards (unless a mechanically robust system
exists to prevent this).  Your labelling should be explicit about what sort
of battery can be used in the product (ie. use of different batteries may
risk fire, etc.)

3.  Disposal of lead-acid batteries is a growing concern.  I would advise
you to include a recycling triangle symbol with notice that the battery
should not be disposed of with common trash, but recycled.  I am not sure
what exactly the legislation is in each of these countries, but I am sure it
exists and will be getting tougher.

4.  I would advise (for product safety and also on general principals) that
you install an in-circuit current limiting device as close to the battery
terminal as possible, to prevent high short circuit currents.  The amount of
current that one of these batteries can deliver is impressive, and the
farther away such a device is, the higher the chance that something will
cause a short circuit without including the current limiting device.

5.  Another bit of advice - not regulatory, just advice - consult the
battery manufacturer's literature closely for advice on charging.  Repeated
undercharging or overcharging of lead-acid batteries produces successive
mismatching between the cells and results in early failure.  The circuit
need not be complex, but thought must be given here.

6.  The AC/DC adapter itself should meet the IEC 1010-1 or IEC 950 or
similar Product Safety requirements for these countries.  The easiest way is
to simply purchase something that is already so certified.

I hope this helps.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Koh Nai Ghee [mailto:koh...@cyberway.com.sg]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Battery Requirement



Hi all,
I was being asked a question regarding battery regulatory requirement
for a portable analog amplifier speaker. This speaker has built in an
internal chargeable battery. This battery is Lead Acid Battery.
This speaker is being powered up, as well as battery charging, by an
external AC/DC adaptor.

The country of concern is as follows,
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Japan
Australia/New Zealand
China.

The EMI requirement are : Taiwan = BSMI, Australia/NZ = C-Tick, Japan
=VCCI..
As I'm no expert on batteries, can anyone advice on the battery
requirement for the above countries.
Your reply is much appreciated.

Regards
Koh




---
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: Basic Standards

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Try
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/re
flist/emc.html

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:37 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Basic Standards



Colleagues,

I can find references on the web to harmonized standards, but I have not
found a reference to a list of basic standards, such as EN 61000-4-x.  I am
trying to find a source that will indicate what the latest acceptable
revision is.  I am sure it's out there -- I just keep missing it. Can
someone point me to such a source?

Best regards,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic Electronics Corporation

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Yes, A14 may now be employed for compliance with EN 61000-3-2.


-Original Message-
From: brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com
[mailto:brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:43 AM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.



Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its January
2001 compliance date?

 As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies,
the
amendments are  of great importance to me.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

EN documents for service, support, vibration and shock?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Dear List,

Can anyone provide reference to the correct European Standards on length of
time service and support must be maintained for a product?  (ie. five years,
ten years, etc.)

Also, what are the appropriate EN documents relating to the vibration and
shock that instruments must withstand during shipment and normal use?

The product family is laboratory instrumentation.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.


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

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

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

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

RE: New List of Standards for EMC

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

And for those of you interested, once you download the PDF file and open in
in Acrobat Reader, simply search on "EN 61000-3-2" and you will see the
listing for the much anticipated A14.

-Original Message-
From: Glen Dash [mailto:carli...@world.std.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:50 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: New List of Standards for EMC



EXTRA! EDITION OF THE CURTIS-STRAUS UPDATE -- DEC. 14, 2000.

By Jon Curtis and Isidor Straus

EC ISSUES NEW LIST OF STANDARDS FOR EMC DIRECTIVE.

The Commission of the European Communities has issued a new
comprehensive list of standards used to satisfy the essential
requirements of the EMC Directive.  The list supersedes all previous
lists.

http://www.conformity-update.com/eu-emc-001214.pdf

---
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: off topic help?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

I'm answering on-list as this might be useful for a number of people (and
save them answering individually).

Go to http://parts.lvctechnology.com/, click on Test Equipment Manuals, pick
HP, and search for your model.  Looks like it's a $10 item.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com
[mailto:brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 11:14 AM
To: info-labv...@pica.army.mil; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: off topic help?





Well, I'm desparate.

Does anyone have a service manual for an HP6214A (twenty year old) power
supply?
Email me off-list if you can help.

Thanks!

Brent DeWitt
Datex-Ohmeda
Louisville, CO


 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE 
This notice has been automatically added to all Datex-Ohmeda Internet
messages.

This E-mail communication may contain information that is confidential and
privileged.  The information is intended to be for the use of the addressee
only.  If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copy,
distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.



---
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: EN55024

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Whoa!

I work in CISPR 11 land, but as I recall, CISPR 22 works almost identically
in this regard.  The difference between CISPR 11 and 22 is what TYPE of
equipment it is.  CISPR 11 covers Industrial, scientific and medical (ISM)
equipment.  CISPR 11 covers Information technology equipment (ITE).  BOTH
standards contain classification instructions for Class A and Class B.

To paraphrase CISPR 11,

Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other
than domestic and
Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments.

So, ITE equipment may certainly be classified either A or B.  The trick is
that a lot of ITE is now being used in "domestic establishments."

I think what Gert was saying is that you can't sell something that has
domestic users as logical buyers (like a PC), but sell it as Class A with a
warning label about domestic use.  THAT doesn't wash.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 11:25 AM
To: 'CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...'; Pettit,
Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024



Gert,

All ITE equipment must meet the Class B limits?  Where does it say that in
either EN 55022:1998 or CISPR 22, 3rd Edition?  Section 4.1 of CISPR 22 is
quite clear about what equipment must meet the Class B limits.  There are
many types of ITE that do not fall into the examples provided in the
document.  EN 55022 does not amend this part of the document in its common
modifications.  As 89/336/EEC does not provide limits of any kind, where am
I supposed to see a requirement that servers and mainframe computers (which
are, indeed, ITE) must meet the Class B limits?

Ghery Pettit

-Original Message-
From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
[mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:14 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024


Hi Group,

The type of clause (see below) from EN 55022 about adding notes and
restrictions
to equipment is just the type the European Commission
objects against their use in the EN 55022 standard.

The reason is that the CENELEC was asked to propose limits and
test methods, not to replace politics by limitng the applicability
of their standards.

The use of such a clause to sell ITE equipment to Class A limits is illegal
and will not hold when the presumption of conformity to the essential
requirements
of the EMC-directive is being tested.

Information equipment is and wil be used in all environments, therefore
the distinction between such environments is artificial.



Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

===
Web presence  http://www.cetest.nl
CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm
/-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/
===


>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of Pettit, Ghery
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:46 PM
>>To: 'William D'Orazio'; Pettit, Ghery; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>
>>OK.  EN 55022 is the ITE specific emissions standard.  It does
>>have two sets
>>of limits with a statement that Class B is intended for certain product
>>types which may be used in a domestic type environment and a
>>statement that
>>Class A products should have a warning that they may cause interference if
>>used in a domestic environment.  CISPR 22 does not use the term
>>"industrial"
>>to define an environment.  It merely warns that the class A limits may not
>>provide enough protection to neighboring users of the RF spectrum if the
>>device is used in a domestic environment.
>>
>>Ghery
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:37 PM
>>To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; William D'Orazio; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>BYI, EN55011 should read EN55022.
>>
>>William D'Orazio
>>CAE Electronics Ltd.
>>Electrical System Designer
>>
>>Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
>>Fax: (514)340-5552
>>Email: dora...@cae.ca
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:33 PM
>>To: 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>EN 55024 is the ITE specific immunity standard.  It is based on CISPR 24
>>which makes no distinction between environments.  EN 55011 is
>>based on CISPR
>>11 and relates to different product families.  They do not come from the
>>same subcommittees in CISPR, so it's like comparing apples and oranges.
>>
>>Ghery Pettit
>>Intel
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:22 PM
>>To: EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: EN55024
>>
>>
>>
>>Gents,
>

RE: How does RF travel through outer space?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

"Vaccum" should of course be "Vacuum".  My typing fingers betrayed me

-Original Message-
From: O'Shaughnessy, Paul [mailto:paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 10:28 AM
To: 'george_t...@dell.com'; brian_ku...@leco.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: How does RF travel through outer space?



This question harkens back to the days when it was supposed that there was
some "ether" or etherial material, through which EM waves must propagate.
You can still hear people occasionally say that a message arrived "through
the ether."  It was a (logical at the time) extrapolation from sound waves,
which by their nature need a carrier medium.  So, nobody should feel
inadequate for thinking that such an ether must exist.  Prestigeous
scientists of the last century thought exactly the same thing.  It was was
only the hard evidence of experiment that proved otherwise.

The reality (arrived at only after significant experimentation) is that
electric and magnetic fields (which are really just representations of
observable phyisical attractions and repulsions) simply are.  They exist
regardless of the material (or vaccum) through which they propagate.
Existence in a vaccum is in fact their purest manifestation.  The presence
of material will in fact alter or warp the fields through dielectric or
magnetic permeability (molecular sized electric dipoles or electron spins
which in effect create their own fields).

Hope this helps.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: george_t...@dell.com [mailto:george_t...@dell.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 3:57 PM
To: brian_ku...@leco.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: How does RF travel through outer space?



We all just carved pumpkins not too long ago.  We can use pumpkins to
explain one of these questions.  If you put a 5 watt light bulb at the
center of your carved pumpkin, then each square inch of the internal pumpkin
surface gets the amount of light energy given by the expression: 

5W / (internal surface area of pumpkin) = light energy per square inch

Now you move your light bulb to a bigger pumpkin and do the same
calculation.  You find that each square inch of your bigger pumpkin gets
less light energy due to a bigger surface area.  This is why RF signals drop
off at the rate of 1/distance squared, since the pumpkin surface area is
proportional to the square of the radius.  Light is simply a higher
frequency emission than RF, but the same concept applies.  

As far as "How RF travel through vacuum," you can think of it this way:  RF
is composed of electric field and magnetic field.  Electric field is simply
the attraction force between the positive charges and the negative charges.
And magnetic field is the interaction between 2 current loops.  It is not
hard to imagine that refrigerator magnets will work in vacuum or protons and
electrons will attract in outer space.  RF is simply the electric and
magnetic fields changing polarity at a very rapid rate.  

George 



-Original Message-
From: brian_kunde [mailto:brian_ku...@leco.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 12:51 PM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: How does RF travel through outer space?





Hello,

I'm sorry if this is too simple of question... "How does RF travel through
outer
space?".

I will be teaching a class in which this question will come up. I want to be
prepared with all the basic science behind this principal. I need an
explaination that is simple and easy to understand.

People seem to have no problem understanding how waves can travel through
mass
such as a body of water but can not understand how it can travel where there
is
no mass. I also understand that there is a lot of debate over how Light
travels
through space (photons and all).   

Also, I understand that RF signals degrade at a rate of 1/distance(squared).
What force is causing this attenuation?

Try to keep it simple for my audience it not all that technical.  Appreciate
the
help. Please forgive any improper punctuation or word misuse.
Brian








---
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 administrat

RE: How does RF travel through outer space?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

This question harkens back to the days when it was supposed that there was
some "ether" or etherial material, through which EM waves must propagate.
You can still hear people occasionally say that a message arrived "through
the ether."  It was a (logical at the time) extrapolation from sound waves,
which by their nature need a carrier medium.  So, nobody should feel
inadequate for thinking that such an ether must exist.  Prestigeous
scientists of the last century thought exactly the same thing.  It was was
only the hard evidence of experiment that proved otherwise.

The reality (arrived at only after significant experimentation) is that
electric and magnetic fields (which are really just representations of
observable phyisical attractions and repulsions) simply are.  They exist
regardless of the material (or vaccum) through which they propagate.
Existence in a vaccum is in fact their purest manifestation.  The presence
of material will in fact alter or warp the fields through dielectric or
magnetic permeability (molecular sized electric dipoles or electron spins
which in effect create their own fields).

Hope this helps.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: george_t...@dell.com [mailto:george_t...@dell.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 3:57 PM
To: brian_ku...@leco.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: How does RF travel through outer space?



We all just carved pumpkins not too long ago.  We can use pumpkins to
explain one of these questions.  If you put a 5 watt light bulb at the
center of your carved pumpkin, then each square inch of the internal pumpkin
surface gets the amount of light energy given by the expression: 

5W / (internal surface area of pumpkin) = light energy per square inch

Now you move your light bulb to a bigger pumpkin and do the same
calculation.  You find that each square inch of your bigger pumpkin gets
less light energy due to a bigger surface area.  This is why RF signals drop
off at the rate of 1/distance squared, since the pumpkin surface area is
proportional to the square of the radius.  Light is simply a higher
frequency emission than RF, but the same concept applies.  

As far as "How RF travel through vacuum," you can think of it this way:  RF
is composed of electric field and magnetic field.  Electric field is simply
the attraction force between the positive charges and the negative charges.
And magnetic field is the interaction between 2 current loops.  It is not
hard to imagine that refrigerator magnets will work in vacuum or protons and
electrons will attract in outer space.  RF is simply the electric and
magnetic fields changing polarity at a very rapid rate.  

George 



-Original Message-
From: brian_kunde [mailto:brian_ku...@leco.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 12:51 PM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: How does RF travel through outer space?





Hello,

I'm sorry if this is too simple of question... "How does RF travel through
outer
space?".

I will be teaching a class in which this question will come up. I want to be
prepared with all the basic science behind this principal. I need an
explaination that is simple and easy to understand.

People seem to have no problem understanding how waves can travel through
mass
such as a body of water but can not understand how it can travel where there
is
no mass. I also understand that there is a lot of debate over how Light
travels
through space (photons and all).   

Also, I understand that RF signals degrade at a rate of 1/distance(squared).
What force is causing this attenuation?

Try to keep it simple for my audience it not all that technical.  Appreciate
the
help. Please forgive any improper punctuation or word misuse.
Brian








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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

RE: Harmonics/Flicker Compliance

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

We just went through the same thing a few months back.  The confusion comes
from a clause near the end of 61326 which appears to  exempt you from any
responsibility on harmonics and flicker if your product is non-domestic.  I
know a number of EMC professionals who take that as the last word on the
subject.  However, I am advised by most others that the harmonic and flicker
standards stand on their own, regardless of what 61326 says.  And yes, they
become mandatory (according to their DOW) on January 1, 2001.  The recent
wrinkle on all this is that A14 to EN61000-3-2 will allow most
instrumentation (other than personal computers and TVs) to comply, as of
January 1, 2001, with harmonic standards under Class A rather than the more
stringent Class D.

Hope this helps (and hope that I said all of that right).

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: bous...@perkin-elmer.com [mailto:bous...@perkin-elmer.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:19 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Harmonics/Flicker Compliance




We have been informed by our local EMC lab that, effective 1 January 2001,
harmonics  (EN 61000-3-2)  and voltage fluctuations/flicker  (EN 61000-3-3)
compliance is mandatory for products consuming currents less than or equal
to 16 Amps, and connected to the public low-voltage  (220V to 250V, 50 Hz)
distribution systems in the European Union.

Is compliance on 1 January 2001 mandatory for products that will meet the
EMC requirements defined in EN 61326 (electrical equipment for measurement,
control and laboratory use)  which has an effectivity date of 1 July 2001?

Do participants in the group agree that testing is mandatory before
1 January 2001,  and have they started/completed testing their products?

Regards,
John Bouse
PerkinElmer Instruments (USA)
Safety/EMC Compliance



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: Testing as a system for harmonics?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Just as a public service, here is the relevant rewrite of EN61000-3-2,
clause 5, according to the amendment A14.  It restricts Class D to
"personal" computer equipment and TVs.  Note that these items are both
domestic in nature and ubiquitous, which I suspect led to their inclusion
under Class D.  Your "system" may include personal computers, and the
manufacturers of those PCs (Dell, Gateway, etc.) will need to meet Class D.
The system would not, however, need to meet Class D, unless it somehow meets
the Class D description.  As I see it, the most likely classification for an
industrial or laboratory system (under A14) would be Class A.  Note,
however, the warnings contained in the notes:


5 Classification of equipment
For the purpose of harmonic current limitation, equipment is classified as
follows:
Class A:
· Balanced three-phase equipment;
· Household appliances excluding equipment identified as Class D;
· Tools excluding portable tools;
· Dimmers for incandescent lamps;
· Audio Equipment.
Equipment not specified in one of the three other classes shall be
considered as Class A equipment.

NOTE - Equipment that can be shown to have a significant effect on the
supply system may be reclassified in a future edition of the standard.
Factors taken into account include:
· number in use;
· duration of use;
· simultaneity of use;
· power consumption;
· harmonic spectrum, including phase.

Class B:
Portable tools.

Class C:
Lighting Equipment.

Class D:
Equipment having a specified power according to 6.2.2 (below) less than or
equal to 600 W, of the following types:
· Personal computers and personal computer monitors;
· Television Receivers.

NOTE - Class D limits are reserved for equipment that, by virtue of the
factors listed in the Note under 'Class A' above, can be shown to have a
pronounced effect on the public electricity supply system.


---
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

New Edition of EN 61010-1

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Dear List,
 
I've received word of an Edition 2 for IEC 61010-1 which was recently
approved in a vote within the IEC.  Does anyone have any information on when
or if this will be published by the EC (a DOP), or when an ultimate DOW
might be set?
 
Many thanks,
 
Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

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

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

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

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

RE: Ratification of EN 61000-3-2 A14

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Thank you very much for publishing that, Gert.

The original is available in PDF format from the CENELEC web site, at
http://www.cenelec.org/

Go to Press Release, then click on the link <12102000.PDF> Changes to the
EMC standards are ratified.

Paul O'Shaughnessy

> -Original Message-
> From: CE-test - Gert Gremmen Ing. - CE-mark & more ...
> [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 1:17 PM
> To:   Emc-Pstc@Ieee. Org
> Subject:  Ratification of EN 61000-3-2 A14
> 
>  << Message: Untitled Attachment >>  << File: Gert Gremmen.vcf >> 

---
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: Neutral/Earth connections

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

He's right.  Tying neutral directly to the chassis is just WRONG, even if
you could be sure it would always be neutral (not guaranteed at all).
Sounds like somebody got neutral and the safety ground mixed up.  I'd send
the unit back to the manufacturer with a nasty note.  I would also question
(if they have regulatory marks) whether anyone qualified to judge safety
ever looked at it.

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:31 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Neutral/Earth connections



The neutral is never to be tied to the chassis of equipment. It is not
allowed by any safety standard nor the National Electrical Code. The neutral
is to be tied to earth at one and only one point and that is that the
service entrance or the electrical box fed by an on-premises transformer. I
would have to seriously question if this product was designed to any
recognized safety standard. Even if it does not pop the breaker, is it safe?

Richard Woods

--
From:  k3row [SMTP:k3...@eurobell.co.uk]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:27 PM
To:  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:  Neutral/Earth connections


The company that I work for in the U.K has recentlyreceived from the
USA an
item of test equipment, provided to us under contract, in which, we
discovered, the 240v neutral line was connected to earth/unit
chassis. This
became apparent when the unit was plugged into a U.K 120-0-120
supply and
protective devices tripped..

My questions are these:

I am not familiar with US safety standards. Am I correct in assuming
that,
for instance, the National Electrical Code and standards such as UL
1950
would only allow such a neutral/earth connection within the
equipment if
the power source is derived from, say, an isolation transformer? Or
is
there no U.S standardisation with regard to this.

Given that we were not informed in advance of any such constraint on
the
manner in which power was to be supplied to the equipment, I wonder
how
widespread the issue of supply of such equipment to the U.K might
be. Any
comments anyone?

What would be the view of people in the USA with respect of the
supply of
such an item of equipment to the U.K. Do US Standards, Codes of
Practice
etc dictate that supplied equipment must be safe when used in the
receiving
country, as opposed to the supplying country?

 Thanks for reading this. I look forward to any comments

Dave Palmer



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: EN 61000-3-2/A14

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

I just checked the CENELEC website, looked under "Standardization
Activities", searched for EN 61000-3-2, and found the following information
regarding amendment prA14:2000 (the Class A - Class D amendment):

Project Number:  13725

DOA:  July 1, 20001
DOP:  January 1, 2002 !!!

It was reported earlier on this email group that the DOA for A14 was in
December 2000 and DOP was expected to be January 1, 2001.  What gives?  Is
the CENELEC web site just not up to date, or are the earlier dates
erroneous?

Many thanks to anyone who can authoritatively assist here.

Paul O'Shaughnessy


-Original Message-
From: O'Shaughnessy, Paul [mailto:paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 2:56 PM
To: 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2/A14



Absolutely correct - I was making the assumption that the "dop" corresponds
to the date of publication in the OJ of the EC.

Paul O'S.

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:24 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2/A14



Don't forget that an EMC standard cannot be used to self-declare compliance
until and unless it is published in the OJ.

Richard Woods

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE: EN 61000-3-2/A14

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Absolutely correct - I was making the assumption that the "dop" corresponds
to the date of publication in the OJ of the EC.

Paul O'S.

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:24 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN 61000-3-2/A14



Don't forget that an EMC standard cannot be used to self-declare compliance
until and unless it is published in the OJ.

Richard Woods

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

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

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

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

RE: EN 61000-3-2/A14

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Right - the dop is the first date upon which you MAY employ a new standard
for compliance.  The dow is the day by which any conflicting (ie the old
standard) must be withdrawn and is therefore ineffective.  This makes the
period between dop and dow a transition period.  Typically, the new standard
is tougher than the original, so the transition period is used by everyone
to ECO their products, retire the dinosaurs, etc.  In this case (assuming
all the dates are correct and it goes according to the plan), the situation
is a bit upside down - A14 makes compliance to EN61000-3-2 easier.  The dow
for EN61000-3-2 will coincide with the dop of A14, which means on January
1st, you'll need to comply with EN61000-3-2, BUT you'll have the option to
use A14 in doing so.  For many manufacturers, A14 is the simpler and easier
path, so I expect that many will take it once it is available.

Paul O'Shaughnessy

-Original Message-
From: Nick Rouse [mailto:100626.3...@compuserve.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 3:08 PM
To: Friedemann Adt
Cc: EMC
Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-2/A14



Fred,
The dow is the date at which conflicting standards must be withdrawn.
For an ammendment it means the part of the old standard that conflicts
with the ammendment.
>From the doa until the dow you may use either the old unamended
standard or the new ammended version. After the cross over period
you may use only the new amended version.

Nick Rouse

- Original Message -
From: "Friedemann Adt" 
To: ; 
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: EN 61000-3-2/A14


>
>
> I tried to refresh my memory about quoted abbreviations but even using the
Official Journal's search engine I got not beyond 'DOW Jones Industrial'.
>
> Thus I like to appeal to any merciful soul out there to straighten me
out..
>
> dow:  is the date at which the standard is enforced and therefore the date
at which product being brought onto the market has to comply ?
>
> Thank you
>
> Fred Adt
>
>
>
>
> compliance & reliability manager
> a...@viewsonic.com
> phone (909) 444-8958
>
> >>> "Helge Knudsen"  10/06/00 02:50AM >>>
>
> Hello group
>
> EN 61000-3-2/A14 was ratificated 2000-10-03 with the following dates:
>
> dor: 2000-10-03
> doa: 2000-12-01
> dop: 2001-01-01
> dow: 2004-01-01
>
> It is expected that the amendment will be announced in Official Journal
before 2001-01-01.
>
> Best regards
> Helge Knudsen
> Jyske EMC
> Denmark
>
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>


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

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

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

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


---
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: When is an LED a Laser?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

I should restate what I said earlier -  LEDs are covered under IEC 825, but
the typical display LED falls so far below the Maximum Permissible Exposure
levels as to be exempt (see Scope of IEC 825).

Paul O'S.

-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 1:49 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: kathy@eng.sun.com
Subject: When is an LED a Laser?



Kathy,

I am no expert on IEC 60825, but may help a little.  The standard
is intended to prevent human exposure to light energy within specified
wavelengths.  It initially focused only on laser safety, because lasers
represent a beam of focused energy, i.e. more uW per area.

An LED is not a laser, but merely a light source.  When this light is
collimated and concentrated into a single beam, then it is a "laser".

LEDs were added to the scope of IEC 60825 to ensure that the output of
any LEDs (laser or not) would be within acceptable exposure limits.
In general, common LEDs used for operator panel indicators distribute
their light energy over a roughly hemi-spherical surface, although not
equally.  In most cases, there is insufficient energy in any vector
to cause an exposure problem.

George


-- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
10/05/2000
01:31 PM ---

kathy.toy%eng.sun@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/05/2000 01:08:52 PM

Please respond to kathy.toy%eng.sun@interlock.lexmark.com

To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:   kathy.toy%eng.sun@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
  Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  When is an LED a Laser?


Hi:

Our design engineers are using LED more often and
have been asked if the LED are approved by IEC 825.

My question:  When is an LED a Laser?  In other
words, at what power level does an LED become
required to meet the IEC 825 standard?  Are there
industry limits for specific LEDs?

It seems that in the past LEDs were basicly ignored
except for color issues.  What is the current
thought or rule on this issue?

Thanks in advance,
kt





 _/_/_/  _/_/  _/ _/   Kathy Toy
_/  _/_/  _/_/   _/  Safety Compliance Engineer
   _/_/_/  _/_/  _/  _/ _/   Office/Voice Mail:(650)786-3210
  _/  _/_/  _/   _/_/  Dept. FAX: (650)786-3723
 _/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/ _/   Email:kathy@eng.sun.com

 M  I  C  R  O  S  Y  S  T  E  M  S







---
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: When is an LED a Laser?

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Hello Kathy,

Your design engineers may be getting classical LEDs mixed up with Laser
Diodes, which I have seen labelled as Laser LEDs.

LEDs are the red, green, yellow indicators which have become commonplace
everywhere.  These put out a simple non-coherent light.  I do not believe
they are covered in any way by IEC 825.

Laser diodes are low-power lasing devices which produce a coherent laser
beam - quite a different animal.  Because of the concentrated, coherent
nature of the light beam, and the damage it could do to the eye's retina in
particular, laser devices are particularly addressed by EN 60825 (IEC 825,
etc.).  The scope, power levels, labelling, protections required are all
spelled out in IEC 825.  If your engineers are playing with lasers and DON'T
know about IEC 825, please do them a favor and get them a copy.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Kathy Toy [mailto:kathy@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 1:09 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: kathy@eng.sun.com
Subject: When is an LED a Laser?

Hi:

Our design engineers are using LED more often and
have been asked if the LED are approved by IEC 825.

My question:  When is an LED a Laser?  In other
words, at what power level does an LED become
required to meet the IEC 825 standard?  Are there
industry limits for specific LEDs?  

It seems that in the past LEDs were basicly ignored
except for color issues.  What is the current 
thought or rule on this issue?

Thanks in advance,
kt





 _/_/_/  _/_/  _/ _/Kathy Toy
_/  _/_/  _/_/   _/ Safety Compliance Engineer
   _/_/_/  _/_/  _/  _/ _/  Office/Voice Mail:(650)786-3210
  _/  _/_/  _/   _/_/   Dept. FAX: (650)786-3723
 _/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/ _/Email:kathy@eng.sun.com
 

 M  I  C  R  O  S  Y  S  T  E  M  S
 


---
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: Harmonics and the 600W limit

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Hello List,

Is this a reasonable expectation - that the EC and member countries will
actually move quickly enough to make A14 effective on January 1, 2001?  Is
everyone going to be forced to meet EN 61000-3-2 without A14?

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:55 AM
To: Don Rhodes; 'Wagner, John P (John)'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br
Subject: RE: Harmonics and the 600W limit



Steps are being taken at the highest level to publish A14 in the OJEC ASAP
,as well
as to make it's  starting date 2001-1-1.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

===
Web presence  http://www.cetest.nl
CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm
/-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/
===


>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of Don Rhodes
>>Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 9:11 PM
>>To: 'Wagner, John P (John)'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
>>'gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br'
>>Subject: RE: Harmonics and the 600W limit
>>
>>
>>
>>Do you know whether or not this amendment has been published in the O.J.
>>yet? If so, does anyone have the date of publication? Thanks.
>>
>>Don Rhodes
>>Principal EMC Engineer
>>(503) 685-8588 voice
>>(503) 685-8887 fax
>>
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Wagner, John P (John) [mailto:johnwag...@avaya.com]
>>Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 7:10 AM
>>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br'
>>Subject: RE: Harmonics and the 600W limit
>>
>>
>>
>>CENELEC prA14 passed amending EN61000-3-2 Class D to include only PC's,
>>monitors, and TV's.  So, if your product is not in any of those
>>categories,
>>you need not comply with Class D after the doa of the amendment.
>>
>>Nevertheless, if your product is Class D,  the Class D limits are the same
>>as those for Class A for the 5th harmonic and very close for most of the
>>other harmonics which are likely to be close to the limit.
>>
>>Class D allows you to test at "rated power" which is the same as max power
>>expected to be drawn from the unit.  This allows you to test at one power
>>level, unless your product has fluctuating harmonics.
>>Fluctuating harmonics
>>are usually  present in products which have electronic power supplies plus
>>intermittent motor or heater loads which turn off and on during normal
>>operation.  In such a case, you must test in both operating conditions
>>
>>John P. Wagner
>>AVAYA Communication
>>11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58
>>Denver CO  80234
>>email:  johnwag...@avaya.com
>>phone:  303 538-4241
>>fax:  303 538-5211
>>
>>> --
>>> From:
>>> gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br[SMTP:gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br]
>>> Reply To:   gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br
>>> Sent:   Monday, September 25, 2000 7:20 AM
>>> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>> Subject:Harmonics and the 600W limit
>>>
>>>
>>> Correcting my English:
>>>
>>>   A question about the famous 61000-3-2.
>>>
>>>   What should I consider if my equipment works with an input power less
>>>   than, and sometimes above 600W in normal conditions ? Will my
>>equipment
>>>   need to mutate to comply with class A and D !?  :-)
>>>
>>>   Thanks.
>>>
>>>   Günter J. Maass
>>>   Eletronic Researcher
>>>   EMBRACO S.A.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>>> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>>
>>> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>>>  majord...@ieee.org
>>> with the single line:
>>>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>>
>>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>>>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>>>
>>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>---
>>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> majord...@ieee.org
>>with the single line:
>> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>
>>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>>
>>For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>>
>>
>>---
>>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> majord...@ieee.org
>>with the single line:
>> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>
>>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>> Michael Gar

RE: Getting Started

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

I'll try to give this a shot.

It is against the law to sell products in Europe which do not meet each
country's safety and EMC regulations.  These regulations have been
harmonized across the EC by use of the EN standards (EN 61010, etc.)  The CE
mark is YOUR claim that a product meets all the applicable standards for its
product family.  You can self certify (do your own tests, hire a test lab,
etc.), which means that YOU are responsible for defending your evidence
should your CE marking ever be challenged.  You can also hire a group like
TUV to certify (third party) your application of the CE mark.  They bring
their wisdom, expertise, and cachet to the table, and take much of the legal
burden off of you.  This is perhaps advisable if you are not well schooled
in these standards.  It is not, however, required that you take this route.
First thing to do is hook up with a reputable test house, as you will need
them in any case to do a lot of the testing.  Then, you can decide to bring
in a Competent Body or not.

Hope this helps.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.
Boston, MA

-Original Message-
From: FRIES [mailto:fr...@amcomm.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:36 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: Getting Started



Dear Group,

I'm just getting started in the world of EMI and would like to ask a few
questions.  I'm not sure if I should be going the TCF route or the Standards
Route.  The company that I work for manufactures products which have many
variants.


1)  Is it EC law that a manufacturer must perform EMI testing before
applying the CE mark?

2)  If a manufacturer follows the Standards Route, does EC law require each
variant to be tested? 

3)  If, when testing, the limit is exceeded, can the CE mark still be
applied?

4)  Are the services of a Competent Body required in order to put together a
TCF or can the manufacturer do that on his own?


Thanks in advance,
Joseph C. Fries

---
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: Customer service issues w/ EN61000-3-2 & 3-3

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

In my experience, these EMC standards apply to sale of new products, not
components provided for service.  My previous employer was called upon to
provide parts and modules to maintain older equipment.  A number of these
instruments predated CE marking entirely and there was never a problem
shipping replacement parts to Europe, or shipping the entire instrument out
of and back to Europe for repair.  Service and maintenance cannot be
expected to bring instruments sold under earlier standards up to every new
standard.  There is of course an important gray area of what is a component
or what is a product in its own right, but this really rests on how
something is being sold.  If it's a replacement part you order through a
service department, specific to the installed equipment base, then I would
expect no problem.  Just my opinion, based on what I've seen and read.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.
Woburn, MA


-Original Message-
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 5:37 PM
To: Don Rhodes; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: Re:Customer service issues w/ EN61000-3-2 & 3-3



forwarding for don.rho...@infocus.com

Reply Separator
Subject:Customer service issues w/ EN61000-3-2 & 3-3
Author: Don Rhodes 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   9/27/00 10:56 AM

Does anyone know how the Harmonics & Flicker requirements apply to
non-compliant, yet non-saleable product after 1/1/01? We will need to
provide customer service on products via warrantee exchanges & parts
shipments, etc. to the EU after 1/1/01, for product which does not comply
and will not be offered for sale in the EU after the cut-in date.
Is there any known exemption for such cases? References to  any cited
documentation is appreciated.
 

Don Rhodes

don.rho...@infocus.com  

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Harmonic emissions

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

I am just rejoining the forum after a few weeks absence for vacation and
server/domain changes.

Early in September it appeared that the harmonic emissions standard EN
61000-3-2 might be ammended (with A14) to redefine equipment
classifications, specifically Class D.  Does anyone have a reliable update
on the situation?  Will something be published in the Official Journal of
the EC and at what point would this ammendment have the force of law?

My apologies if I am hashing over a subject already discussed.

Many thanks.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Test Engineering Manager
Affymetrix, Inc.
Woburn, MA



---
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