RE: RFID tags

[Rachid Sehb]

Some of these passive RFID units are placed on tires , and fall under the
automotive directive, so they may as well required RTTE certification.
Since this units are capable to radiated energy, they would require to be
certified.
 

 -Original Message-
From:   richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] 
Sent:   Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:23 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:RE: RFID tags


Well, that is the key reason for my question. I can find no means for
distinguishing between 
passive and active tags in regards to the RTTE Directive or the ETSI
standards. It seems to me that all tags fall under the RTTE Directive.

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International




From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:34 AM
To: Joshua Wiseman
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RFID tags




Not for sure. But it is my understanding that the passive tags are not
subject to RTTE.  We need someone who knows for sure to respond.

Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel:  651- 778-6336
Fax:  651-778-6252
===


 

  "Joshua Wiseman"

  

  ix.com>

   cc:

  11/20/2003 09:52
  
  AM   Subject:  RE: RFID tags

 

 





Bob,

Do you know anything about the 915MHz passive tags?

Josh


From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:24 AM
To: richwo...@tycoint.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: RFID tags


=



The RFID tags (active tags) are subject to the RTTE Directive and the
following standards for 13.56 MHz tags:

300 330-1 (General)
300 330-2 (Radio)
301 489-3 (EMC)

Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel:  651- 778-6336
Fax:  651-778-6252
===




Are RFID tags (e.g., access control badges) considered to be
transmitters/receivers and thus subject to the RTTE Directive? These types
of tags are powered by a received signal, may receive a coded signal, and
they respond with a coded signal. They are obviously very low power devices
and the transmit power is far below that of their interrogator. But the
nagging fact remains that they are transponders.

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International





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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: France's new Frequency allocation

[Rachid Sehb]

Cyril,

The new publication stated that :
 indoor use limitation of 100 mW EIRP for the 2.4-2.4835 Ghz band
 outdoor use limitation of 100 mW EIRP for the 2.4-2.454 Ghz and 10 mW for
the 2.454-2.4835Ghz band

Find encloses a summary of the frequency allocation for the RLAN and the 5
Ghz.
You can also check the http://www.art-telecom.fr/ web site, some of the
pages are translated in English.

Cheers,



From: Binnom, Cyril A [mailto:binno...@ems-t.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:30 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: France's new Frequency allocation 



All:

I have been given information that France has relaxed their once restricted
Frequency allocation to comply with the entire European Union per July 25,
2003.

This states that for indoor use the entire 2.4GHz band is available at a
power limit of 100mw.

My question is are there any limitations to the new allocation, and does
anybody dispute that these changes are incorrect.

Regards,

Cyril A. Binnom Jr.
EMI/EMC Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240
(770) 447-6928
binno...@lxe.com 




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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: EN 300 328-1

[Rachid Sehb]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Hello Sam, 
The diode detector is used to trigger  the envelope of the signal. Actually
this diode has to be used to determine the power output of the unit since the
802.11(b) would have BW around 10 MHz( the duty cycle would be used to correct
the peak power that needs to be below 20 dBm). The FCC recommends to use this
method to determine the power output of any large BW signal( the power meter
sensor's would not be able to do so)
I would not recommend to determine the duty cycle of your unit by using a
direct connection on your SA or oscilloscope. In any case, it would be up to
your reviewer to accept this kind of method.
 


From: Sam Wismer [mailto:swis...@acstestlab.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:43 AM
To: EMC 2
Subject: EN 300 328-1


Hi All,
Section 7.2.1.2 step 1 seems to be a method of determining the duty cycle of
the EUT.  This step calls for a diode detector for the measurement.  My quick
research shows this to be a fairly expensive accessory piece of equipment.  I
have a couple of questions.
 
1)  What is the purpose of the diode detector?  Normally I use a direct
connection when measuring duty cycle?
2)  I have tested RLAN products in Europe to this standard before, and the
test house over there simply asked me what my duty cycle was.  They never
measured it.  Is it permissible to show the duty cycle in the form of timing
diagram instead.  The FCC allows this. 
 

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

Sam Wismer

Engineering Manager

ACS, Inc.

 

(Tel: (770) 831-8048

ÊFax: (770) 831-8598

:Web:  www.acstestlab.com  

*  swis...@acstestlab.com

 

 


<>

RE: Compliance test configuration

[Rachid Sehb]

Ajmani,
 
Yes that is correct, having the unit transmitting information at the highest
data rate is the goal.
 

 

Rachid Sehb   EMC engineer   <  <mailto:rs...@rheintech.com>
mailto:rs...@rheintech.com> 

The information contained in this electronic mail message is privileged and
confidential, and is intended only for use of the addressee. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it.


From: ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:51 PM
To: Rachid Sehb
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Compliance test configuration



Hello Rachid, 

Thank you very much for your reply.  In this case, the EUT is the disk drive,
which is connected to SCSI Adapter through the SCSI interface.  The 64-bit
interface is strictly between the PC and the SCSI Adapter, and does not affect
the transfer rate between Adapter and the disk drive.  The only benefit of
using 64-bit interface is to sustain the data rate when connected to a large
number of disk drives.  I would assume that as long as I am transferring data
between Adapter and the disk drive at the maximum transfer rate, the type of
interface between Adapter and PC (both of which are already agency approved)
should not matter.

Regards, Ravinder
Server PCB and Flex Development
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies

Email: ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com








    Rachid Sehb  


09/03/2003 05:34 PM 



To:"'ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com'"  
cc:     
From:Rachid Sehb  
Subject:RE: Compliance test configuration 





Hello Ajmani, 
  
In most cases the standard would like the worst case to be tested, so my
advice would be to test the 64 bits. 
  
  

 

Rachid Sehb   EMC engineer   <  <mailto:rs...@rheintech.com>
mailto:rs...@rheintech.com> 


Rhein Tech Laboratories, Inc. <  <http://www.rheintech.com/>
http://www.rheintech.com> 


Electro Magnetic Engineering and Testing,  Wireless Testing, Electrical Safety
Testing,  PCB and Hardware Design Engineering 


360 Herndon Parkway, Suite 1400, Herndon, VA 20170 


Tel: 703-689-0368 x127 ; Fax: 703-689-2056 


The information contained in this electronic mail message is privileged and
confidential, and is intended only for use of the addressee. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it. 



From: ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:08 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: Compliance test configuration


Hi EMC Experts, 


I want to test a U320 SCSI disk drive for agency compliance.  All the U320
SCSI Host Bus Adapters require 64-bit PCI slot, although they will also work
in the 32-bit slot. 


My question is do I have to use a PC with 64-bit PCI bus for my testing (these
PCs are hard to come by), or can I use a PC with 32-bit PCI bus. 


I will appreciate your advice in helping me decide this.

Regards, Ravinder
Server PCB and Flex Development
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies

Email: ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com

Defibrillation test

[Rachid Sehb]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Hello group,
 
I was wondering if someone would know the requirement for shape of the pulse
for the defibrillation with stand.This test is described in ANSI/AAMI EC53.
 
Thank you in advance for your comments.
 

 

Rachid Sehb   EMC engineer


<>

RE: FCC Human Exposure Limits

[Rachid Sehb]

David,

You are right SAR could be required for this unit as well as MPE. Here is
part of the oet 65 c.

'Mobile devices may also be evaluated with respect to the SAR limits given
in Appendix A for RF exposure compliance, but in such cases it is usually
simpler and more cost-effective to evaluate compliance with respect to MPE
limits based on field strength or power density."

The question is would this unit be considered as mobile or portable unit?


From: David Seabury [mailto:d.seab...@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:55 AM
To: Rachid Sehb; richwo...@tycoint.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: FCC Human Exposure Limits


The 20cm "rule" in OET65 Supp C applies to operating distance from the body,
not between the transmitters.  If the 20cm rule applies, then the FCC
requires SAR whether it is a fix, mobile or portable device.

David Seabury

From: "Rachid Sehb" 
To: ; 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: FCC Human Exposure Limits


>
> Hello Richard,
>
> If the device fall into the criteria of " mobile", an RF exposure
evaluation
> would be required. Since you would have two radio collocated, by less than
> 20cm from each other in the same unit, an MPE evaluation would be
required.
> You would need to show compliance to the whole body exposure, with 2.4Ghz
on
> and 915Mhz off, and vice versa, and finally with the two units ON.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:42 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: FCC Human Exposure Limits
>
>
>
> Consider a handheld wireless device operating in the 915 MHz band or 2.45
> GHz band. Do I understand correctly that such a  handheld device where the
> radiating elements are expected to be at least 20 cm from the head and
torso
> of the body is considered to be a "mobile device" by the FCC, and thus it
is
> sufficient to demonstrate compliance by whole body exposure using the
> spatially averaged field?
>
> Richard Woods
> Sensormatic Electronics
> Tyco International
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
>  Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
>  Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>



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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: FCC Human Exposure Limits

[Rachid Sehb]

Hello Richard,

If the device fall into the criteria of " mobile", an RF exposure evaluation
would be required. Since you would have two radio collocated, by less than
20cm from each other in the same unit, an MPE evaluation would be required.
You would need to show compliance to the whole body exposure, with 2.4Ghz on
and 915Mhz off, and vice versa, and finally with the two units ON.

Sincerely,


 




From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:42 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: FCC Human Exposure Limits



Consider a handheld wireless device operating in the 915 MHz band or 2.45
GHz band. Do I understand correctly that such a  handheld device where the
radiating elements are expected to be at least 20 cm from the head and torso
of the body is considered to be a "mobile device" by the FCC, and thus it is
sufficient to demonstrate compliance by whole body exposure using the
spatially averaged field?

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International



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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Apples and ? comparison of dBuV/m

[Rachid Sehb]

Eric,

The measurement at the port for the band edge would not be appropriate,
cause you would not  take into account the variation of the antenna gain,
which is not be flat in the 2.4 Ghz band ( I am assuming that you are
testing a FHSS or DSSS device)

In any case the method that you described,  was developed to overcome of the
problem of average measurement for FHSS device since the signal is hopping. 
This method allow you , in a way, to determine the average measurement at
the band edge. We did some experiment here in your lab with some WLAN
companies with some units capable to transmit at 100 percent duty cycle and
with a 50 percent duty cycle. For first configuration we were performing a
direct average measurement at the band edge , and for the second
configuration we were using the delta marker method. The results were only
different by 1 dB.


Rachid Sehb
Rhein Tech Laboratories, Inc.
360 Herndon PKWY, suite 1400
Herndon, VA 20170







From: Eric Penne [mailto:epe...@olug.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 11:44 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Apples and ? comparison of dBuV/m



I've been perusing some FCC test reports and had a question that I
couldn't find an answer to.  I'm trying to brush up on my skills so I can
get a job in the EMC industry again.  Funny thing my former employer told
me.  I had my picture in the Fall 2002 issue of the IEEE EMC newletter 4
times at the Minneapolis EMC Symposium.  Unfortunately I was laid off 1
week after the show. :)

Anyway, on a couple of the reports, measurements were taken to verify that
a transmitter didn't exceed the limits of a band next to it.  The EUT
including antenna was tested in a chamber and the maximum value in average
and peak testing was found in dBuV/m.  The unit is operating above 1GHz. 
To verify the band edge measurements the transmitter was directly
connected to a spectrum analyzer and power measurements were taken to find
the overall peak and the peak in the restricted band.  The difference of
the direct connection Spec Analyzer test was subtracted from the maximum
average value in the radiated emissions test to say that the EUT passed in
the restricted band.

What I couldn't understand was how an average value from the RE scan with
a Res BW of 1MHz could subtract a peak value from the power scan that has
a Res BW of 100kHz?

Is an average value with 1MHz RBW equal to a Peak value with 100kHz RBW?

Thanks,
Eric




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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: FCC question

[Rachid Sehb]

Dave,

I assume that in this utility vault , would be placed other electronic
devices, if that the case the unit have to meet the 50 mV/m. 


 

Rachid Sehb   EMC engineer   




From: drcuthb...@micron.com [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:44 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: FCC question



I am considering using a short range data link in an ISM band. It will
comply with FCC part 47, 15.249, which specifies a field strength of 50 mV/m
at 3 meters. However, the device will be placed inside a utility vault,
which has about 30 dB of attenuation. Is there a way I can specify the field
strength outside the utility vault rather than with the device alone?

  Dave Cuthbert



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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: CE for components?

[Rachid Sehb]

Sam, 

There is a workgroup working on this concept ( IERSET) to obtain repeatable
test in GTEM cell, via simulation by using the IBIS model. So far I don't
think they plan to deliver a CE mark for component.
May be somebody would have more recent information concerning this subject.

http://intrage.insa-tlse.fr/~etienne/Emc/cemgrenoble02.ppt




From: Sam Davis [mailto:sda...@ptitest.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 3:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: CE for components?



I've gotten conflicting information on this, so can anyone point me to an
official verdict?

Is CE intended to be used on components, or just final products?

Can a component be CE marked?  I have seen many, but just having seen
something done doesn't make it right.  Obviously, EMC compliance of an
end-use product can't be proven with any unknown

I've heard it was never intended for components, and I've heard it always
has been.

Can anyone clear this up?



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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: ATEX Directive

[Rachid Sehb]

 Good example of the potential impact of a new European Directive is the
ATEX Directive (94/9/EC). This Directive replaces the old  'Explosive
Atmospheres and Gassy Mines Directive' (76/117/EEC) and is intended to bring
products covered by the old directive into line with the other, so called,
'New Approach' CE marking Directives. The Directive covers equipment and
protective systems, which may be used in areas endangered by potentially
explosive atmospheres created by the presence of flammable gases, vapours,
mists or dusts. The Directive covers both electrical and mechanical
equipment. 



From: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: 5/19/03 2:47 PM
Subject: ATEX Directive


Does anyone have any information on the relationship between the ATEX
directive and CENELEC?  Is it a replacement for CENELEC?  Does
compliance
with one insure compliance with the other?  Are they mutually exclusive?
Any help or direction as to where to look would be appreciated.


Regards,

Lisa

Lisa A. Cefalo, CRE
Manager, Reliability and Design Services
MKS Instruments
6 Shattuck Road
Andover, MA 01810
(978)-975-2350  X 5669
lisa_cef...@mksinst.com




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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc