RE: Certification of Access Control Equipment in the EU

[Umbdenstock, Don]

Hello Christine,

 

I haven’t been involved in access control for a few years – there was a
group that developed standards for alarm systems and a few standards were
under development.  I hadn’t seen them in the OJ last time I looked.

 

I suspect that access control would be covered by RTTE Directive, as the card
readers used with a lot of access control systems are typically short range
devices, i.e., a radio.  I suspect that for radio parameters, EN 300330 would
apply, one of the EN3014xx standards for immunity, as well as LVD (as called
out by the RTTED) and human exposure (also specified in the RTTED).  You can
check ERC 70 03 to see if your operating frequency is harmonized, otherwise
you will need to notify each country.  The last bit is whether or not there is
an additional standard in the OJ under RTTE for access control products.

 

By the way, some US customers also specify UL 1076 in addition to UL 294 for
access control products.  UL 1076 can be “tedious”.  Airport security I
would suspect would want 1076.

 

And finally, does your OEM have FCC certification?  If it is a short range
device you can comply with verification rules, if it is a “long” range
device (several inches instead of a few inches), you may need certification.

 

Good luck.

 

Don

 

Don Umbdenstock
Manager Compliance Engineering

Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic
6600 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA
Phone: 561.912.6440
djumbdenst...@tycoint.com   



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Christine
Rodham
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:00 AM
To: Christine Rodham; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Certification of Access Control Equipment in the EU

 

Hi List Members,

 

Is anyone aware of the certification requirements for Access Control Equipment
in the EU?

I've only been able to find requirements for the US (UL 294 )

 

The equipment will be used primarily in airports and similar high security
areas.

 

Thank you in advance!

 

Christine Rodham

 


Christine Rodham  wrote:

 

Hi List Members,

 

We are looking to sell an OEM Access Control product in several 
countries but
the product has not been certified by the OEM. 

 

UL 294 seems to be the correct and latest US standard for Access Control
equipment.

 

What would be the equivalent EN and IEC standards for this type of 
equipment.

 

Thank you in advance!

 

Christine Rodham



 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

 

  

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Harmonic/Flicker Measurement Equipment

[Umbdenstock, Don]

We already had a California Instruments system to perform 61000-4-11.  CI had a 
package that could extend the capability to harmonic and flicker.  When Agilent 
abandoned us, we went to CI.  We are please with the system.

Don Umbdenstock
Manager Compliance Engineering

Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic
6600 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA
Phone: 561.912.6440 
djumbdenst...@tycoint.com


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Elliott 
Mac-FME001
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:50 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Harmonic/Flicker Measurement Equipment

A colleague has told me that they have found EM Test to be very user friendly. 

I have had good experience with California Instruments equipment in the past as 
well. 

Not sure how either compares to the Agilent System mentioned though

Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott
 
[  X ] General Public  


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert Gremmen
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:44 PM
To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Harmonic/Flicker Measurement Equipment

EMC partner ?


Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens John Woodgate
Verzonden: dinsdag 21 oktober 2008 18:18
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Re: Harmonic/Flicker Measurement Equipment

In message , dated Tue, 21 Oct 2008, 
emcp...@aol.com writes:


>I would really like to find something similar to the HP/Agilent 
>6842A Harmonic and Flicker Test System. 

California Instruments?
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:   dhe...@gmail.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?

[Umbdenstock, Don]

The site referenced below has various links that will take one to different
regulations and decrees; I am not sure about standards (haven’t looked
recently).  A caution, those documents that are offered in English are usually
1-2 revisions behind what is available in Korean.  

 

The site is useful but has limitations.

Don 
561 912  6440 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Stumpf
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:53 AM
To: Knighten, Jim L; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?

 

Standards can be obtained at the following link: 

http://www.rrl.go.kr/

 

English translations are not available that I am aware.

 

Bill Stumpf

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Knighten, Jim L
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:30 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?

Will someone kindly point me to a source where I can obtain the EMC standards
(KN ) for South Korea?  English is preferable, although I understand that
some standards may not have an official English translation.

Thanks,

Jim

__

James L. Knighten, Ph.D.

EMC Engineer

Teradata Corporation

17095 Via Del Campo

San Diego, CA 92127

858-485-2537 – phone

213-337-5432 – fax

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc -
 This message
is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical

[Umbdenstock, Don]

125 kHz and 868 MHz.  Interestingly, one would think filtering at the higher
frequencies would be easier to implement, but indications are that the higher
frequency had more hits.

It doesn’t indicate the degree of compliance with the medical devices
immunity requirements.

Don 
561 912  6440 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andrew McCallum
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: EMC in the news: RFID & Medical

 

Be interesting to see exactly what they tested. 

Was the medical equipment built to the current Medical Equipment Directive or
not.

What frequencies did the RFID equipment work on.

Was it the reader or the tag that was 10cm away from the affected equipment.

Need to see the full report

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 




Confidentiality: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the
addressees only (or people authorised to receive them on their behalf) and may
be confidential or privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take
no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please
delete them from your system and reply to this e mail highlighting the error.

Security: Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that
internet e-mail is not 100% secure. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail
is taken to accept this.

Viruses: We have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are
virus free, but we advise that in keeping with good computing practice you
should ensure that they are actually virus free. 





DeltaRail Group Limited registered office Hudson House, 2 Hudson Way, Pride
Park, Derby, DE24 8HS. Registered in England and Wales, number 5839985. Please
refer to www.deltarail.com 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc -
 This message
is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

EuP lot 7

[Umbdenstock, Don]

Does anyone know where I can find either a copy or a draft copy of lot 7?

Does anyone know if discussions are still occurring on lot 7? 

Don Umbdenstock
Manager Compliance Engineering

Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic
6600 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA
Phone: 561.912.6440
djumbdenst...@tycoint.com  

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Antwort: Re: FCC requirements for Card Readers

[Umbdenstock, Don]

If the card reader operates as an intentional radiator and at frequencies less 
than 490 kHz, it is also covered by the 40 dB exemption.  This exemption says 
that if the device has more than 40 dB of margin to the limit, it can be 
treated as verification instead of certification.  Many card readers operate at 
~125 kHz.

Don Umbdenstock
Manager Compliance Engineering

Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic
6600 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA
Phone: 561.912.6440 
djumbdenst...@tycoint.com


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of rehel...@mmm.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:39 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Fw: Antwort: Re: FCC requirements for Card Readers

As an additional note, if the card reader contained RFID then it would fall
under Subpart C.

Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel:  651- 778-6336
Fax:  651-778-6252
===
- Forwarded by Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US on 06/10/2008 07:39
AM -
   
 Robert E. 
 Heller/US-Corpora 
 te/3M/US   To 
   emc-p...@ieee.org   
 06/10/2008 07:36   cc 
 AMmlehm...@herberg-sp.de  
   Subject 
   Re: Antwort: Re: FCC requirements   
   for Card Readers(Document link: 
   Robert E. Heller)   
   
   
   
   
   
   



The requirements would be CFR 47, Part 15, Subpart B, Class A:

15.19 Labeling
15.105  Info to User
15.107  Conducted Emissions
15.109  Radiated Emissions

The procedure would be ANSI C63.4

You can find the requirements at:   www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html

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




   
 mlehmann@herberg- 
 sp.de 
To 
 06/10/2008 06:41  rehel...@mmm.com
 AM cc 
   
   Subject 
   Antwort: Re: FCC requirements for   
   Card Readers
   
   
   
   
   
   





Bob,

yes, I do.

Regards

   
 Mario Lehmann  
   

   

   

   
 Geschäftsbereich European Compliance Laboratory
   
 (ECL)  
   

   
 __ 
   

Record Retention in the EU

[Umbdenstock, Don]

The FCC is specific in how long compliance records are to be kept.  Is there a
similar requirement in Europe?  I have not been able to come up with EMC, LV,
or RTTE record retention requirements (if they exist).  Am I missing something
or are there no records?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Don

561 912  6440

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Withdrawal of UL 913 edition 6

[Umbdenstock, Don]

Is anyone familiar with the reasoning behind the withdrawal of this standard?  

Does it mean that edition 7 becomes mandatory now instead of 2012?

What are the changes driving edition 7?

Regards,

Don Umbdenstock
Manager Compliance Engineering

Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic
6600 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA
Phone: 561.912.6440
djumbdenst...@tycoint.com  

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Safety regulations

[Umbdenstock, Don]

LPS designated power supplies are specified for ITE when there is no fire
enclosure (i.e., plastic enclosure not qualified for fire enclosure).

 

Other standards achieve fire protection by specifying a maximum of 15W power
source if there is no fire enclosure (IEC 60065).

 

Don Umbdenstock
Manager Compliance Engineering

Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic
6600 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA
Phone: 561.912.6440
djumbdenst...@tycoint.com   



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Curt McNamara
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:38 AM
To: ted.eck...@apcc.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Safety regulations

 

Wow! The chart shows 2A at 45V for Class II, or 100VA as you note. This is a
lot of energy to me, and can certainly result in ignition given the correct
conditions. I note that the standard also shows voltages above SELV as
permissible. 

 

The implication in the original question was information technology (as far as
I could tell). Even with approved supplies and only SELV levels safety
investigations are still required. 

 

Some examples:

Flammable material (the laptop plastic case).

Fault (5V to ground) causes part to fall off board through vent hole, igniting
material on table.

 

There are lots of ways to design unsafe products using only SELV (not even
considering Class II). If your product needs a safety approval then an
investigation is required.

 

To phrase this another way: someone else's label (the power supply
manufacturer) is not a valid indicator that a product has a safety approval. 

 

  
 Curt

 

in real life

Curt McNamara, P.E. // principal electrical engineer
Logic Product Development
411 Washington Ave. N. Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55401
T // 612.436.5178
F // 612.672.9489
_www.logicpd.com_ http://www.logicpd.com/>

 

On May 2, 2008, at 7:24 AM, ted.eck...@apcc.com wrote:





The output of a Class 2/LPS circuit does not have the voltage or energy to
be a shock or ignition risk as long as that voltage is used without any
changes.  I could design a circuit with an inverter and step-up transformer
that would give me a hazardous voltage.  The Class 2 limit is 100 W.  In
theory, I could get 1000 VAC RMS at 100 mA.  Even with losses due
efficiency limits, there would be enough current to kill somebody.

I will say that in general, if you are using a power supply that meets the
60950 LPS or the NEC Class 2 limits (they are basically the same) then you
can hang circuits off the output without problems.  However, it still needs
to be investigated in a case by case basis.

Ted Eckert
APC-MGE
http://www.apc.com/

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC-MGE or Schneider Electric.
The speaker does not represent APC-MGE's or Schneider Electric's official
position on any matter.



scott barrows 
   To 
Sent by:  Curt McNamara ,   
emc-p...@ieee.org peter merguerian
   
   cc 
05/02/2008 07:10  Benoit Nadeau , 
AMEMC-PSTC 
  Subject 
  Re: Safety regulations  










If the power supply is an NEC class 2 (vs a class II insulation system) or
an LPS construction, then there is not enough current available to be a
fire hazard.

Scott

Curt McNamara  wrote:
What if a short occurred on one of these PCBs? Is there enough flammable
material to constitute a fire hazard? Could a component get hot enough to
melt connections and drop off, igniting material underneath the product?

As you can see, there may be other cases to consider. Given that an event
could initiate legal action, it may be wise to have a third party verify
safety.

Curt

On May 1, 2008, at 10:37 PM, peter merguerian wrote:

  If the power supply is Listed/Certified Class 2 (power limited
  outputs) and there are no hazardous energy levels, I see no
  problems.

  Peter Merguerian



  Benoit Nadeau  wrote:
  Bonjour,

  I’m much more fluent in EMC than safety and this is why I
  respectfully seek advice in this matter.

  I have a question coming from the designers and I’ve been looking in
  the US regulations (the NEC mainly) to find the answer but I didn’t.
  I think this is more like an interpretation than anything else.

  So the ques

Printed Circuit Board Grounding

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Hello Group,

We are having a debate concerning the best practice for grounding of a
printed circuit board containing digital logic.  These boards are
multi-layer with a ground plane and a power plane.  

One school of thought is to tie the ground plane to chassis ground in many
locations, thus reducing the impedance.

Another school of thought says to control the point(s) that is (are) tied to
ground or risk upsetting of sensitive circuits with an ESD or other immunity
event.  The concept is that an ESD event may be decoupled to chassis at the
I/O ground plane with the use of appropriate circuit elements to control
impedances.  Now consider the chassis to be steel, and the digital ground
plane to be copper.  If the digital ground plane is stitched to chassis in
several locations, it appears that a lower impedance path (copper vs steel)
will encourage the ESD  to travel across the ground plane.  If the ESD
travels across the digital ground plane, there appears to be a good chance
of upsetting sensitive circuits.  So the thought might be to tie only one
point of digital ground to chassis ground, thereby not providing a path for
any immunity event to flow across this ground plane.  

The rest of the above concept is to use moats to segregate key circuits --
digital, I/O, analog, switch-mode power supplies.  Again, some say to keep
the ground plane in tact to provide the lowest impedance reference possible,
so isolation is provided by carving up the power plane.  The alternate
approach is to "carve all the way through", i.e., if you have a moat around
a particular circuit, if you are going to isolate, do it for all planes
(stack, do not overlap).  This latter approach, however, carves up the
ground plane which would appear to increase the impedance of the overall
ground reference.  The argument is that carving up the ground plane is
justified by eliminating the coupling of "dirty ground" to other circuits in
an overlap situation.

I would like to hear what you do for pcb grounding and why you do it. 

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Schaffner ESD gun Calibration

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Hello Randall,

We have the same model.  We have ours calibrated at Liberty Labs
(www.liberty-labs.com).  They are responsive and price competitive.  Hope
this helps.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From:
> randall.flind...@emulex.com[SMTP:randall.flind...@emulex.com] on behalf of
> Flinders, Randall[SMTP:randall.flind...@emulex.com]
> Reply To: Flinders, Randall
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 5:36 PM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  Schaffner ESD gun Calibration
> 
> Greetings EMC Professionals - 
> 
> I was wondering if anyone out there in complianceland has info on any
> calibration vendors who provide calibration services for a Schaffner
> NSG-435 ESD Gun.  My numerous attempts at getting a quote from Schaffner
> have been unsuccessful and I really need to get this thing calibrated
> before my next QA audit.
> 
> Any leads or information would be appreciated!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Randall T. Flinders
> EMC Engineer
> Emulex Corporation
> (714) 513-8012 voice
> (714) 513-8265 fax
> randall.flind...@ieee.org
> __   __
> __\ /__
> __/ \__
> E  M  U  L  E  X
> 
> aka..
> 
> Chairman
> Orange County Chapter
> IEEE EMC Society
> r.flind...@ieee.org
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

OATS Survey

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Hello Group,

I would like to conduct a brief survey  regarding some common aspects of an
OATS.  I will summarize and publish the results.


How many labs 

1)  have a screen mesh OATS?  If not mesh, what do you use for the
ground plane?

2)  use mesh with an opening size of .25 inch?  If some other size,
please specify.  If there is a specific reason for your choice, please
explain.

3)  use tuned dipoles for NSA measurements of OATS?  Are the sets
"reference antennas" per C63.5?  If you do not use dipoles, what are your
antennas of choice (manufacturer and model)?

4)  use a spectrum analyzer with a tracking generator with tuned
dipoles for NSA measurements of OATS?

5)  use a REFRAD with tuned dipoles for NSA measurements?

6)  have had deterioration of their OATS that showed up at a band of
frequencies centered around 100 MHz?  Other frequencies?  Please describe
the environmental conditions of your OATS and how old the site was when
deterioration began. 

7)  use the antenna factors provided in C63.5 for their reference
dipoles?  If not the C63.5 factors, which factors do you use and why?

8)  use the mutual correction factors for the NSA identified in
C63.4 1992 when measuring the NSA on a 3 meter site? How many labs use the
mutual correction factors specified in C63.5 1988 when measuring the NSA on
a 3 meter site?  What drove your choice?

Unsolicited comments are welcome.

Thanks in advance for your inputs.


Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

561-989-7454

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Average Measurements above 1 GHz

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

John,

Interesting question that you have posed.  A few years ago, I submitted a
product to the FCC that required average detection.  It seemed that the FCC
had a certain distrust of the implementation of average detectors by various
manufacturers.  The data that I was submitting was for a system that was
pulse modulated.  The FCC required a "mathematical average" based on duty
cycle instead of allowing the average detection of the spectrum analyzer.
It was simple enough to do for our product so I did not fight it.  Just
thought I might raise a caution flag.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From: Scott Douglas[SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
> Reply To: Scott Douglas
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 8:08 AM
> To:   'croni...@hotmail.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Average Measurements above 1 GHz
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> MY HP 8591EM will in fact perform average measurements. The manual makes 
> specific reference to CISPR 11 and CISPR 16 for compliances. The analyzer 
> is rated to 1.8 GHz. The HP 8593 series goes even higher.
> 
> Scott
> s_doug...@ecrm.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: croni...@hotmail.com [SMTP:croni...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 4:37 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Average Measurements above 1 GHz
> 
> 
> I recently put out a question on measurements above I GHz.  I got several
> replies for which many thanks.
> 
> The recommendations were to try several suppliers for pre-amps.  These
> included HP 8449, Miteq (low noise amps) and TEC in Mountain View.
> 
> We actually used two Mini Circuits preamps in series which have enabled us
> to gain the necessary gain and noise figure.
> 
> Now that we can carry out measurements at 3m I have another question.  How
> to perform average measurements above 1 GHz.
> 
> Most analyzers do not appear to have a specific CISPR compliant average
> function.  So how is the average measurement carried out?
> 
> Use of the average detector could yield a few dB lower levels even for a
> narrowband emission.
> 
> As a point of information I note that the proposal for CISPR 22
> measurements
> above 1 GHz does not allow the use of an average detector.  This could
> pose
> eventual problems for manufacturers as it represents a considerable
> tightening on the current FCC limits.
> 
> I would be most grateful for any information on carrying out compliant
> average measurements.
> 
> Regards
> 
> John Cronin
> 
> 
> 
> __
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Immunity Problems ??

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Compliance with an immunity regulation is no guarantee that a product will
work.  It only asserts compliance.

Several years ago, we had a POS product that passed the 16 kV requirements
but still failed in the field in the northern states in the winter.
Diagnostics indicated that the product failed at 18 kV.  The protection was
improved to 20 kV and the problem was solved.

Bottom line, specs only give an indication of expectations.  Your assessment
of your environment is the final word.  Some members have given some good
suggestions on diagnostics.  Good luck.


Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From: Douglas C. Smith[SMTP:d...@dsmith.org]
> Reply To: Douglas C. Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 1:13 AM
> To:   Price, Ed
> Cc:   'marti...@pebio.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Immunity Problems ??
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> ESD or EFT could be the culprit. I would suggest putting a current
> probe around one of the instrument cables and connect to a digital
> scope and see if you can trigger on a noise event. If you are lucky,
> the instrument with the current probe will be the one that goes down.
> 
> Alternatively, connect a small antenna to the scope, set to 50 Ohm
> input, set the V scale to 100 mV/div, H to 20 ns/div, and trigger on a
> 50 mV positive going edge for starters. If you get nothing or too
> much, adjust the parameters accordingly. A 6 inch diameter loop of
> wire makes a good antenna.
> 
> Doug
> 
> "Price, Ed" wrote:
> > 
> > Joe wrote:
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   marti...@pebio.com [SMTP:marti...@pebio.com]
> > Sent:   Tuesday, September 07, 1999 2:04 PM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Cc: marti...@pebio.com
> > Subject:Immunity Problems ??
> > 
> > >EMC Professionals,
> > 
> > >We have 42 of the same instruments installed in one laboratory.
> > 
> > What are they? What type of power feeds and I/O lines or
> sensors?
> > What about physical separation?
> > 
> > >They are each installed on their own dedicated line.
> > 
> > Powerline?
> > 
> > >On a regular basis
> > 
> > The toughest problems are unpredictable, intermittent failures.
> This
> > is your first ray of hope; you should try to associate the problem with
> > external conditions; i.e., a step in your process, the plant elevator,
> the
> > air conditioning, every 107 minutes, something.
> > 
> > >an instrument will shut down during a run.
> > 
> > A bit more description about the "shutdown."
> > 
> > >The instrument that shuts down is different each time.
> > 
> > Really, NEVER the same instrument? Or do you just mean it
> strikes
> > randomly?
> > 
> > >These instruments are laboratory equipment that meet Class A
> > radiated limits of
> > >EN 55011 and meet the immunity requirements of EN 50082-1.
> > 
> > So, then you really don't have a problem? (Sorry, grin!)
> > 
> > >Any ideas as to the potential cause of the problem and possible
> > ways to resolve
> > >the problem would be greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > Well, you can start right away with the correlation effort. You
> > could also put a powerline monitor on the power buss. If you operated
> one
> > instrument without I/O or data or control leads, you might start to get
> an
> > idea about the problem if that one instrument NEVER shutdown. That might
> say
> > the problem is not coupled through the power bus. OTOH, if it failed
> just as
> > the others, that may lend weight toward the power bus as the path.
> > 
> > Can you operate an instrument in another building? Do you get
> zero
> > shutdowns, or the same probability? Can you operate a cluster of your
> > instruments in a remote location, and do they exhibit shutdown problems
> too?
> > 
> > >Regards
> > 
> > >Joe Martin
> > >EMC/Product Safety Engineer
> > >P.E. Biosystems
> > >marti...@pebio.com
> > 
> > That's enough for now! Organize your info and get back to the
> list.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Ed
> > 
> >
> :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-
> )
> > Ed Price
> > ed.pr...@cubic.com
> > Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
> > Cubic Defense Systems
> > San Diego, CA.  USA
> > 619-505-2780 (Voice)
> > 619-505-1502 (Fax)
> > Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
> > Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
> >
> :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-
> )
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, 

FW: OATS Rework Results

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

The flux used was

"Indalloy Flux # 2", made by 

Indium Corporation of America
1676 Lincoln Ave
PO Box 269, Utica, NY, USA
13503

Phone: 315-853-4900

There may be better solder to use, but we just used 60/40 resin core solder.
The resin did not seem to create a problem with the Indalloy flux.  The
fumes however are really nasty.  We set up a box fan and stayed up wind of
the smoke.  The breeze did not affect the heating capability of the 500 W
iron.

The manufacturer can probably provide further advice regarding compatibility
of materials.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From: valer...@aol.com[SMTP:valer...@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 6:21 PM
> To:   umbdenst...@sensormatic.com
> Subject:  Re: OATS Rework Results
> 
> Don:
> 
> I read your OATS Rework Info with great interest.  I do not have anything 
> further to contribute to your problem. One thing that I found very 
> interesting was the soldering materials that your tech located for
> stainless 
> steel.  Could you possibly provide the manufacturer and pertinent info 
> regarding this?  This is the type of information I would like to file away
> 
> for future use! Thanks --
> 
> Val L. Erwin, NCE
> Consultant
> Summit Associates, Inc.
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

OATS Rework Results

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Hello Group,

I would like to report on the results of implementing the recommendations
offered by many.

We found the wire cloth to be rusty where clamped between the stainless
steel ring and the concrete pad.  This no doubt contributed to the 40 ohm
impedance.  We replaced a 3 m square of wirecloth surrounding the 1.5 meter
turn-table.  We did the acid wash, air blown joint technique. (The air was
more necessary to remove the excess moisture.)  With a 1.5 inch tip 500 W
iron, the soldering was quick (.093 60/40 resin core solder was readily
available).  We connected the wire cloth to the ss turn-table ring by means
of 5/8" wide tinned copper braid soldered on the ss and on the wirecloth.
(One of our techs found a company that makes flux for ss.  It was as simple
soldering to ss as soldering to copper.)  We strapped the wire cloth to the
ss ring with 2" long segments every 3" apart.  We now have .5 ohm (dc)
impedance from the turn-table to the wirecloth pad.

Our 3 meter measurement is uniform over the 14m x 15 m pad within .8 dB (.8
dB from highest to lowest reading).  Unfortunately, the noncompliance at 30
MHz in vertical polarization is still there.  Using the formula for a 3
meter site of

NSA=Vd-Vs-Raf-Taf-Cf

where   Vd = V direct,
Vs = V site
Raf = Rx ant factor
Taf = Tx ant factor
Cf  = mutual coupling factor

Vs appears to be too high by .5-1.5 dB, and about 1.5 - 2.5 dB higher than
previous NSA measurements.  Whether the ground was wet or dry, we have
gotten comparable results.

Anyone have any good ideas?

Still stymied,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Concrete as an insulator???

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Doug,

Years ago, I worked in a facility where I was told General Electric made
inductors for powerline carrier systems that withstood >700kV from high
power transmission lines.  These were made from some sort of ceramic
compound, formulated for insulating properties as well as structural
integrity -- there is alot of force applied in high voltage applications.
Even though you indicated high power, not necessarily high voltage, perhaps
the engineers at GE could give you some pointers on ceramic/concrete
inductors.  This facility was located in Lynchburg, Va.

Don Umbdenstock

> --
> From: POWELL, DOUG[SMTP:doug.pow...@aei.com]
> Reply To: POWELL, DOUG
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 5:39 PM
> To:   EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
> Subject:  Concrete as an insulator???
> 
> 
> Hello all,
>  
> I have a very innovative engineer who has come up with a design idea that
> uses concrete as an insulating compound in a very large inductor for a 200
> kW switching power supply.  Yup, this is the stuff you buy down at the
> local
> building supply company.  He was very proud of the idea, but until he came
> up with it I think he was pretty desperate.  I'm thinking I should make
> him
> desperate again but would like to be able to give him a clearly
> reasoned-out
> explanation.
>  
> Has anyone ever had experience with using concrete or mortar in a high
> voltage application?  What are the concerns here?  It is my understanding
> that it does not actually "dry" but it cures with all the water contained
> inside.
>  
>  
> thanks,
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -doug
> 
> ===
> Douglas E. Powell, Compliance Engineer
> Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> 1625 Sharp Point Dr.
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
> ---
> 970-407-6410  (phone)
> 970-407-5410  (e-fax)
> mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com  
> http://www.advanced-energy.com  
> ===
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

FW: ETS 300 328

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Senton GmbH is a test lab in Germany that is certified for ETS 300328
testing.  Contact Johann Roidt at 

Senton GmbH
EMI/EMC Test Center
Aeussere Fruehlingsstrasse 45
D - 94315 Straubing
Germany

49 - 9421/5522 13

j.ro...@senton.de


Hope this helps.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic



> > --
> > From:   DVVENTL Lizette de Vries-Vente[SMTP:dvve...@mail.sabs.co.za]
> > Reply To:   DVVENTL Lizette de Vries-Vente
> > Sent:   Thursday, May 06, 1999 10:47 AM
> > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:ETS 300 328
> > 
> > Hi Group
> > 
> > I have a client who needs to have ETS 300 328 type approval testing
> done. 
> >  It is some kind of tag that uses 2.4 or 5.8 GHz RX frequencies.  The
> lab 
> > also needs to be accredited for this specification by the national 
> > accreditation body of the country.
> > 
> > Can anybody make suggestions for European or US labs.  
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Lizette de Vries-Venter
> > SENIOR ENGINEER
> > Division of Electronics and Appliances
> > SABS
> > 
> > Tel : +27 12 428 6990
> > Fax : +27 12 428 6523
> > Email : dvve...@sabs.co.za
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Australian electricity supply

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

 "Electric Current Abroad" 1991, states that Australia has 240V 50Hz  except
for Albany and Kalgoorlie and Perth which has 250V 50 Hz.  The only other
note given is "frequency stability" which indicates "stable enough to
operate an electric clock" and that service interruptions are rare.  No
specifics are given on voltage or frequency tolerance for Australia, though
tolerances are given for other countries.  

> --
> From: Colgan, Chris[SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
> Reply To: Colgan, Chris
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 4:47 AM
> To:   'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject:  Australian electricity supply
> 
> Hello group
> 
> Can anyone tell me the limits of the Australian consumer mains supply
> voltage, ie 240V +?% -?%.
> 
> I have ordered a copy of World Electricity Supplies but it hasn't arrived
> yet.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Chris Colgan
> EMC & Safety
> TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
> 
> mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
> 
> =
> Authorised on 04/29/99 at 09:47:52; code 37160057E31C4EB1.
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: C Tick..

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

George,

See Comments below.

> --
> From: Sparacino,George[SMTP:sparaci...@andovercontrols.com]
> Reply To: Sparacino,George
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 4:25 PM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  C Tick..
> 
> Good day,
> 
> I was asked to investigate what is required to obtain the "C tick" for
> our products.
> 
> Our products have been evaluated to the applicable stds as prescribed by
> the EMC directive for ITE equipment (emissions & immunity).
> 
> 
> My Questions:
> 
> I understand that the c tick marking is a required marking of EMC
> approval for electronic devices.  Does this cover both emissions &
> immunity ?   or just emissions ?
> 
> Just emissions.
> 
> Can I request applications myself (I'm in the USA) or do I need an
> Australian rep to do this ?
> 
An Australian National must make the initial application that assigns a
number to your products via the importer or the Australian branch of your
company.  This number is part of the C-tick mark logo placed on each
product.

> Could I present my existing reports / certificates (created to satisfy
> EMC directive), or am I required to generate new ones in a specified
> (ACA) report format.
> 
Your existing reports are sufficient to be legal.  However, in the case of
conflict, the results of an Australian lab have the final say.

> Thanks for any help you can give me.
> George
> 
> 
Good luck,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

The comments above are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect that of my
company.
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: FCC Part 68 Project Web Site

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Try
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/, or
https://gullfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/index.html.

I use the latter for Part 15.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

"Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
Sensormatic." 


> --
> From: Campi, Mike[SMTP:mca...@fpc.fujitsu.com]
> Reply To: Campi, Mike
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 7:03 PM
> To:   'EMC/PSTC'
> Subject:  FCC Part 68 Project Web Site
> 
> All -
> 
> I understand that the FCC maintains a web site where you can monitor the
> status or your Part 68 submittals. Does anybody now the WWW address?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mike Campi
> Corporate Compliance Engineer
> Fujitsu PC Corporation
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: BCIQ

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

The FCC issued a Report and Order (98-338) announcing a MRA with the EC and
APEC on December 23.  We should expect to see a number of labs become
"certified" shortly, allowing them to provide a broad array of international
testing services.  I presume that Taiwan is part of APEC.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From: Gary McInturff[SMTP:gmcintu...@packetengines.com]
> Reply To: Gary McInturff
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 7:56 PM
> To:   'emc-pstc list server'
> Subject:  BCIQ
> 
> Anybody have any new information on Taiwan's acceptance of data from US
> certified labs?
> As I understand it with the exception of a very few labs here in the
> states
> (Canada as well maybe) which have a private contracts with Taiwan, there
> is
> no acceptance of data by Taiwan from FCC Nist certfied labs. In other
> words
> still not MRU between countries to accept each others labs and data?
>   Thanks
>   Gary
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Signal Line Output Surge Protection

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

One of our products required surge protection on a transmit output line to
comply with a UL requirement.  The designer chose an MOV across the
differential output.  When we performed a radiated emissions measurement, we
found the previously compliant design to be "screaming" (~ 15 dB over the
limit).  Removing the MOV resolved the EMC problem, but then we have the UL
problem.  

The protection we were looking for was 120 V clamp, capable of handling a 3
joule test with a peak voltage of 2400 V applied.

Just curious, has anyone had a similar situation?  A particular supplier
indicated that others had reported MOVs to be disastrous from an EMC
perspective.  MOVs appear to be a device with a general rule of thumb "don't
use on 'signal' lines".  Any experiences you would like to share?  What was
your solution?

Regards,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE(2): Coatings that affect EMC performance

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Many thanks to each respondent (Cortland, Richard, Donald, Chris, Jim, Gary,
Ron -- hope I didn't miss anyone).  The comments (and in some cases comments
on the comments) were very useful.  

I learned that Iridite (brand name) = Chromate,  corrosion protection is
inversely related to conductivity, and the crime lab has a partner in
fingerprint tracking. Thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge.

Don 

> --
> From: Cortland Richmond[SMTP:72146@compuserve.com]
> Reply To: Cortland Richmond
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 2:01 AM
> To:   Richard Haynes; ieee pstc list
> Subject:  Re: Coatings that affect EMC performance
> 
> About ten years ago I had to write a critical features list on a piece of
> equipment that used yellow chromate over aluminum.  It turned out not to
> be
> too difficult; silver was too little, yellow and brown were too much and
> "waay" too much respectively. Only a light gold tint was correct.
> 
> Holding the vendor to that,on the other hand...
> 
> Cortland
> 
> == Original Message Follows 
> 
>  >> Date:  30-Nov-98 21:27:31  MsgID: 1065-66891  ToID: 72146,373
> From:  "Richard Haynes" >INTERNET:vale...@pluto.njcc.com
> Subj:  Re: Coatings that affect EMC performance
> Chrg:  $0.00   Imp: Norm   Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 1
> 
> 
> Don,
> The "yellow..." could mean a yellow chromate film(coating) on aluminum
> metal(for example) applied for corrosion protection. The advice not to
> used
> is because of the high impedance. The film EMC people use is clear because
> of the low impedance. For yellow, purple, etc there is good corrosion
> resistance whereas the clear coating is low corrosion resistance but also
> low Z). So we have the compromise between low Z and low corrosion
> resistance
> or high Z and high corrosion resistance. There are also porosity of the
> film
> with processing conditions.
> 
> This is my best guess with the information available.
> 
> Be glad to help you on more specifics.
> 
> Richard Haynes
> 609-497-4584
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON 
> To: 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group' 
> Date: Monday, November 30, 1998 6:06 PM
> Subject: Coatings that affect EMC performance
> 
> 
> >Hello Group,
> >
> >I remember recently (within the last quarter?) reading a thread about
> >different coatings, one of which everyone said "don't use".  I have
> searched
> >through the RCIC "Recent Threads" and could not find a related subject.
> Can
> >anyone steer me to that thread?  (something about "yellow "?)
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Don Umbdenstock
> >Sensormatic
> >
> >-
> >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> >quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> >j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> == End of Original Message =
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Coatings that affect EMC performance

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Hello Group,

I remember recently (within the last quarter?) reading a thread about
different coatings, one of which everyone said "don't use".  I have searched
through the RCIC "Recent Threads" and could not find a related subject.  Can
anyone steer me to that thread?  (something about "yellow "?)

Regards,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: ANSI C63.4-- OATS construction issues

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Related to the issue of reflections on an OATS is contaminants.  I have
heard from a few sites that have all weather test capabilities, that they
need to periodically pressure clean their shelters -- 6 dB was suggested as
a variation due to contaminants.  If the effects of contaminants apply to
shelters, it seems only logical that the effects of contaminants would apply
to other obstructions such as curbs and posts; who knows, maybe even to
vegetation!  (Anybody pressure clean their trees lately?)

Don Umbdenstock

Sensormatic



> --
> From: Robert Bonsen[SMTP:rbon...@orionscientific.com]
> Reply To: Robert Bonsen
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 9:15 PM
> To:   randall.flind...@emulex.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  ANSI C63.4-- OATS construction issues
> 
> First of all, expanding the width is a Good Idea. Generally speaking, the
> larger the ground plane, the better it will approach a "perfect OATS" and,
> hence, deliver better performance. This is particularly important for a
> smaller sized OATS. 
> 
> The minimal size described in CISPR22 is 1m beyond the boundary of EUT
> (quiet zone) and the largest antenna to be used. The metallic ground plane
> must cover the entire area between the EUT and the antenna. 
> 
> The ellipse of 2Rx1.73R (R=test distance) is a recommended obstruction
> free
> zone. Buildings, fences etc. qualify as obstructions if they are of a
> conductive nature. Chances are you will get away with a few hedges etc.
> within this ellips. The site attenuation measurements will determine
> whether the site qualifies or not. It is however smart to keep metallic
> objects outside this ellips.
> 
> Definitely put the screen on the top of the concrete. Choose wire mesh
> with
> a sufficiently small mesh size (smaller than 10% of smallest
> wavelength-to-be-measured) and solder at the seams of the individual
> overlapping sheets  every 3-5 inches or so (recommended is 10% of smallest
> wavelength but experience has shown that is excessively stringent most of
> the time).
> 
> If you cannot bury the power cables or the signal cables run them
> perpendicular to the measurement axis on top of the ground plane. Make
> sure
> to bond these cable to the ground plane since any metal above the metallic
> ground plane may influence measurements and, hence, should be present in
> the same configuration the site attenuation qualification measurements are
> done.
> 
> One additional issue is the ground plane termination into the surrounding
> earth. In case of an abrupt termination at the edges of the ground plane,
> eg. in the case of a rooftop OATS, the reflection from the edges of the
> ground plane may have significant impact on measurements. Even on a very
> large OATS the reflections from the ground plane edges will show up in
> measurements, when the edges are not properly terminated. This effect can
> be significantly reduced by providing a smooth transition between the
> ground plane and the surrounding earth, eg. by running the mesh wire out
> beyond the concrete and burrying it in the surrounding dirt and by
> shoveling up the dirt to the level of the ground plane. Note that
> reflections from the ground plane terminations do not necessarily
> disqualify an OATS in the site attenuation measurements. The net effect
> depends on a variety of factors, including the size of the ground plane
> and
> the measurement range layout.
> 
> Sometimes an OATS does not meet site attenuation requirements, which
> happens more often in the case of a smaller OATS than with larger ones. By
> doing proper diagnostic measurements it is possible to indicate where
> reflections due to site imperfectness or obstructions are originating from
> and eliminate the problem.
> 
> Regards,
> Robert Bonsen
> EMC facility consultant
> 
> Robert Bonsen
> Principal Consultant
> Orion Scientific
> email: rbon...@orionscientific.com
> URL:   http://www.orionscientific.com
> phone: (512) 347 7393; FAX: (512) 328 9240
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Lorie Nichols

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Try

http://www.conformity.com

> --
> From:
> randall.flind...@emulex.com[SMTP:randall.flind...@emulex.com] on behalf of
> Flinders, Randall[SMTP:randall.flind...@emulex.com]
> Reply To: Flinders, Randall
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 4:11 PM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  Lorie Nichols
> 
> Greetings EMC / Product Safety Professionals!
> 
> I am trying to contact Lorie Nichols of Conformity.  Unfortunately, the
> phone numbers I have are no longer in service.  Does anyone have any
> current contact information on Lorie or on Conformity?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Randy Flinders
> EMC Engineer
> Emulex Network Systems
> (714) 513-8012
> randall.flind...@emulex.com
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Burning Card Module

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

A couple of lifetimes ago, we saw something similar due to large sized chip
capacitors becoming resistors.   Something about being at the manufacturing
process limitations of the large size of the capacitor.  In those days it
was a 330 nF capacitor that caused the problem.  I know that processes have
improved considerably in 15 years, but it might be worth checking out.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From: pe...@itl.co.il[SMTP:pe...@itl.co.il]
> Reply To: pe...@itl.co.il
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 5:16 PM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Burning Card Module
> 
> Dear Members,
> 
> I am sure some of you can give me ideas on how to analyze a card 
> module which in four different occassions caused charring and 
> smoke within the equipment. In all cases, fire did not spread and 
> the charring occurred in all cases, arounf decoupling SMT 
> capacitors located between the Vcc and ground.
> 
> The subject card sits in an industrial type computer within a GSM 
> equipment. The card is fed by 5 V and 12 Vdc from the computer 
> power supply and employs two SE:V interfaces.  It employs a 
> piggy board with a receiver with direct connection to an external 
> outddor antenna.
> 
> Any suggestions how this may have happened in the field, on four 
> different occassions and the charring/burning occured around the 
> decouplng capacitors.
> 
> For this let us assume PWB is flame rated 94V-0 and is 
> Recognized. 
> 
> Regards,
> PETER S. MERGUERIAN
> MANAGING DIRECTOR
> PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION
> I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD.
> HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211
> OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL
> 
> TEL: 972-3-5339022
> FAX: 972-3-5339019
> E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il
> Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Re(3): Conducted Emissions, average method.

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Scott,

What you have outlined below sounds dangerous to me.  Here's why.

We also have used HP8591EM for a few years.  We had discovered that care
must be taken to establish where the marker is placed to obtain an accurate
"auto" reading.  We previously had used 5-20 MHz spans, marked the peak
signal of interest, and then performed auto measure at marker.  We found
that there was sometimes a difference of as much as 15 dB between doing this
and measuring manually.  Later we determined that due to the characteristic
of the emission, we needed to narrow the span to somewhere in the range of
100 kHz to perhaps 500 kHz to define the peak of the signal we were
interested in prior to activating the auto test at marker function.  This
produced comparative results of approximately 1 dB between auto and manual
measurements.

The real issue is to have a sufficiently narrow span to define the peak of
the signal of interest.  To me that means the peak occupies an area of at
least 20% of the display span, i.e., a broad hump. 

However, it is not sufficient to switch directly from a broad span to a
narrow span as the neighboring signal may be a few dB higher in a cluster of
emissions.  For this reason, I always step down the span incrementally,
monitoring neighboring peaks as I go until I have narrowed the span
sufficiently to produce a well defined peak signal -- then I measure qp or
whatever detector I am interested in (not forgetting to set the span to less
than the max span allowed for qp measurements by the instrument algorithm),
or run auto measure at marker. 

By the way, by the time I have done this in my ambient jungle, I have done
75% of the work of the auto test.  There is almost 0 benefit to doing auto
test at marker.

By doing it manually, I do sleep well at night (now).  Hope this helps.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From: s_doug...@ecrm.com[SMTP:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
> Reply To: s_doug...@ecrm.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 3:14 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re(2): Conducted Emissions, average method.
> 
> You guys kind of lost me. I program my 8591EM with the antenna, preamp,
> cable, limit and whatever factors. I push the measure button and get all
> three readings, PK, QP, AVG. I hope I am not off in left field assuming
> that my analyzer knows how to make CISPR measurements and I can take the
> readings I get as gospel. I manually tune the spectrum, pick a signal and
> measure it. I do also spend a lot of time a zero span so I can listen to
> the signals. My stuff is pretty easy to pick out once you know it. Whether
> it is lin or log, I don't know, log I guess. As for spectral plots, forget
> it, not available (no plotter). No computers either, except the Excel
> workbook on my desktop. I record the three readings above by hand and
> later put them in a spreadsheet. I only do that to make it pretty since
> the analyzer has already corrected my signals. So, somebody please tell me
> that I am NOT off in left field and can sleep tonight knowing I am OK.
> Please?
> 
> Scott
> s_doug...@ecrm.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: OATS

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

In addition, I would suggest to place your site as far as you can get it
from above-ground power poles.  

Our site is located about 250 feet from the closest power poles.  We started
out with a clean site with occasional random interference which eventually
grew until it washed out any meaningful measurements.  We established which
poles it came from with the use of a log periodic antenna and a 2x4
"baseball bat".  You could see immediate improvement while the power company
unwrapped and re-wrapped the wire on the insulators.

I hope you have more choices and better choices for a site location than we
had.

Don Umbdenstock

Sensormatic


> --
> From: Peter Lugg[SMTP:pe...@hpcpbla.bri.hp.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 9:48 AM
> To:   WOODS, RICHARD
> Cc:   emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com; "'PostOgFjarskiptast":
> "hjalmar arnason'"
> Subject:  Re: OATS
> 
> You may already be aware of this, however, based on personal
> experience I would endeavour to ensure that your
> OATS is constructed in an area where ambient signals are minimal.
> I.E away from industrial areas and as low as possible (in a valley?) in
> order to reduce levels of VHF interference.
> 
> Peter
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
> administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
administrators).

RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Another slant -- it may be your company's marketing strategy.  

For some of our products our compliance engineering group has determined
that the CE mark is sufficient for European markets; however, for marketing
reasons (read: "our customers like to see . . . ") we also obtain TUV
approval.  So some of our expense is strictly marketing related.  If the
payback is there, go for it!

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From: Dan Mitchell[SMTP:dmitch...@eoscorp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 8:26 PM
> To:   'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  Are all these agencies really necessary?
> 
> The company I work for routinely requests that I get certifications
> through 
> the following safety agencies:
>   UL, VDE, SEMKO, DEMKO, NEMKO, FIMKO, EZU, QAS, GOST and
>   ad nausium.
> 
> My question is this;  Are all these agencies necessary?  If you get a base
> 
> safety certification from say, UL, coupled with a CB Report/Cert and a 
> third party EMC/EMI report to FCC ClassB, and EN50022, why is it necessary
> 
> to get the safety agency for every country you want to sell in?
> Why can't this industry come up with an all encompassing mark, lets call
> it 
> the OM (for Overall Mark) that is granted to your product after you get
> the 
> following:
>   1.  Base safety cert (from your agency of choice)
>   2.  CB Report/Cert
>   3.  FCC/Cispr22 cert
> THe mark would allow you to sell your product in any country in the world.
> 
>  It makes alot more sense than the way it is done now.  I can spend up to
> 3 
> months waiting for a certification to come back from China.
> The cost is outragous also.  If we spend $30,000 on the certification 
> process, we count ourself lucky.  I believe that alot of these new
> agencies 
> that have been appearing on the scene over the last couple of years are in
> 
> it strictly to make a buck.  All they have to do is block your product
> from 
> their market unless you pay their extortion money.
> 
> I know that this is opening up a can of worms, but I would like to know if
> 
> there are other disgruntled safety persons out there that feel the same 
> way.
> 
> This view is strictly my own.
> Daniel W. Mitchell
> Product Safety
> EOS Corp.
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
> administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
administrators).

RE: FCC Part 15 Docket 20780

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Bob,

Regarding FCC Part 15 rules and Class A specifications, these are known as
47 CFR Part 15 ( Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47) and can be found on
line on the FCC Web page.  Go to the page for the Office of Engineering and
Technology, FCC Rules and Regulations.  You will find a section for October
1997, starting with "All 47 CFR Rule Parts" and ending with "Part 18".  You
want "Part 15".

Within Part 15, you will want to read the Subpart B, Digital Devices, in
particular subclause 15.107 and 15.109.  The Class A limits are contained in
these clauses.  

Let me know if this gets you started.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic Electronics Corp.

> --
> From: Bob Lowe[SMTP:rl...@ge-harris.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 6:24 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  FCC Part 15 Docket 20780
> 
> 
>   Can anyone tell me where I can find a copy of FCC Part 15 Docket 20780?
> I've searched the internet and FCC homepage, I've also called the FCC and
> the person I talked to was clueless.
> How is this different from FCC Part 15?
> Finally, where can I find copies of FCC Part 15 and FCC Class A
> specifications.
> 
> thanks - Bob Lowe
> 
>   RCIC - http://www.rcic.com
>   Regulatory Compliance Information Center
>   
> 
> 

RE: generating 50Hz power in the US

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Hello Richard,

We have used power converters that cover a range of voltage, frequency and
current for a few years.  The versatility of separate converters providing
different power requirements in various labs caused us to move away from a
single motor-generator to the converters.

The numbers you suggested below might be handled by a 5000 VA (Volt-Amp)
unit.  I suggest you forward your requirements to a converter vendor; they
will advise you regarding limits in start-up transients. 

We have a Hewlett Packard unit, a California Instruments unit and a Kikasui
unit near the 5kVA size.  The price is in the range of $10,000-25,000,
depending on whether you buy new, demo, used, or have good negotiating
skills. 

For this size unit, you will probably need more than a single phase power
source.  Your facilities staff or a qualified electrician can help you here.

Good luck,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

> --
> From: Richard Cass[SMTP:richard_c...@iris.scitex.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 9:37 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  generating 50Hz power in the US
> 
>  We want to do ongoing testing of an ITE product (here in the US) on
> 220 VAC 
>  50Hz power to simulate the European environment to make sure our
> power 
>  supply vendor is doing his job.  In this esteemed group's experience,
> what 
>  is best (i.e easiest, cheapest, most reliable) way to set this up.  I
> have 
>  an electrician describing scenarios of a 60Hz electric motor
> mechanically 
>  driving a 50Hz generator.  In this age of high power solid state 
>  electronics, I gotta believe there's a better way.   Please keep
> answers 
>  simple as I am only a lowly mechanical engineer (analogies to water
> running 
>  through pipes always is always big help to me).  At 120VAC our
> products 
>  pull 6 amps peak at start up and only 3 amps running.  I would never
> test 
>  more than 4 products at a time. 
>  
>  Thanks in advance for the usually invaluable help that I get from
> this 
>  group.
>  
>  Richard Cass
>  Iris Graphics, Inc. 
> 

FW: RFID European Rules

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I need some information regarding RFID systems in Europe:
>  
> What are the European limits for RFID systems operating at 2450 MHz -
> licensed and un-licensed operation.  If an RFID product currently requires
> 500 mW EIRP to operate at an acceptable range, what rules would apply?
> Will the product require a site license?  Are there any new standards
> being written that will raise the limits to allow un-licensed operation at
> 500 mW, 2450 MHz?  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Don Umbdenstock
> Sensormatic
> 
> 

RE: Need help on non-ionizing radiation

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Doug,

In the USA, IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28 (SCC 28) revised the
ANSI C95.1 in 1991.  This standard has subsequently been identified as
ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz".  This
standard addresses exposure limits, rationale and some measurement
procedures.  I understand that it has recently been re-affirmed.

In addition, the IEEE issued a measurement standard IEEE Std C95.3-1991,
titled "IEEE Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Potentially
Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields -- RF and Microwave"

In Canada, the Dept of Health and Welfare issued exposure guide identified
as Safety Code 6, "Limits of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields at
Frequencies from 10 kHz - 300 GHz".  This guide has just recently been
revised.

In Europe, the standards writing body known as CENELEC has issued an interim
standard identified as ENV 50166-2, "Human Exposure to Electromagnetic
fields High frequency (10 kHz- 300 GHz", Jan 1995.

Hope this helps.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic




> --
> From: do...@ftc2.aei.com[SMTP:do...@ftc2.aei.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 8:08 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Need help on non-ionizing radiation 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Group,
> 
> I am seeking information on non-ionizing radiation, primarily for
> workplace 
> safety.   I am not actually concerned about the on-going controversy
> dealing 
> with low-level radiation (VDTs, overhead lines, etc.).  This is not to say
> I 
> don't care, but I am currently interested in high-level non-ionizing 
> radiation which may actually be high enough to cause tissue heating.  US 
> standards are probably most applicable but information from any source is 
> welcome.
> 
> My company, among other things builds High Power RF fixed and variable 
> frequency generators ranging from 100 kHz to 40 MHz at power levels now 
> approaching 120 kW for some frequencies.  Many times during test and
> repair 
> these generators must be operated with the covers open.
> 
>  -  What are acceptable limits?
>  -  How do I monitor/measure?
> 
> I have heard stories of a device (probe?) which resembles a bathroom scale
> 
> and may be connected to a spectrum analyzer.  A person or human body model
> 
> stands on the device.  It operates on the idea that electromagnetic 
> radiation received by a human body is conducted out through the ground 
> below.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help.
> 
> Doug Powell
> Compliance Engineer
> Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
> Ft. Collins, Colorado USA
> 
> 

Islands -- Vcc, Ground

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

While reviewing the EMI mitigation techniques of our engineers, a few of
us have been debating the use of ground islands on a multilayer board.

The designs have one layer for Vcc, one for ground and 2 signal layers.
The Vcc layer is isolated into various islands.  The debate involves the
segregation of grounds.  

The benefit of isolating digital from analog ground is understood.  The
question is whether I/O ground should be isolated from processor ground.
Some schools of thought say keep the ground plane whole for lowest
impedance, stitching it to the chassis ground through conductive
stand-offs periodically.  Some prescribe segregating I/O from processor
ground, being careful where to place chassis connection points to
prevent ground loops and ground reference corruption.

I would be interested in hearing from the forum what your pet approach
is and why you believe it works for your situation.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic Electronics Corporation

RE: FTZ standards

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Andrew,

I believe the FTZ is defunct, has been for a couple of years now.  FTZ
was the office that managed transmitters in Germany.  If my information
is correct, the BAPT (Federal Office for Post and Telecommunication) now
manages issues and generates regulations for transmitters.  Most
regulations are being harmonized with ETSI (European Telecommunications
Standards Institute) standards.  For example, BAPT 222 ZV 122 is based
on ETS 300 330.  If you need something regarding an FTZ regulation that
may be archived, I recommend that you contact BAPT.  

The address given on the front of a document I have simply states 
Federal Office for Post and Telecommunication
35003 Mainz

 I hope this helps.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic Electronics Corporation

> --
> From: Andrew Bank[SMTP:and...@cssinfo.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 4:15 PM
> To:   EMC
> Subject:  FTZ standards
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I am looking for something called FTZ standards.  I believe they
> originate in Germany someplace.  DIN doesn't seem to know what they
> are.  Do you?
> 
> BTW...this does not stand for Federal Trade Zone, not in this case
> anyway...
> 
> --
> Andrew Bank
> CSS, Inc.
> (800) 699-9277  (734) 930-9277
> fax (734) 930-9088
> 
> 

RE: Strange specification

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

John,

MPR 1990:8 is the standard for Test Methods for Visual Display Units.
It deals with visual ergonomics as well as emission characteristics.  A
companion document, MPR 1990:10 is the User's Handbook for Evaluating
Visual Display Units.  I believe the current name of the standards group
is SWEDAC.  

The address I have from the front cover (might not be current as this is
a 1990 standard) is as follows:
MPR 
Box 878
S-501 15
Boras, Sweden

The other standard replaces "MPR" with "SWEDAC" in the address.


Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic Electronics Corp  

> --
> From: John Harrington[SMTP:jharring...@ktl.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 9:06 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Strange specification
> 
> Dear all
> 
> We have recently been asked to perform magnetic VDT
> measurements to MPR II (1990:8).
> 
> Does any one know of this specification or even what a VDT 
> measurement is?
> 
> Any help or hints greatly appreciated
> 
> John Harrington
> EMC Group Manager, KTL
> Telephone : +44 (0) 1482 801801
> Fax : +44 (0) 1482 801806
> email : jharring...@ktl.co.uk
> 

RE: NSA tests services

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Bonjour Benoit,

There are numerous qualified labs that can assist you.

I have had good luck with Elite Electronic Engineering Co.  They helped
us perform our NSA and trained us when we first set up our sites.  They
operate OATS as well as anechoic chambers, so they should be able to
help you.  

Contact:Jim Klouda
1616 Centre Circle
Downers Grove, Illinois 605515

Phone:  630 - 495 - 9770
Good luck

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic Electronics Corporation

> --
> From: Benoit Nadeau[SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 12:59 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  NSA tests services
> 
> Bonjour de Montreal,
> 
> I am presently looking for an outside test laboratory that is capable
> of
> performing a Normalized Site Attenuation test according to the latest
> version of CISPR22, ANSI C63.4 and the 1997 edition of the VCCI
> requirements (with a 80 MHz tuned dipole from 30 to 80 MHz).
> 
> We have two sites to qualify, a 3 meters (5 meters height)
> semi-anechoic
> chamber and an all-weather 10 meters Open Area Test Site. Matrox is
> located
> in Dorval (Quebec) Canada on the Montreal island (5 Km north of Dorval
> airport).
> 
> Can anybody can guide me to providers of that type of services or
> share
> some experiences (good or bad).
> 
> Thank you in advance,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.eng., M.eng)
> Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager)
> Matrox 
> --
> 
> 
> 1055, boul. St-Regis
> Dorval (Quebec) Canada
> H9P 2T4
> 
> Tel : (514) 969-6000 (x2475)
> FAX : (514) 969-6275
> Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, 
> 

Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Ed et al,

My apologies for the incomplete email.  In my attempt to keep my
response brief, I was perhaps brutally brief.

In my efforts to understand and control the contributing factors of site
correlation, I had sent my antennas to Liberty Labs.  I spoke with their
President, Mr. Mike Howard about my needs.  Mike was very helpful in
explaining the evolution of bicon antennas and pointed out the
differences that I should expect.  In fact, he was right on the money.

The "older" model that I have is an EMCO 3104C. This model is calibrated
with an orientation marker as the balun is apparently not balanced as
well as later designs.   According to Mike, EMCO also sells models that
are matched and have stubs to control the effects of self-resonance at a
particular frequency.  Mike had informed me that the EMCO 3110 was a
"newer" model that had overcome some of the old problems of balance.
This appears to be the case as it was our 2 year old 3110 that exhibited
the <1 dB variation with polarity and geometry, v and h, 3 and 10
meters.

The 3104C was at our company long before I came aboard.   I should have
had it checked for proper operation prior to calibration as one
respondent had suggested he does as a matter of routine.  The
performance of my 3104 may be due to design limitations or due to
previous use of an unknown nature.  That's my next step.

My thanks to the many people who have made this discussion a lively,
informative dialogue.

Regards,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic


 --
From: ed.pr...@cubic.com
To: UMBDENSTOCK, DON
Cc: 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group'
Subject: Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 12:32PM


 --- On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:12:00 -0400  "UMBDENSTOCK, DON"
 wrote:
>
> Great dialog, just the path that I was hoping would develop.
>
> One thing I have learned since the question was first asked, all
> biconical antennas are not made equal.  The original antenna
calibrated
> at an outside test organization, exhibited a 5 dB difference between
the
> vertical and horizontal polarizations at 3 meters in the frequency
range
> of 30 - 50 MHz.
>
> Another antenna subsequently calibrated at the same organization had
> less than 1 dB difference between v and h, 1m and 10 m.  This outcome
> was more in line with the expected outcome of the calibration per
C63.5
> which stated "minor variations with polarizations and geometries"
where
> geometries is understood to mean test distances.
>
> Don Umbdenstock
> Sensormatic

 ---End of Original Message-
Don:

Not meaning to single you out, but your post tweaked a concern
of mine.
Are we all operating in a sense of fear in this forum? Do we
really have to obfuscate the facts by referring to an "original antenna"
and "another antenna"?
Or am I the only one who would like to know exactly which
antenna and test lab that you're talking about?

Ed

 --
Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
619-505-2780
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 08/26/97
Time: 08:32:35
 --

Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Great dialog, just the path that I was hoping would develop.

One thing I have learned since the question was first asked, all
biconical antennas are not made equal.  The original antenna calibrated
at an outside test organization, exhibited a 5 dB difference between the
vertical and horizontal polarizations at 3 meters in the frequency range
of 30 - 50 MHz.

Another antenna subsequently calibrated at the same organization had
less than 1 dB difference between v and h, 1m and 10 m.  This outcome
was more in line with the expected outcome of the calibration per C63.5
which stated "minor variations with polarizations and geometries"  where
geometries is understood to mean test distances.

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

 --
From: chasgra...@aol.com
To: 72146@compuserve.com; chris_dup...@compuserve.com;
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 5:20AM

This has turned into an interesting discussion.

1. On the question of Class A vs Class B etc.. I vaguely remember that
the
genesis of the FCC limits for Class A & Class B were indeed derived from
the
concerns of installation. As I recall, extensive research went into
examination of the sensitivities of television receivers and apatment
complexes and as a result the 3M test distance and Class B limits were
born
for residential applications. Of course this was back in the 70s when
300 ohm
cabling for TVs was in vogue!!.

Naturally the FCC recognized that not all EMI problems would be resolved
by
design/testing alone. Chris is correct in his statement that the
emissions
test bears little resemblelance to reality. The FCC ( & others) insist
on
warning statements etc.

(I believe the VDE has the honor of having the FIRST legal EMI
requirements.
In the original 0871 standards they were more concerned with conducted
limits
 - hence their severity. The Class A radiated limits had relief in
certain
bands that allowed for very high emissions indeed.)

2. Mutual coupling (?)
Reading the e-mails on enhanced emissions at 3M vertically polarized
generated some thoughts.

2.1 I have discussed the issue of calibrating an antenna using ANSI
C63.5
(horizontal only) and testing using ANSI C63.4 (v&h) with one of the
authors
involved in BOTH standards. The answer I get consistently is that:
a) we need to calibrate in "free space" ( or close to it)
 b) calibrating an antenna with V& H makes the test look
like the
NSA and

Antenna Calibration

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Hello Group.

We are trying to establish correlation between our site and a site in
Europe.  One of the issues is antenna calibration.

Due to ambients, we do our tests at 3 meters.  Because we measure at 3
meters, we also did the NSA profile at 3 meters and had our antennas
calibrated at a 3 meter distance. Striving to have the most accurate
measurements, both NSA and actual product test data, we also had the
antennas calibrated in both the horizontal and vertical polarization at
an outside test lab.  According to C63.5, broadband antennas as
typically used in measurements between 30 MHz and 1 GHz, will have only
a small variation in antenna factors between the vertical and horizontal
polarizations.  Therefore, the usual antenna factors provided are for
the horizontal polarization only.

We are using a biconical antenna for low band and log periodic for high
band.  For the bicon, imagine my surprise when I found the difference in
antenna calibration factors between horizontal and vertical polarization
to be as much as 5 dB.  If I used the horizontal factors only for
vertical measurements, I could be noncompliant with the NSA +/- 4dB
window due to this disparity alone.

Has anyone had a similar experience?  What should be typical differences
in antenna factors between horizontal and vertical polarizations?

Regards,
Don Umbdenstock

umbdenst...@sensormatic.com

13.56 MHz Restrictions Worldwide

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Does anyone know where I can find information on the restrictions of
using 13.56 MHz (ISM band) for transmitters/intentional radiators?  I
have information regarding FCC and ETSI regulations; I would like to
know what the current and proposed regulations are elsewhere worldwide
for this band.

Anyone know of any good sources for this type of search?  Any
information would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic

IEC 1000-4-5

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

We have recently purchased a 5kVA source for harmonic and flicker
testing.  The instrument also doubles as a power converter to provide
European voltages, including the source voltage when performing IEC
1000-4-5 surge testing.

My situation is this:

The surge generator has a backfilter on it that allows (per the
standard) up to 30% let-through of the applied transient.  In common
mode (transient applied to the line and neutral simultaneously  with
respect to earth), the let-through disturbs the output of the source and
the source resets, even at applied transients as low as 500V.

We are currently in discussions with the 2 manufacturers regarding this
situation.  Has anyone else experienced a similar situation?  What
worked for you without affecting the calibration of the output transient
waveform?

I am interested to hear your experiences.  I would also like to know how
you approached the European power source issue, i.e., motor-generator,
electronic source, other?  What size source did you find adequate to
mirror the results obtained by European test labs?

Best regards

Don Umbdenstock

RE: RF fields and biological effects

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Mark,

Some publications that may help you are as follows:

ANSI/IEEE C95.1, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz.

American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, Handbook of
Threshold Limit Values...Biological Exposure Indices

Health Canada Safety Code 6

VDE 0848, Part 2, Safety at Electromagnetic Fields...0 to 30 kHz, Part
4, Safety at Electromagnetic Fields...10 kHz to 3000 GHz.

CENELEC  Standards ENV 50166-1 and -2, Human Exposure to Electromagnetic
Fields from 0 Hz to 300 GHz.

Many of these have a section on rationale as well as limits and include
extensive references, useful for further investigation.

The Bioelectromagnetic Society (BEMS) charges a modest fee for
membership and includes a newsletter and updated journal on research
going on in this area.

An association called Electomagnetic Energy Association (EEA) provides
courses on background and fields effects, and newsletters to members on
current legislative activities around the world (202-452-1070).

Another organization is the IEEE COMAR, Committee on Man and Radiation.

Together these organizations will be able to answer all of the questions
you have posed below.

Don Umbdenstock
umbdenst...@sensormatic.com

 --
From: Mark Montrose
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RF fields and biological effects
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 2:48AM


Greetings.

I am interested in locating a web page, resource, or on-line information
to
provide answers to the following. Low frequency, i.e., 50/60 Hz, ELF and
VLF fields are "not" a concern for these questions.  I am interested in
higher frequency RF fields.

1.   Typical self-resonant frequency range of the human body?  How to
calculate it.

2.   What kind of "high frequency" RF fields, either magnetic or
electric
cause biological harm?

3.   At what frequency ranges (microwave, radar, etc.) is biological
harm
noted?

4.   What power levels are required in the GHz range, or even in the
30-300
MHz range to cause harm, (25V/m, 60V/m, 100V/m, etc.)?

5.   How long does one need to be exposed to high intensity radiated
fields
before effects are noted?

6.   Does the US Government or any international standard exists related
to
SAR (specific absorption rate) or recommendation for safe levels?

7.   What are typical symptoms if one has been exposed to dangerous
field
levels,
whatever they may be?

8.   Is there any published studies on high frequency RF effects in the
public domain, not ELF, VLF studies?

9.   Are there any known "factual" and "documented" cases of biological
harm reported (besides the Florida woman who allegedly died of brain
cancer
from
using a cell phone that is currently in the courts)?

Thanks

 --Mark Montrose--
mmont...@ix.netcom.com

German Regulations

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

I have been informed that Germany has adopted I-ETS 300330 with
exceptions.

Does anyone know where I can find an English version of

1)   the German document "Vfg 5/1996"?

2)   the formally issued German document BAPT 222 ZV 122, March 1997? (
I have a
 draft copy, Sept 96 version).  Alternatively, can anyone point out the
differences, if any,
 between the Sept draft and the released document?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Don Umbdenstock

Australian Regulation, Low Interference Potential Devices

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Spectrum Management Agency  has announced its intentions to revise its
regulations for LIPDs.  Comments are due by May 2, 1997.  It appears
that the text of the European Standard for Short Range Devices, I-ETS
300330 is being adopted in the form of AS4268.1 -- 1996; however, SMA
has indicated exceptions to the limits.  The exceptions are stated in
Table ZZ1 in Appendix ZZ, "Variations for Australia (Normative)".

The difference between the European transmitter limits and the
Australian transmitter limits are large.  As an example, in the range of
20-70 kHz, the difference is 12.5 vs 72 dBuA/m @ 10m, Australia vs
Europe respectively.   This level is lower than the low frequency
spurious limits identified in the European version of the standard.

My guess is that there must be a difference in measurement practices.
Does anyone know anything about the basis for the proposed Australian
limits or the measurement practice used?  Have I misinterpreted the
limits or applicable tables?  Any other forum that this question should
be forwarded to?

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Don Umbdenstock

ERGONOMICS/Color Red Restrictions

[UMBDENSTOCK, DON]

Does anyone know if there are any formal restrictions to using  red
colored lights for front panel displays and indicators?

Is there a harmonized European standard or regulation or a specific
national regulation that requires the restriction of the color red for
warning, danger, etc.

It seems it may have been a German ergonomic requirement before various
standards were harmonized.  Can anyone shed some light on this issue?

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic