Re: Can someone identify this ferrite?
Phil, KG parts are supplied in the US by: IM Intermark (USA), Inc One Penn Plaza-Suite 4526 New York, NY 10119-0001 (212) 629-3620 (212) 967-3948 fax The person I deal with is Cristian Radu (Sales Engineer). Hope this helps, Brian Kunde LECO Corp. Tania, It sounds like a Kitagawa SFC-10. Sorry I can't help if you need a US- based supplier but they are easily available here in UK, so I doubt you will have a problem. Regards, PFORD at HVTVM GBXYR7PW at IBMMAIL Phillip Ford phil_f...@uk.xyratex.com ext 3255 tel:+44 (0)1705 443255 fax:+44 (0)1705 499315 Engineering Lab, 871/24-22X Y R A T E X *** Forwarding note from I1467402--IBMMAIL 11/04/97 06:30 *** From: tania.gr...@octel.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:02:27 -0700 Subject: Can someone identify this ferrite? To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org While performing emission testing, we have discovered that a certain ferrite performed better than some others, however, we cannot identify the source. It is a standard issue, almost square, clamshell type housing to be used with a cable approximately 10 mm diameter, with an outer off-white plastic case with the following markings: KG (italics) inside a rectangle, molded on one side SFC-10 sticky-on white label on the other side If anyone is familiar with this type, I would be most grateful if you could identify it. Thank you. Tania Grant, Octel Communications Corporation tania.gr...@octel.com End of mail text Additional SMTP headers from original mail item follow: Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Fri, 11 Apr 97 01:28:47 EDT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA02000 for emc-pstc-list; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 22:08:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00056659.3...@corp.octel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tania.gr...@octel.com X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: YUn?Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
Re: "golden" computers
HP Vectra computer has very good margin. That is what I use. I have more trouble with monitors than computers. I found the NEC Multisync XV17+ monitor is very good. HP Inkjet printers have been a good quiet peripheral in the past but a Deskjet 680C I recently tested had high peak levels when the printer loaded and ejected paper. These emissions would quasipeak well within the limits but I like to find peripherals that has good PEAK margins. We have a 10 meter semi-anachoic chamber for performing automated emissions testing. If we are testing a peripheral, the testing goes a lot faster if the necessary non-EUTs has very low PEAK emissions. If anyone else has additional recommendations for quiet computers, peripherals, and add-on cards please let me know. I want to compile a list and make it available on the internet (unless it already exists). I would even consider testing for free a limited number of peripherals to add to the list if the manuafacturer would provide a "production" unit for testing. Good idea? Bad idea? Let me know what you think. Brian Kunde Compliance Testing Center LECO Corp brian_ku...@leco.com 616-982-5423 Greetings, I have seen this discussion before and I apoligize in advance if I am re-hashing old information. I have a computer peripheral which needs to be FCC Class B ceritfied. I have tried several host computers and the hosts tend to have "poor" margins (i.e. less than 0). The peripheral is low speed and plugs into the serial port. So far we have seen no difference in emission level whether it is on or off. Does anyone have a recommendation for a "golden" computer which actually meets the FCC Class B limits with some margin (>6dB)? Am I better off using one right out of the box rather than one that has been on someones desk for awhile? Thanks in advance Jim Nadolny AMP Inc. jim.nado...@amp.com
Self Declare to FCC-B
My company manufactures products that do no legally have to have FCC. Because of the EMC directive in Europe we are testing our products and self declaring compliance to EN55011 class B. Our products also comply to the FCC class B requirements but we do not wish to go through the added cost and time to obtain an FCC grant or to have our products tested to an accredited test lab. I know I can self declare to FCC-A but would like to self declare to class B. I have a problem with the last sentence in the required class A text; "Operation of this equipment in a residential area is likely to cause harmful interference in which case the user will be required to correct the interference at their own expense". THIS WOULD BE A LIE because my product meets the class B requirements. If I self declare to class A, can I omit or change the last sentence to be more correct or reflex the fact that my product meets class B? Why can't I self declare FCC class B? I'm not stating anything that is not true. Has anyone out there tried self declaring to FCC class B using test data from your own lab? If so, any suggestions on labeling and user manual text? Thanks for you time. Brian Kunde LECO Corp.
Re[FINAL]: Self Declare to FCC-B
Just wanted to thank everyone that responded to my questions. I got a good education in semantics as well as the FCC rules. The information pertaining to the FCC web site was great! Wow, soft copy of part 15!! Thanks again to all, Brian Kunde LECO Corp.
LISN MATE
I'm looking for a source for devices known as: LISN MATE & LISN MARK They were designed and build years ago by Mark Nave. I understand that these devices are used as troubleshooting aids to help determine if a line conducted emission is common mode or differential. There may also be schematics of these designs around so someone could construct there own. Does anyone have any information about these devices? Thanks, Brian Kunde LECO Corp Compliance Testing Center
Surge Suppressors - OK to use or NOT?
Dear Colleagues, Sorry to once again bring up the issue on surge suppressors. I have received some very good information so far, but I still do not have a practical solution. I have a high powered power supply that fails the IEC1000-4-5 test during the 2kV line to earth test. An MOV from line to ground allows this supply to pass. I am told by most sources that "Surge Suppressing" devices from line to ground is not allowed. PERIOD! BUT now, I have received information from TUV that says, "If a Varistor transient suppressor is separately approved according to Publications IEC 1051-1 and IEC 1051-2, it can be accepted without a protective device". I'm not familiar with these standards. Does anyone make such a device? Will such a device protect my product from a 2kV line to earth surge? TUV goes on to say; "If a Varistor transient suppressor is NOT separately approved, a protective device against the short-circuit is require." In this case, I understand that a Gas-Tube spark gap AND a fuse in series with the varistor are necessary. Summary Questions: 1. So can a surge suppressor approved to IEC-1051 REALLY be used in products for Europe? 2. Can this part truly be used alone, without the protection devices? 3. What companies make such a device? 4. Will such a device suppress the 2kV surge generated during the IEC1000-4-5 test? 5. If I go the second route, what requirements must the spark gap and fuse meet? Does someone make a part that incorporates these devices in one part? 6. Are there other (and maybe better) ways to solve my compliance problem? Thank you, Brian Kunde Group Leader Compliance Testing Center LECO Corporation 3000 Lakeview Ave. St. Joseph, MI 49085 (616) 982-5423 phone (616) 982-8964 fax brian_ku...@leco.com - 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: Ozone...
Chris, I researched this issue last year when my father was looking to purchase one of those Room Air Purifiers that uses Ozone. I found all the information I needed from two web sites: American Lung Association and the EPA. Basically they say that Ozone levels greater that .05ppm can damage the lungs. I believe the EPA has a chart that shows the Ozone level verses exposure time. For instance, if I remember right, a person can be exposed to .08ppm for up to 8 hours per day. Check out these sources. I'm sure they have updated information on this subject since last year. Brian -- From: Chris Dupres Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 6:07 PM To: emc-pstc Subject:Ozone... Good PSTC People. Is Ozone a toxin? Many years ago I had a factory inspector threaten to close down some High Voltage test equipment because there was too much Ozone being produced. Lately we have had bad vibes about a Xerox copier making too much Ozone and threats of ill health etc. to operators. So my questions are: Are there any legal limits on the production of Ozone? Is it dangerous/what are the physiological effects? Where can I find out about it? Why do they sell Ozone generators for use in kitchens and bathrooms, does it get rid of smells etc.? Why do I get a headache and a tight chest when I'm around this stuff? Funny stuff, Ozone. Sure makes screws go rusty very quickly! Any information anybody wants to share? Chris Dupres Surrey, UK. - 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: EMC limits.
Chris, I used to have a boss that said, "If you're going 55mph in a 55mph zone are you braking the law?" This used to drive us EMC engineers and technicians crazy. It was our signature on the test reports and when a production audit unit would fail by a small margin then how do we answer the question, "It passed before, why does it fail now"? This is our motivation for requiring margin. Failing in the field by any concernable amount is highly unlikely if you do a good job designing and building a repeatable product and perform regular production audits. What you don't want is to have to re-tweak the product during each audit to make it pass. This will cost a company much more in engineering design changes than designing the margin in at the beginning. We also had a unit audited by SEMKO a few years ago. They found the unit 2db over the CISPR22 limit, yet passed the unit due to "normal variations in calibration tolerances". This assured us that the governing authorities out there are not out to "get you" if your product fails by a small margin. There are bigger fish to catch if you know what I mean. Brian PS: The examples I give in this email occurred while employed at a previous company. Those of you who know me and worked together in the past will have no choice but smile when you remember the "old days". -- From: Chris Dupres Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 2:15 AM To: emc-pstc Subject:EMC limits. EMC Folk. I have been reading all the learned submissions of what constitutes the acceptable emission limits for EMC purposes. Most of you are very clever, very technical, and I'm in awe of all of you. But there seems to be a bit of a missed point here. EMC in Europe relates to the EMC Directive, which was born of the SIngle Market arrangements between Euro States, and which were born of the Treaty of Rome way back before my kids were born. The ultimate purpose of EMC Standards/limits is to provide a level trading platform for Euro countries, so that all conditions are equal in the market place, and that no-one can steal a lead over someone else by dropping technical standards and therefore saving costs and putting cheaper goods on the market. It follows that perhaps we should look at these limits in the same way that the packaging industry looks at filling cans and bottles, or the way car drivers treat speed limits. i.e, that the EMC emission limits are a target in absolute terms, and if you can show honest intent in achieving them, then the legislation has achieved it's aim. If I carry out an honest emissions test on a piece of equipment, and the graph is below the line by the thickness of the pen, then I believe that the spirit of the EMC Directive has been met. If this acceptance level was an absolute amount, such as money in banking, then I would allow a % for measurement error, but it isn't, it's an objective. No-ones head is going to explode if the emissions are 0.5dB over limit, and in all honesty dropping the emissions by 0.5dB can usually be achieved by moving a cable or snapping on a ferrite sleeve. Hardly enough to change the whole balance of trade in Europe is it? So, if I carry out properly conducted tests, with the equipment working normally, and it shows emissions right on the limit, then I think the EMC Directive has been followed, and the equipment can be CE marked with honesty and placed on the market. Just a tuppence worth (what's THAT in Euro's?) Chris Dupres Surrey, UK. - 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).
CE Requirements for Marine equipment
A company I'm representing manufacturers Engine Panels and Pilot House Controls for boats, yachts, and tankers. Most of the components in these assemblies are gauges and mechanical controls, but some incorporate electronic gauges and controls. On a recent contract with a European boat manufacturer, we have been asked to verify these type of assemblies to meet the European requirements for application of the CE marking. Is there a new approach directive that this type of product would fall under? If so, what standards would apply? If not, what tests and levels would some of you experienced people recommend we test this product to keeping in mind the environment in which it will operate? Thank you in advance. Happy holiday. Brian Kunde Group Leader Compliance Testing Center LECO Corporation 3000 Lakeview Ave. St. Joseph, MI 49085 (616) 982-5423 phone (616) 982-8964 fax brian_ku...@leco.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).
FW: Harmonic Distortion Test >16 amp/phase
Our company builds laboratory equipment. Some of our products draws less than 16 amp per phase and some draws more (currently up to 45 amps). We wish to purchase the test equipment to perform the EN61000-3-2 test but have held off not knowing what requirements might show up in the future EN61000-3-4 standard. We would like to purchase a tester that will not only meet our current <16amp requirement but also our future >16 amp requirements. 1. What is the current status of the EN61000-3-4? Any idea of when it may become a requirement? How might the test or levels differ from that of the current EN61000-3-2? 2. To purchase the equipment to power a 45 amp instrument is very expensive. Are there alternatives? We have a 75KW motor generator. Is it possible that the output from this generator would be adequate for testing? How about only for instruments that draw greater than 16 amps? Any additional comments, suggestions, hints or tips would be most appreciated. Brian - 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).
Harmonic Distortion Test >16 amp/phase
Our company builds laboratory equipment. Some of our products draws less than 16 amp per phase and some draws more (currently up to 45 amps). We wish to purchase the test equipment to perform the EN61000-3-2 test but have held off not knowing what requirements might show up in the future EN61000-3-4 standard. We would like to purchase a tester that will not only meet our current <16amp requirement but also our future >16 amp requirements. 1. What is the current status of the EN61000-3-4? Any idea of when it may become a requirement? How might the test or levels differ from that of the current EN61000-3-2? 2. To purchase the equipment to power a 45 amp instrument is very expensive. Are there alternatives? We have a 75KW motor generator. Is it possible that the output from this generator would be adequate for testing? How about only for instruments that draw greater than 16 amps? Any additional comments, suggestions, hints or tips would be most appreciated. Brian - 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).
EN61000-4-3 Hints and Tips
It's that time of year again where our lab must perform the dreaded "Calibration of Field" test for the EN61000-4-3 standard "Radiated Immunity". If you performed the test as explained in the standard (section 6) moving the Field Probe to each of the 16 positions for each frequency for both vertical and horizontal and for us at 3V/m and 10V/m power levels, you have to go inside the chamber over 17,000 times. Because this is not practical, I assume that most labs measure all frequencies at each of the 16 positions. This reduces the number of trips into the chamber to only 64, but you still have to deal with over 17,000 pieces of data. What we currently do is level at each frequency to the desired field strength (lets say 3V/m) and store the output level of the Signal Generator. Repeat this for all 16 positions. Then for each frequency throw away the 4 highest values and keep the fifth. This is the data that we will use during the test. This will take us anywhere from 3-5 days to gather and calculate all the data. There is got to be a better way, hopefully easier and quicker. I'm very interested in how other labs perform this annual procedure. Any hints or Tips would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance, Brian - 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).
