Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

[Gert Gremmen]

Good Morning Charlie,

Indeed, there is a different regime in art 17 for conformance to article 
3.1 (a) (safety) and 3.1 (b) (emc) , and 3.2 (radio) and 3.3 (others)


I overlooked the word EMC. Noted.

To resume, Art 17 describes the conformance procedures:

3.1 a)  Annex I + reasonable foreseeable conditions

3.1 b) Annex I

3.2  Annex I  if HS  otherwise annex III or IV

3.3 Annex I if HS  otherwise annex III or IV

Note that as ageneral rule when NO HS are applied for 3.1 a) or b)  art 
16 denies the presumption of conformity principle, which obliges the 
manufacturer to obtain proof of conformity with an additional means.


In addition, Annex V requires additional : "descriptions of the 
solutions applied "  (under (d) ) for non HS parts.



 Gert

On 26-3-2022 21:43, Charlie Blackham wrote:


Gert


Indeed, but it implies that for the RED another compliance route need 
to be choosen (see annexes to the RED)


I’m not sure what you mean by this statement – the manufacturer can 
follow Annex II and self declare where HS have been applied for 
article 3.2 (and 3.3 if applicable) irrespective of whether HS have 
been applied for Article 3.1(a) and (b) – this is laid out in Article 17.


Best regards

Charlie**

**

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Web: **https://sulisconsultants.com/* <https://sulisconsultants.com/>**

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

*From:*Gert Gremmen 
*Sent:* 26 March 2022 10:02
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

of the standards to which they were tested.>

The trend is to not harmonise the -1 version of this (and other series) in the 
future,
the -1 instead will be normatively referenced in any of the applied subparts, 
that WILL be harmonised (once approved).
By normatively referencing, the referenced clauses from the -1 will be part of the 
"text with legal effect" in the subpart.
conformity>

This implies that you will need a third party to prove your compliance status 
i.e. a Notified Body for 2014/53/EU (art 3.2)

Indeed, but it implies that for the RED another compliance route need 
to be choosen (see annexes to the RED)

The many subparts of EN 301 489 are on their way to harmonisation.
However the process of creating standards (= adapting to EU 
requirements) is slow, and many stakeholders are involved.
Since to-be-listed standards need up to 4 HAS-assessments each 
followed by a round of modifications at ETSI,

each taking 3-9 months, the delays can be huge.
(HAS is the EU-process where candidate HS are being scrutinized for 
their suitability to be listed. To a great part this comes down
on verifying if the presented requirements can stand up in a legal 
sense, are exhaustive and precise,

contain no duplicates to EU legislation, and are to the state of the art.
In some cases a normatively referenced standard can block 
harmonisation if the referenced standard has severe deficiencies.)

Gert Gremmen

On 26-3-2022 9:21, T.Sato wrote:

Although non-harmonised standards will not give presumption of conformity,

--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 


--
Independent Expert on CE marking

Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

[Charlie Blackham]

Gert




Indeed, but it implies that for the RED another compliance route need to be 
choosen (see annexes to the RED)

I’m not sure what you mean by this statement – the manufacturer can follow 
Annex II and self declare where HS have been applied for article 3.2 (and 3.3 
if applicable) irrespective of whether HS have been applied for Article 3.1(a) 
and (b) – this is laid out in Article 17.

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Gert Gremmen 
Sent: 26 March 2022 10:02
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1






The trend is to not harmonise the -1 version of this (and other series) in the 
future,

the -1 instead will be normatively referenced in any of the applied subparts, 
that WILL be harmonised (once approved).

By normatively referencing, the referenced clauses from the -1 will be part of 
the "text with legal effect" in the subpart.









This implies that you will need a third party to prove your compliance status 
i.e. a Notified Body for 2014/53/EU (art 3.2)









Indeed, but it implies that for the RED another compliance route need to be 
choosen (see annexes to the RED)



The many subparts of EN 301 489 are on their way to harmonisation.

However the process of creating standards (= adapting to EU requirements) is 
slow, and many stakeholders are involved.

Since to-be-listed standards need up to 4 HAS-assessments each followed by a 
round of modifications at ETSI,

each taking 3-9 months, the delays can be huge.



(HAS is the EU-process where candidate HS are being scrutinized for their 
suitability to be listed. To a great part this comes down

 on verifying if the presented requirements can stand up in a legal sense, are 
exhaustive and precise,

contain no duplicates to EU legislation, and are to the state of the art.

In some cases a normatively referenced standard can block harmonisation if the 
referenced standard has severe deficiencies.)





Gert Gremmen


On 26-3-2022 9:21, T.Sato wrote:

Although non-harmonised standards will not give presumption of conformity,

--

Independent Expert on CE marking

EMC Consultant

Electrical Safety Consultant
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

[Gert Gremmen]

years. It's also possible that EU legislation has changed during that time.>


Indeed, there is an urgent need to speed up the process of standards 
creation/modification, as both have happened, though it is more a 
process of iteration to get to a final acceptable result.


That said, the consensus process in creating standards is difficult to 
upgrade, seen how this is currently organized.


An quite ambitious effort of the Commission ( 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_661) to 
limit the decision  process  for EU-standards to EU stakeholders  (only) 
may help.


(This has of course the added inconvenience of creating a potential 
divergence between International and European versions of standards, I 
personally believe however, that the majority of the world will follow 
the EU-versions, simply because it is too expensive to create multiple 
approved versions of equipment. )


but most "field" problems are not caused by state of the art problems, 
but occur due to insufficient knowledge of technical committees on legal 
concepts, by for example allowing 2 different but (thought) equivalent 
tests for one requirement. The uncertainty caused by having the 
manufacturer make an open choice between 2 test methods is legally not 
acceptable. If test are different, than it means that there can be 
different results under different test conditions. Otherwise a single 
test would be sufficient as specification. Creating sufficient guiding 
to support 2 tests can be quite challenging, if this needs to be precise 
and exhaustive. Gert Gremmen


On 26-3-2022 11:50, John Woodgate wrote:
The 'state of the art' is quite likely to have moved on in less than 3 
years. It's also possible that EU legislation has changed during that 
time.


--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
begin:vcard
fn:Gert Gremmen
n:Gremmen;Gert
adr:;;Lieu Dit Pirot;Chauffailles;;71170;France
email;internet:g.grem...@cetest.nl
tel;cell:+33 7 84507010
note;quoted-printable:Independent Expert on CE marking =
	=0D=0A=
	Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED, LVD=
	 and EMC=0D=0A=
	EMC Consultant=0D=0A=
	Electrical Safety Consultant=0D=0A=
	
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

[Gert Gremmen]

the standards to which they were tested.>

The trend is to not harmonise the -1 version of this (and other series) in the 
future,
the -1 instead will be normatively referenced in any of the applied subparts, 
that WILL be harmonised (once approved).
By normatively referencing, the referenced clauses from the -1 will be part of the 
"text with legal effect" in the subpart.




This implies that you will need a third party to prove your compliance status 
i.e. a Notified Body for 2014/53/EU (art 3.2)



 
Indeed, but it implies that for the RED another compliance route need to 
be choosen (see annexes to the RED) The many subparts of EN 301 489 are 
on their way to harmonisation. However the process of creating standards 
(= adapting to EU requirements) is slow, and many stakeholders are 
involved. Since to-be-listed standards need up to 4 HAS-assessments each 
followed by a round of modifications at ETSI, each taking 3-9 months, 
the delays can be huge. (HAS is the EU-process where candidate HS are 
being scrutinized for their suitability to be listed. To a great part 
this comes down on verifying if the presented requirements can stand up 
in a legal sense, are exhaustive and precise, contain no duplicates to 
EU legislation, and are to the state of the art. In some cases a 
normatively referenced standard can block harmonisation if the 
referenced standard has severe deficiencies.) Gert Gremmen


On 26-3-2022 9:21, T.Sato wrote:

Although non-harmonised standards will not give presumption of conformity,


--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
begin:vcard
fn:Gert Gremmen
n:Gremmen;Gert
adr:;;Lieu Dit Pirot;Chauffailles;;71170;France
email;internet:g.grem...@cetest.nl
tel;cell:+33 7 84507010
note;quoted-printable:Independent Expert on CE marking =
	=0D=0A=
	Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED, LVD=
	 and EMC=0D=0A=
	EMC Consultant=0D=0A=
	Electrical Safety Consultant=0D=0A=
	
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 21:28:48 +,
  Ryan Jazz  wrote:

> We have a Short Range Device transmitter and corresponding receivers we 
> install in various enclosures for which we have test reports from different 
> US labs.
> Transmitter power is less than 10mW and uses the 2.4GHz band.
> The various reports issued show the ETSI EN 301 489-1 V1.9.2 as one of the 
> standards to which they were tested. The other is EN 300 440 V2.1.1.
> 
>   *   My question is how do we show this ETSI standard in the RED Declaration 
> of Conformity when this standard is listed only in the OJEC under the EMC 
> Directive?
> Many RED guidance articles mention the EMC Directive should not be identified 
> in the RED DoC.
> Is it OK to list this ETSI standard under the RED Directive-I am afraid it 
> would be misleading or raise a red flag. (pun unintended).
> Instead of this ETSI standard, should we list the EN 55035:2017 standard 
> instead, which is published in the OJEC under the RED?

Annex VI of the Directive clearly says:

  6. References to the relevant harmonised standards used or
  references to **the other technical specifications** in relation to
  which conformity is declared. ...

Although non-harmonised standards will not give presumption of conformity,
I believe we can list any non-harmonised documents in the DoC.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

[Charlie Blackham]

Ryan
EN 301 489-1 V1.9.2 is in the EMC OJ to be used alongside EN 301 489-34 for 
phone chargers. EN 301 489-1 V1.9.2 is quite old and I would argue does not 
represent "state of the art".
EMC Directive Harmonised Standards (HS) are useful when considering EMC aspects 
of non-radio functions for radio equipment (for example EN 61326 series of 
standards for radio enabled measurement and laboratory equipment)
EN 55037:2017 is only relevant under the RED to Broadcast Receivers (as per 
Annex ZZB),  and should not be applied to other equipment out of scope.
There is no requirement to use HS for EMC requirements under the RED (and it is 
impossible to do so, as non of the 301 489 series are yet listed)
Manufacturers must document a Risk Assessment that details rationale for 
standards that have been applied to demonstrate compliance with all relevant 
articles and I recommend that this includes application of the latest versions 
of EN 301 489 standards as published by ETSI which is likely to require some 
additional testing
Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Ryan Jazz 
Sent: 25 March 2022 21:29
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

Dear members,
We have a Short Range Device transmitter and corresponding receivers we install 
in various enclosures for which we have test reports from different US labs.
Transmitter power is less than 10mW and uses the 2.4GHz band.
The various reports issued show the ETSI EN 301 489-1 V1.9.2 as one of the 
standards to which they were tested. The other is EN 300 440 V2.1.1.

  *   My question is how do we show this ETSI standard in the RED Declaration 
of Conformity when this standard is listed only in the OJEC under the EMC 
Directive?
Many RED guidance articles mention the EMC Directive should not be identified 
in the RED DoC.
Is it OK to list this ETSI standard under the RED Directive-I am afraid it 
would be misleading or raise a red flag. (pun unintended).
Instead of this ETSI standard, should we list the EN 55035:2017 standard 
instead, which is published in the OJEC under the RED?
I would appreciate your valuable advice.
Sincerely Yours,
Ryan Jazz
Ryan Jayasinghe
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
rjayasin...@line6.com<mailto:rjayasin...@line6.com>

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous 
Huxley

LINE6
26580 Agoura Road
Calabasas CA 91302
818.575.3711
line6.com
ampeg.com

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

[Ryan Jazz]

Dear members,
We have a Short Range Device transmitter and corresponding receivers we install 
in various enclosures for which we have test reports from different US labs.
Transmitter power is less than 10mW and uses the 2.4GHz band.
The various reports issued show the ETSI EN 301 489-1 V1.9.2 as one of the 
standards to which they were tested. The other is EN 300 440 V2.1.1.

  *   My question is how do we show this ETSI standard in the RED Declaration 
of Conformity when this standard is listed only in the OJEC under the EMC 
Directive?
Many RED guidance articles mention the EMC Directive should not be identified 
in the RED DoC.
Is it OK to list this ETSI standard under the RED Directive-I am afraid it 
would be misleading or raise a red flag. (pun unintended).
Instead of this ETSI standard, should we list the EN 55035:2017 standard 
instead, which is published in the OJEC under the RED?
I would appreciate your valuable advice.
Sincerely Yours,
Ryan Jazz
Ryan Jayasinghe
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
rjayasin...@line6.com<mailto:rjayasin...@line6.com>

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous 
Huxley

LINE6
26580 Agoura Road
Calabasas CA 91302
818.575.3711
line6.com
ampeg.com


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

[Larry K. Stillings]

Hi Charlie,

Ok I got it. So if it was wireless power transfer at 13.56 MHz with No 
communication then it doesn't fall under the RED.

I believe that 13.56 MHz NFC WLC can be both power and communication to control 
the charging however, although I guess they could use BLE to control the 
charging and NFC be strictly used for WPT.

If I am reading things correctly there is a static mode of operation and a 
negotiated mode of operation, so you would need to know which technology is 
being used to determine what standards applies.

Thanks.

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>

Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D73833.CD928C60]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:image002.png@01D73833.CD928C60]  twitter.com/complianceww
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 11:22 AM
To: Larry K. Stillings ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

Larry

RFID and EAS are forms of "radio communication" so fall within scope of the 
Radio Equipment Directive (RED), and the applicable article 3.2 Harmonised 
Standard

Wireless Power Transfer by itself does not fall within scope of the RED, it 
does not have to meet the RED article 3.2.

Any communication as part of the power transfer (such as hand-shaking) would 
fall under RED article 3.2

ETSI EN 303 446-1 V1.2.1 and EN 303 446-2 V1.2.1 provide guidance on testing 
combined radio and non-radio equipment - the radio aspects has to meet the 
radio standards and the non-radio aspect the EMC standard and EN 555032 should 
be considered if the highest frequency in the radio put the EMC upper frequency 
above upper frequency of the applicable EMC standard (not required in this case)

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Larry K. Stillings 
mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com>>
Sent: 23 April 2021 16:09
To: Charlie Blackham 
mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

Hi Charlie,

Ok thanks.

I was under the assumption that if we are applying ETSI EN 300 330 to a product 
then the fundamental transmission would have to meet the H-Field 42 dBuA/m or 
60 dBuA/m limit spectrum mask limit in Annex I and not unlimited power despite 
being in an ISM band.

I also am assuming that any harmonics generated by the NFC WLC technology would 
only have to meet the spurious emissions limits in Table 6 from 30 to 1000 MHz 
and not have to meet the EN 55032 Class A or Class B limits for anything 
transmission related to the transmitter as explained in EN 303 446-1 and -2.



Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>
Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D73833.CD928C60]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:image002.png@01D73833.CD928C60]  twitter.com/complianceww
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 10:53 AM
To: Larry K. Stillings 
mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@

Re: [PSES] 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

[Charlie Blackham]

Larry

RFID and EAS are forms of "radio communication" so fall within scope of the 
Radio Equipment Directive (RED), and the applicable article 3.2 Harmonised 
Standard

Wireless Power Transfer by itself does not fall within scope of the RED, it 
does not have to meet the RED article 3.2.

Any communication as part of the power transfer (such as hand-shaking) would 
fall under RED article 3.2

ETSI EN 303 446-1 V1.2.1 and EN 303 446-2 V1.2.1 provide guidance on testing 
combined radio and non-radio equipment - the radio aspects has to meet the 
radio standards and the non-radio aspect the EMC standard and EN 555032 should 
be considered if the highest frequency in the radio put the EMC upper frequency 
above upper frequency of the applicable EMC standard (not required in this case)

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Larry K. Stillings 
Sent: 23 April 2021 16:09
To: Charlie Blackham ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

Hi Charlie,

Ok thanks.

I was under the assumption that if we are applying ETSI EN 300 330 to a product 
then the fundamental transmission would have to meet the H-Field 42 dBuA/m or 
60 dBuA/m limit spectrum mask limit in Annex I and not unlimited power despite 
being in an ISM band.

I also am assuming that any harmonics generated by the NFC WLC technology would 
only have to meet the spurious emissions limits in Table 6 from 30 to 1000 MHz 
and not have to meet the EN 55032 Class A or Class B limits for anything 
transmission related to the transmitter as explained in EN 303 446-1 and -2.



Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>
Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D7385B.D21E27D0]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:image002.png@01D7385B.D21E27D0]  twitter.com/complianceww
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 10:53 AM
To: Larry K. Stillings 
mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

Larry

ETSI EN 303 417 is for Wireless Power Transmission rather than low frequency 
communication and is looking at bands that aren't currently ISM or are 
restricted in some regions. It's looking at wireless charging for vehicles and 
other uses with the power transfer running up into kW.

13.56 MHz is already an ISM band with unrestricted power, so 13.56 MHz NFC WLC 
technology doesn't need a new standard to be developed
EN 300 330 V2.1.1 is the appropriate standard, and there's no power limit for 
the 13.553 - 13.567 MHz band

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Larry K. Stillings 
mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com>>
Sent: 23 April 2021 15:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

Hello All,

I was curious if anyone new of any work going on with ETSI to develop or add a 
standard specifically for 13.56 MHz NFC WLC technology?

Looks like to me right now the appropriate standard would be ETSI EN 300 330 
V2.1.1

Not sure if they are intending to add the 13.56 MHz band to the ETSI EN 303 417 
standard in a future edition, as the scope still stops with the 6.78 MHz band.

Or maybe develop a new standard all together or add a new part to EN 300 330 
for NFC WLC technology?

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>
Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D7385B.D21E27D0]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:im

Re: [PSES] 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

[Larry K. Stillings]

Hi Charlie,

Ok thanks.

I was under the assumption that if we are applying ETSI EN 300 330 to a product 
then the fundamental transmission would have to meet the H-Field 42 dBuA/m or 
60 dBuA/m limit spectrum mask limit in Annex I and not unlimited power despite 
being in an ISM band.

I also am assuming that any harmonics generated by the NFC WLC technology would 
only have to meet the spurious emissions limits in Table 6 from 30 to 1000 MHz 
and not have to meet the EN 55032 Class A or Class B limits for anything 
transmission related to the transmitter as explained in EN 303 446-1 and -2.



Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>

Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D73830.94C8EB20]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:image002.png@01D73830.94C8EB20]  twitter.com/complianceww
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 10:53 AM
To: Larry K. Stillings ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

Larry

ETSI EN 303 417 is for Wireless Power Transmission rather than low frequency 
communication and is looking at bands that aren't currently ISM or are 
restricted in some regions. It's looking at wireless charging for vehicles and 
other uses with the power transfer running up into kW.

13.56 MHz is already an ISM band with unrestricted power, so 13.56 MHz NFC WLC 
technology doesn't need a new standard to be developed
EN 300 330 V2.1.1 is the appropriate standard, and there's no power limit for 
the 13.553 - 13.567 MHz band

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Larry K. Stillings 
mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com>>
Sent: 23 April 2021 15:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

Hello All,

I was curious if anyone new of any work going on with ETSI to develop or add a 
standard specifically for 13.56 MHz NFC WLC technology?

Looks like to me right now the appropriate standard would be ETSI EN 300 330 
V2.1.1

Not sure if they are intending to add the 13.56 MHz band to the ETSI EN 303 417 
standard in a future edition, as the scope still stops with the 6.78 MHz band.

Or maybe develop a new standard all together or add a new part to EN 300 330 
for NFC WLC technology?

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>
Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D73830.94C8EB20]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:image002.png@01D73830.94C8EB20]  twitter.com/complianceww
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Web

Re: [PSES] 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

[Charlie Blackham]

Larry

ETSI EN 303 417 is for Wireless Power Transmission rather than low frequency 
communication and is looking at bands that aren't currently ISM or are 
restricted in some regions. It's looking at wireless charging for vehicles and 
other uses with the power transfer running up into kW.

13.56 MHz is already an ISM band with unrestricted power, so 13.56 MHz NFC WLC 
technology doesn't need a new standard to be developed
EN 300 330 V2.1.1 is the appropriate standard, and there's no power limit for 
the 13.553 - 13.567 MHz band

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Larry K. Stillings 
Sent: 23 April 2021 15:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

Hello All,

I was curious if anyone new of any work going on with ETSI to develop or add a 
standard specifically for 13.56 MHz NFC WLC technology?

Looks like to me right now the appropriate standard would be ETSI EN 300 330 
V2.1.1

Not sure if they are intending to add the 13.56 MHz band to the ETSI EN 303 417 
standard in a future edition, as the scope still stops with the 6.78 MHz band.

Or maybe develop a new standard all together or add a new part to EN 300 330 
for NFC WLC technology?

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>
Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D73856.F07E2220]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:image002.png@01D73856.F07E2220]  twitter.com/complianceww
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] 13.56 MHz NFC WLC ETSI Standard?

[Larry K. Stillings]

Hello All,

I was curious if anyone new of any work going on with ETSI to develop or add a 
standard specifically for 13.56 MHz NFC WLC technology?

Looks like to me right now the appropriate standard would be ETSI EN 300 330 
V2.1.1

Not sure if they are intending to add the 13.56 MHz band to the ETSI EN 303 417 
standard in a future edition, as the scope still stops with the 6.78 MHz band.

Or maybe develop a new standard all together or add a new part to EN 300 330 
for NFC WLC technology?

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>

Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D7382B.F3F1AC90]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:image002.png@01D7382B.F3F1AC90]  twitter.com/complianceww
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] SV: [PSES] ETSI standard for device with LTE (CE-marking RED)

[Amund Westin]

Great Michael,

 

I'll check out these standards.

 

BR

Amund

 

 

 

Fra: micha...@acbcert.com 
Sendt: 11. oktober 2019 08:19
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] ETSI standard for device with LTE (CE-marking RED)

 

Hi Amund,

 

You should look at EN 301 908-1 and EN 301 908-13.

 

Also, EN 301 489-52 for the LTE (and EN 301 489-17 for the BLE)

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> > 
Sent: 11 October 2019 06:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] ETSI standard for device with LTE (CE-marking RED)

 

A wireless sensor contains BLE and LTE chips.

For BLE, the standard ETSI EN 300 328 applies. But which standard should we
dig into because of the LTE?

 

 

BR

Amund

 

 

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI standard for device with LTE (CE-marking RED)

[michaeld]

Hi Amund,

 

You should look at EN 301 908-1 and EN 301 908-13.

 

Also, EN 301 489-52 for the LTE (and EN 301 489-17 for the BLE)

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

From: Amund Westin  
Sent: 11 October 2019 06:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI standard for device with LTE (CE-marking RED)

 

A wireless sensor contains BLE and LTE chips.

For BLE, the standard ETSI EN 300 328 applies. But which standard should we
dig into because of the LTE?

 

 

BR

Amund

 

 

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] ETSI standard for device with LTE (CE-marking RED)

[Amund Westin]

A wireless sensor contains BLE and LTE chips.

For BLE, the standard ETSI EN 300 328 applies. But which standard should we
dig into because of the LTE?

 

 

BR

Amund

 

 

 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Accredited test lab in Bay area for ETSI EN 301-908-13/14 testing

[Chris]

Folks
I am looking for a local lab in bay area to do some testing for our product. 
EN 301 908-13 for UE and EN 301 908-14.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Regards
Christopheremail: csaleem@taranawireless.comlocation: Santa Clara, CA

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT

[John Woodgate]

I'm better at interpreting badly-worded standards than setting out 
spectrum measurement methods, but I think you are probably correct.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-11-26 06:24, Amund Westin wrote:


Thanks John

Let me tell you how I’m doing this and please, advice if I’m interpret 
this wrong:


  * Transmit TX frequency is 14.00 GHz
  * Do the frequency setting on the spectrum to cover 13.75 – 14.00
GHz with 10MHz BW (sub-clause 4.2.1.2.1, table 3)
  * I now observe that the 95dBpW limit is exceeded close up to
14.00GHz, because the TX signal (occupied bandwidth 500kHz) is of
course above the limit. But seen isolated from the spectrum
display, we do to know if this is TX or spurious, so the NOTE must
be followed.
  * Then I narrow the measurement to 100kHz BW and check from 5 x
Occupied BW and further down a couple of MHz (frequency span 13.96
– 13.9975 GHz).  Any observed spurious levels must be at least
50dB below the TX level.

Does the make sense?

Maybe a notch filter on 14.00GHz would help me so the 10MHz BW 
measurements would be below 95dBpW anyway, so I did not need to do 
this 100kHz BW measurements.


BR
Amund Westin

www.vitir.no <http://www.vitir.no>

*Fra:*John Woodgate 
*Sendt:* 25. november 2018 20:22
*Til:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Emne:* Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT

You would normally go to private email at once if the subject is 
off-topic or there have been at least 5 posts about fine details. If 
you have a problem it's probably not unique, and others have it or 
will have it, too.


4.2.1.2.1 is a 'sub-clause', not a chapter. I agree  that the Note 
below Table 3 is a bit difficult to interpret, but I think that it 
means that if you see a level of, say, 97 dB(pW) at 10 MHz offset from 
the carrier frequency, that is acceptable if the EIRP level in a band 
100 kHz wide centred on that frequency is at least 50 dB below the 
maximum EIRP level when both are expressed in dBW/100 kHz.


This means that a narrow-band high-level output is acceptable within 
25 MHz of the carrier frequency.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk  <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-11-25 18:54, Amund Westin wrote:

If there are any in the forum with good knowledge about this VSAT
standard (for RED directive), please contact me offline for
discussion.

I’m struggling a bit with Chapter 4.2.1.2.1. Transmit VSAT, table
3 and the specific NOTE in that table.

I assume it’s not very interesting for the rest of the forum.

Thanks.

BR

Amund Westin

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail 

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT

[Charlie Blackham]

Amund

As you've probably seen in other radio standards, "Spurious Emissions" are 
those beyond the "out of band domain" (regions defined in Recommendation ITU-R 
SM.329-10)

This concept is clearly explained in most ETSI standards (EN 300 328 has a nice 
figure 3 showing it for example) and EN 301 908 states "not defined" limits for 
a certain frequency ranges in table 4.2.3.2-1) but isn't very clear in this one

The Spurious domain is the region outside the typically the frequency band 
given by "Centre frequency +/- 2.5x Bandwidth".

In your example if you centre frequency is 14000 MHz, and you've been given a 
10 MHz bandwidth, the "spurious emissions" region is  13975 to 14025 MHz. 
However rather than having "no limit" under all circumstances, you have the 
note in table 3 which in effect gives you no limit in a 50 MHz bandwidth 
(centre frequency +/- 2.5 x 10 MHz) provided that the on-axis EIRP at the given 
frequency is 50 dB down.

Now:

  *   The off-axis spurious emission is measured using a 10 MHz bandwidth as 
per table 3
  *   The on-axis radiated power density and bandedge EIRP are measured using a 
100 kHz bandwidth to determine whether the -50dB below is met

The requirement appears to be a poorly described spectrum mask requirement 
where the on-axis transmitted uplink band-edge at 13975 and 14025 MHz must be 
at least 50 dB below the peak uplink power when measured using 100 kHz BW.

So the "off-axis" spurious emission limit can be exceeded for the "out of band 
domain" region, but only if the on-axis transmit mask is complied with.

The other way of thinking about it is because VSAT antennas are very 
directional and point into space, the spectrum mask requirement is not really 
an issue, provided that the emissions that are radiated "sideways" don't cause 
issue to other users of the spectrum

Regards
Charlie



Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Amund Westin 
Sent: 26 November 2018 06:25
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT

Thanks John

Let me tell you how I'm doing this and please, advice if I'm interpret this 
wrong:


  *   Transmit TX frequency is 14.00 GHz
  *   Do the frequency setting on the spectrum to cover 13.75 - 14.00 GHz with 
10MHz BW (sub-clause 4.2.1.2.1, table 3)
  *   I now observe that the 95dBpW limit is exceeded close up to 14.00GHz, 
because the TX signal (occupied bandwidth 500kHz) is of course above the limit. 
But seen isolated from the spectrum display, we do to know if this is TX or 
spurious, so the NOTE must be followed.
  *   Then I narrow the measurement to 100kHz BW and check from 5 x Occupied BW 
and further down a couple of MHz (frequency span 13.96 - 13.9975 GHz).  Any 
observed spurious levels must be at least 50dB below the TX level.

Does the make sense?

Maybe a notch filter on 14.00GHz would help me so the 10MHz BW measurements 
would be below 95dBpW anyway, so I did not need to do this 100kHz BW 
measurements.

BR
Amund Westin
www.vitir.no<http://www.vitir.no>



Fra: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
Sendt: 25. november 2018 20:22
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Emne: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT


You would normally go to private email at once if the subject is off-topic or 
there have been at least 5 posts about fine details. If you have a problem it's 
probably not unique, and others have it or will have it, too.

4.2.1.2.1 is a 'sub-clause', not a chapter. I agree  that the Note below Table 
3 is a bit difficult to interpret, but I think that it means that if you see a 
level of, say, 97 dB(pW) at 10 MHz offset from the carrier frequency, that is 
acceptable if the EIRP level in a band 100 kHz wide centred on that frequency 
is at least 50 dB below the maximum EIRP level when both are expressed in 
dBW/100 kHz.

This means that a narrow-band high-level output is acceptable within 25 MHz of 
the carrier frequency.

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-11-25 18:54, Amund Westin wrote:
If there are any in the forum with good knowledge about this VSAT standard (for 
RED directive), please contact me offline for discussion.
I'm struggling a bit with Chapter 4.2.1.2.1. Transmit VSAT, table 3 and the 
specific NOTE in that table.
I assume it's not very interesting for the rest of the forum.

Thanks.

BR
Amund Westin

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering

[PSES] SV: [PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT

[Amund Westin]

Thanks John

 

Let me tell you how I'm doing this and please, advice if I'm interpret this
wrong:

 

*   Transmit TX frequency is 14.00 GHz
*   Do the frequency setting on the spectrum to cover 13.75 - 14.00 GHz
with 10MHz BW (sub-clause 4.2.1.2.1, table 3)
*   I now observe that the 95dBpW limit is exceeded close up to
14.00GHz, because the TX signal (occupied bandwidth 500kHz) is of course
above the limit. But seen isolated from the spectrum display, we do to know
if this is TX or spurious, so the NOTE must be followed.
*   Then I narrow the measurement to 100kHz BW and check from 5 x
Occupied BW and further down a couple of MHz (frequency span 13.96 - 13.9975
GHz).  Any observed spurious levels must be at least 50dB below the TX
level. 

 

Does the make sense?

 

Maybe a notch filter on 14.00GHz would help me so the 10MHz BW measurements
would be below 95dBpW anyway, so I did not need to do this 100kHz BW
measurements.

 

BR
Amund Westin

www.vitir.no <http://www.vitir.no> 

 

 

 

Fra: John Woodgate  
Sendt: 25. november 2018 20:22
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT

 

You would normally go to private email at once if the subject is off-topic
or there have been at least 5 posts about fine details. If you have a
problem it's probably not unique, and others have it or will have it, too.

4.2.1.2.1 is a 'sub-clause', not a chapter. I agree  that the Note below
Table 3 is a bit difficult to interpret, but I think that it means that if
you see a level of, say, 97 dB(pW) at 10 MHz offset from the carrier
frequency, that is acceptable if the EIRP level in a band 100 kHz wide
centred on that frequency is at least 50 dB below the maximum EIRP level
when both are expressed in dBW/100 kHz.

This means that a narrow-band high-level output is acceptable within 25 MHz
of the carrier frequency.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-11-25 18:54, Amund Westin wrote:

If there are any in the forum with good knowledge about this VSAT standard
(for RED directive), please contact me offline for discussion. 

I'm struggling a bit with Chapter 4.2.1.2.1. Transmit VSAT, table 3 and the
specific NOTE in that table.

I assume it's not very interesting for the rest of the forum.

 

Thanks.

 

BR

Amund Westin

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

We

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT

[John Woodgate]

You would normally go to private email at once if the subject is 
off-topic or there have been at least 5 posts about fine details. If you 
have a problem it's probably not unique, and others have it or will have 
it, too.


4.2.1.2.1 is a 'sub-clause', not a chapter. I agree  that the Note below 
Table 3 is a bit difficult to interpret, but I think that it means that 
if you see a level of, say, 97 dB(pW) at 10 MHz offset from the carrier 
frequency, that is acceptable if the EIRP level in a band 100 kHz wide 
centred on that frequency is at least 50 dB below the maximum EIRP level 
when both are expressed in dBW/100 kHz.


This means that a narrow-band high-level output is acceptable within 25 
MHz of the carrier frequency.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-11-25 18:54, Amund Westin wrote:


If there are any in the forum with good knowledge about this VSAT 
standard (for RED directive), please contact me offline for discussion.


I’m struggling a bit with Chapter 4.2.1.2.1. Transmit VSAT, table 3 
and the specific NOTE in that table.


I assume it’s not very interesting for the rest of the forum.

Thanks.

BR

Amund Westin

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] ETSI EN 301 428 - VSAT

[Amund Westin]

If there are any in the forum with good knowledge about this VSAT standard
(for RED directive), please contact me offline for discussion. 

I'm struggling a bit with Chapter 4.2.1.2.1. Transmit VSAT, table 3 and the
specific NOTE in that table.

I assume it's not very interesting for the rest of the forum.

 

Thanks.

 

BR

Amund Westin

 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 066-2 & the RED

[Chester Summers]

Thank you kindly, John and Larry-

I explored ETSI portal as you recommended and found both guidance document and 
draft standard.  Applying receiver requirements to this system should be 
enlightening, to say the least. :)

Chet Summers


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 2:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 066-2 & the RED


Note the change of title and the switch from part 2 of a multi-part standard 
(302 066-2) to a single standard (302 066).

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates 
www.woodjohn.uk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.woodjohn.uk&d=DwMD-g&c=G4BpsyPyB19LB50bn2swXw&r=uQYjlohUH2VwYVcMCZDVOGnwYsWulCG18FqsT19OrFM&m=3tETgEJBQN37BML8Qhe8JKRrntdlr2mioCcznMKO3Uw&s=gVWNFydTvbekx2OCkJHcPzahu85Lm9I6EbQny7n4eXY&e=>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-07-10 02:20, Larry K. Stillings wrote:
Hi Chet,

ETSI did publish EN 302 066 V2.1.1 (2017-01) for application under the RED, and 
contains receiver requirements as specified in TS 103 361 V1.1.1 (2016-03) 
Clause 9.

Why it was not published as a harmonized standard under the RED is a good 
question and I assume only a handful of people actually know why. My educated 
guess is because the Commission determined that the standard did not properly 
address or meet the spirit of the receiver requirements as defined in the RED.

A new versions of the standard is in the final draft stage as of June 20, 2018. 
That may be tracked at the following link

https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=53489<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__portal.etsi.org_webapp_workProgram_Report-5FSchedule.asp-3FWKI-5FID-3D53489&d=DwMD-g&c=G4BpsyPyB19LB50bn2swXw&r=uQYjlohUH2VwYVcMCZDVOGnwYsWulCG18FqsT19OrFM&m=3tETgEJBQN37BML8Qhe8JKRrntdlr2mioCcznMKO3Uw&s=ZL8NNFCi5JJmN-KaSaHyImp_jFSLGDmUcbyiqWDAoQE&e=>

Considering how specialized GPR technology is and containing only a handful of 
manufacturers across the entire world, I don't know how much support ETSI has 
had in developing the new standards under the RED and thus the delays in 
getting an acceptable standard developed.

Yes technically that means a Notified Body must be used to address the receiver 
requirements.

Larry Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html&d=DwMD-g&c=G4BpsyPyB19LB50bn2swXw&r=uQYjlohUH2VwYVcMCZDVOGnwYsWulCG18FqsT19OrFM&m=3tETgEJBQN37BML8Qhe8JKRrntdlr2mioCcznMKO3Uw&s=v5lJ4-CmoFR4LRYeViIyHH0oZftTCLTpMfeMzKN-H2o&e=>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_&d=DwMD-g&c=G4BpsyPyB19LB50bn2swXw&r=uQYjlohUH2VwYVcMCZDVOGnwYsWulCG18FqsT19OrFM&m=3tETgEJBQN37BML8Qhe8JKRrntdlr2mioCcznMKO3Uw&s=0RNodbNePOAmomzC9OLth9v59LfBZ-c6YvlXdulXqjY&e=>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_&d=DwMD-g&c=G4BpsyPyB19LB50bn2swXw&r=uQYjlohUH2VwYVcMCZDVOGnwYsWulCG18FqsT19OrFM&m=3tETgEJBQN37BML8Qhe8JKRrntdlr2mioCcznMKO3Uw&s=5DqY0VYiuWWCs8PdgTaQdFvMJohCSrO0RiMlmykJHLE&e=>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html&d=DwMD-g&c=G4BpsyPyB19LB50bn2swXw&r=uQYjlohUH2VwYVcMCZDVOGnwYsWulCG18FqsT19OrFM&m=3tETgEJBQN37BML8Qhe8JKRrntdlr2mioCcznMKO3Uw&s=hHTWY92tJTCXz3MfoPbTvGeMJfk_fZsDV6ajD7UOiQk&e=>
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html&d=DwMD-g&c=G4BpsyPyB19LB50bn2swXw&r=uQYjlohUH2VwYVcMCZDVOGnwYsWulCG18FqsT19OrFM&m=3tETgEJBQN37BML8Qhe8JKRrntdlr2mioCcznMKO3Uw&s=CEZGAGwbvY0M9at2EyUXfCZdzB7QeQwNglvcFsSG2e4&e=>

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

This email and any files transmitted with it from Charles Machine Works are 
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to 
which they are a

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 066-2 & the RED

[John Woodgate]

Note the change of title and the switch from part 2 of a multi-part 
standard (302 066-2) to a single standard (302 066).


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-10 02:20, Larry K. Stillings wrote:


Hi Chet,

ETSI did publish EN 302 066 V2.1.1 (2017-01) for application under the 
RED, and contains receiver requirements as specified in TS 103 361 
V1.1.1 (2016-03) Clause 9.


Why it was not published as a harmonized standard under the RED is a 
good question and I assume only a handful of people actually know why. 
My educated guess is because the Commission determined that the 
standard did not properly address or meet the spirit of the receiver 
requirements as defined in the RED.


A new versions of the standard is in the final draft stage as of June 
20, 2018. That may be tracked at the following link


https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=53489

Considering how specialized GPR technology is and containing only a 
handful of manufacturers across the entire world, I don’t know how 
much support ETSI has had in developing the new standards under the 
RED and thus the delays in getting an acceptable standard developed.


Yes technically that means a Notified Body must be used to address the 
receiver requirements.


Larry Stillings

Compliance Worldwide, Inc.





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 066-2 & the RED

[Larry K. Stillings]

Hi Chet,

 

ETSI did publish EN 302 066 V2.1.1 (2017-01) for application under the
RED, and contains receiver requirements as specified in TS 103 361
V1.1.1 (2016-03) Clause 9.

 

Why it was not published as a harmonized standard under the RED is a
good question and I assume only a handful of people actually know why.
My educated guess is because the Commission determined that the standard
did not properly address or meet the spirit of the receiver requirements
as defined in the RED.

 

A new versions of the standard is in the final draft stage as of June
20, 2018. That may be tracked at the following link

 

https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=53
489

 

Considering how specialized GPR technology is and containing only a
handful of manufacturers across the entire world, I don't know how much
support ETSI has had in developing the new standards under the RED and
thus the delays in getting an acceptable standard developed.

 

Yes technically that means a Notified Body must be used to address the
receiver requirements.

 

Larry Stillings

Compliance Worldwide, Inc.

 

From: Chester Summers [mailto:csummers@CHARLESMACHINE.WORKS] 
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 5:57 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 066-2 & the RED

 

Dear Group, 

 

ETSI EN 302 066-2 v1.2.1 is published in the RED's HS list, with the
following note:

"This harmonised standard does not address requirements relating to
receiver performance parameters and does not confer a presumption of
conformity as regards those parameters."

 

EN 302 066-2 doesn't contain a single reference to receivers or receiver
testing.  Normative Ref EN 302 066-1 (which is NOT published in OJ,
BTW...) only mentions "receiver" in terms of the spectrum analyzer used
to measure emissions.  EN 302 066-2 v1.2.1 has not changed from R&TTE to
RED.  

 

*How then, shall a GPR product compliant to R&TTE satisfy the RED, when
the most relevant product family standards don't include product
receiver specification or testing?  

*Is the OJ note intended to force manufacturers to the Notified Body?
Can R&TTE and RED both be referenced on a DoC in this case?  I don't
believe so, after June 2017.  

 

This particular GPR imaging system can be ordered with a tablet PC user
interface, else the customer provides his own tablet meeting required
specs.  Similar systems are marketed this way.  

*Is the OJ note meant to address or regulate this practice, so that the
tablet PC's WiFi transceiver must be assessed as part of the "completed
radio product?"

 

Guidance & UWB insight greatly appreciated here!

 

Thank you, 

Chet Summers

This email and any files transmitted with it from Charles Machine Works
are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to which they are addressed. 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 066-2 & the RED

[John Woodgate]

This standard is ten years old. A lot has happened since then, and the 
document is clearly very minimal. I suggest you enquire on the ETSI web 
site about any plans to update or replace the standard.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-07-09 22:57, Chester Summers wrote:


Dear Group,

ETSI EN 302 066-2 v1.2.1 is published in the RED’s HS list, with the 
following note:


“This harmonised standard does not address requirements relating to 
receiver performance parameters and does not confer a presumption of 
conformity as regards those parameters.”


EN 302 066-2 doesn’t contain a single reference to receivers or 
receiver testing.  Normative Ref EN 302 066-1 (which is NOT published 
in OJ, BTW…) only mentions “receiver” in terms of the spectrum 
analyzer used to measure emissions.  EN 302 066-2 v1.2.1 has not 
changed from R&TTE to RED.


*How then, shall a GPR product compliant to R&TTE satisfy the RED, 
when the most relevant product family standards don’t include product 
receiver specification or testing?


*Is the OJ note intended to force manufacturers to the Notified Body?  
Can R&TTE and RED both be referenced on a DoC in this case?  I don’t 
believe so, after June 2017.


This particular GPR imaging system can be ordered with a tablet PC 
user interface, else the customer provides his own tablet meeting 
required specs.  Similar systems are marketed this way.


*Is the OJ note meant to address or regulate this practice, so that 
the tablet PC’s WiFi transceiver must be assessed as part of the 
“completed radio product?”


Guidance & UWB insight greatly appreciated here!

Thank you,

Chet Summers

This email and any files transmitted with it from Charles Machine 
Works are confidential and intended solely for the use of the 
individual or entity to which they are addressed. -



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] ETSI EN 302 066-2 & the RED

[Chester Summers]

Dear Group,

ETSI EN 302 066-2 v1.2.1 is published in the RED's HS list, with the following 
note:
"This harmonised standard does not address requirements relating to receiver 
performance parameters and does not confer a presumption of conformity as 
regards those parameters."

EN 302 066-2 doesn't contain a single reference to receivers or receiver 
testing.  Normative Ref EN 302 066-1 (which is NOT published in OJ, BTW...) 
only mentions "receiver" in terms of the spectrum analyzer used to measure 
emissions.  EN 302 066-2 v1.2.1 has not changed from R&TTE to RED.

*How then, shall a GPR product compliant to R&TTE satisfy the RED, when the 
most relevant product family standards don't include product receiver 
specification or testing?
*Is the OJ note intended to force manufacturers to the Notified Body?  Can 
R&TTE and RED both be referenced on a DoC in this case?  I don't believe so, 
after June 2017.

This particular GPR imaging system can be ordered with a tablet PC user 
interface, else the customer provides his own tablet meeting required specs.  
Similar systems are marketed this way.
*Is the OJ note meant to address or regulate this practice, so that the tablet 
PC's WiFi transceiver must be assessed as part of the "completed radio product?"

Guidance & UWB insight greatly appreciated here!

Thank you,
Chet Summers
This email and any files transmitted with it from Charles Machine Works are 
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to 
which they are addressed.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] E-band Radio certification per ETSI and FCC standard

[Charlie Blackham]

Sudhakar



If you search on the FCC's database, 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm , and frequency of, 
say, 77000 to 78000 MHz and uncheck the "exact match" box, you'll get a full 
list of certified product where you can then find the test reports and the labs



A number of years ago I used RFI Global (now UL VS Ltd ) in the UK to test a 77 
GHz device, but Cetecom in Saarbruecken, Germany can also do these frequency 
ranges



Regards

Charlie




Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247



-Original Message-
From: Sudhakar's [mailto:008dfaa51ca2-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: 05 January 2018 22:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] E-band Radio certification per ETSI and FCC standard



Hello experts,

I am looking for a lab anywhere in EU/ North America/ ASIA which can test and 
certify E-band radio ( 71Ghz- 76Ghz and 81Ghz - 86 Ghz) per ETSI and FCC 
standards Any  help will be much appreciated.



Best, Regards,

Sudhakar wasnik,



Sent from my iPhone



-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>



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

http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html



Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.



Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html



For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>

Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>



For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher:  mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>

David Heald: mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] E-band Radio certification per ETSI and FCC standard

[Sudhakar's]

Hello experts, 
I am looking for a lab anywhere in EU/ North America/ ASIA which can test and 
certify E-band radio ( 71Ghz- 76Ghz and 81Ghz - 86 Ghz) per ETSI and FCC 
standards
Any  help will be much appreciated.

Best, Regards,
Sudhakar wasnik,

Sent from my iPhone

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] DOW for ETSI EN 300 386 v1.6.1

[John Woodgate]

Your understanding is correct. There may be a reason why the Commission has
not adopted v2.1.1, such as a problem with undated references, or it may be
yet anther case of delayed updating. I expect someone here knows for sure.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] DOW for ETSI EN 300 386 v1.6.1
 
Hi,
ETSI published EN 300 386 v2.1.1 in July 2016.  In the standard's Foreword,
they provide national transposition date of 30 September 2017 as the
date-of-withdrawal (DOW) of any conflicting national standard (EN 300 386
v1.6.1).  The last listing of harmonized standards for European Union's EMC
Directive 2014/30/EU was published in the Official Journal on 12 August
2016.  For some reason, the harmonized standards still cites EN 300 386
v1.6.1 and does not list EN 300 386 v2.1.1 at all. This leads to a series of
questions.
 
What is the European Union authority for the actual date-of-withdrawal
(DOW)?  Is the real DOW the one listed in the EN standard, or does one need
to wait for the Official Journal to finally publish a harmonized standard
listing that publishes its own DOW?
 
It is my understanding that the DOW published in a standard is merely a
suggestion, but the real official DOW must be published in the Official
Journal.  If so, then the EN 300 386 will not change over to v2.1.1 on 30
September 2017 after all.  Does anyone know how soon the next harmonized
standard listing will be published in the Official Journal for the EMC
Directive?  Does anyone know what DOW is proposed for EN 300 386 v1.6.1?
 
Thanks.
 
Monrad Monsen
 
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] DOW for ETSI EN 300 386 v1.6.1

[Monrad Monsen]

Hi,

ETSI published EN 300 386 v2.1.1 in July 2016.  In the standard's Foreword, 
they provide national transposition date of 30 September 2017 as the 
date-of-withdrawal (DOW) of any conflicting national standard (EN 300 386 
v1.6.1).  The last listing of harmonized standards for European Union's EMC 
Directive 2014/30/EU was published in the Official Journal on 12 August 2016.  
For some reason, the harmonized standards still cites EN 300 386 v1.6.1 and 
does not list EN 300 386 v2.1.1 at all. This leads to a series of questions.

 

What is the European Union authority for the actual date-of-withdrawal (DOW)?  
Is the real DOW the one listed in the EN standard, or does one need to wait for 
the Official Journal to finally publish a harmonized standard listing that 
publishes its own DOW?

 

It is my understanding that the DOW published in a standard is merely a 
suggestion, but the real official DOW must be published in the Official 
Journal.  If so, then the EN 300 386 will not change over to v2.1.1 on 30 
September 2017 after all.  Does anyone know how soon the next harmonized 
standard listing will be published in the Official Journal for the EMC 
Directive?  Does anyone know what DOW is proposed for EN 300 386 v1.6.1?

 

Thanks.

 

Monrad Monsen

 

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] EMC Directive 2014/30/EU Harmonized Standards Listing and ETSI EN 300 386 v2.1.1

[Monrad Monsen]

The last EMC Directive 2014/30/EU harmonized standards listing published in the 
Official Journal of the European Union was back on 12 August 2016.  Are there 
any indications that a new harmonized standard listing will be published in the 
next few months? 

 

The harmonized standard listing only includes ETSI EN 300 386 v1.6.1 (2012).  
However, ETSI published ETSI EN 300 386 v2.1.1 (2016) in July 2016, and the 
standard states that "date of withdrawal of any conflicting National Standard 
(dow)" is 30 September 2017.  In theory, v2.1.1 does not become a harmonized 
standard until it is published in the Official Journal, and the harmonized 
standard listing could actually give a different DOW than what the standard was 
published with.  So . I am interested in Europe's plans on when they might 
publish a new harmonized standard list in the Official Journal.

 

Thanks.

 

Monrad Monsen

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Marine Radar test labs for ETSI EN 302 248

[Sundstrom, Mike]

Hello everyone,
I'm looking for test labs which can test to the Marine Radar standard of EN 302 
248 (RE_D version).

Any leads greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Michael Sundstrom
Garmin Compliance Engineer
2-2606
(913) 440-1540
KB5UKT

"Never give up on a dream just because of the time it will take to accomplish 
it.
The time will pass anyway."
Earl Nightingale




CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of 
the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be Garmin 
confidential and/or Garmin legally privileged. If you have received this email 
in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any 
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication (including 
attachments) by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Thank 
you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Access to draft ETSI EN standards for RED?

[Bill Stumpf]

Mike,
There are some drafts available from ETSI.  Also given is the current status of 
ETSI standards.

Link: ETSI webapp 
portal<https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/WorkProgram/WorkItemPlan.asp?titleType=all&qSORT=HIGHVERSION&qETSI_ALL=&SearchPage=TRUE&qDIRECTIVE=2014%2F53%2FEU&qINCLUDE_SUB_TB=True&qINCLUDE_MOVED_ON=&qSTOP_FLG=N&qKEYWORD_BOOLEAN=OR&qCLUSTER_BOOLEAN=OR&qFREQUENCIES_BOOLEAN=OR&qSTOPPING_OUTDATED=&butExpertSearch=Search&includeNonActiveTB=FALSE&includeSubProjectCode=FALSE&qREPORT_TYPE=RPLAN&optDisplay=ALL>

Bill

From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Access to draft ETSI EN standards for RED?

Esteemed colleagues --
Do you know of a way to gain access to the draft ETSI EN standards for the 
Radio Equipment Directive without paying 6000 euros to join ETSI?
Thanks
Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.

Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Access to draft ETSI EN standards for RED?

[Mike Sherman ----- Original Message -----]

Esteemed colleagues --Do you know of a way to gain access to the draft ETSI EN standards for the Radio Equipment Directive without paying 6000 euros to join ETSI?ThanksMike Sherman Graco Inc. Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 v2.1.1 Receiver Blocking

[Charlie Blackham]

Grace

As you’re probably aware, EN 302 195-2 v1.1.1 is the R&TTE version whereas EN 
302 195 v2.1.1 is the RED version.

The R&TTE Directive required (that) “all essential radio test suites must be 
carried out” and these were defined in the Harmonised Standards (or could be 
specified by a Notified Body)
The Radio Equipment Directive does not contain this same requirement, so the 
standards aren’t structured in quite the same way.

If there is no limit for a certain category of device in a particular test, 
then you could consider that you cannot fail the requirement and so comply 
without test. You may however wish to test your receiver anyway to understand 
its capabilities in case there are future changes to the standard that remove 
the option for Class 3 receivers (this is already planned for some other 
standards)

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
LinkedIn: 
uk.linkedin.com/in/charlieblackham/<http://uk.linkedin.com/in/charlieblackham/>
Web: www.sulisconsultants.com<http://www.sulisconsultants.com/>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247



From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 December 2016 16:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 v2.1.1 Receiver Blocking

Dear Members,


Could you please comment if testing of receiver blocking is required for a 
Class 3 receiver per ETSI EN 302 195 v2.1.1 (the latest version of the 
standard)?  There is no limits for Class 3 receivers.  Annex A lists Receiver 
Blocking as Unconditional Applicable.



For reference.  Clause 4.3.1 of ETSI EN 302 195-2 v1.1.1 clearly indicates 
blocking is for Class 1 and Class 2 receivers.



Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.



Best regards,

Grace Lin
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 v2.1.1 Receiver Blocking

[Grace Lin]

Dear Members,

Could you please comment if testing of receiver blocking is required for a
Class 3 receiver per ETSI EN 302 195 v2.1.1 (the latest version of the
standard)?  There is no limits for Class 3 receivers.  Annex A lists
Receiver Blocking as Unconditional Applicable.


For reference.  Clause 4.3.1 of ETSI EN 302 195-2 v1.1.1 clearly indicates
blocking is for Class 1 and Class 2 receivers.


Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.


Best regards,

Grace Lin

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[Charlie Blackham]

Peter

RED may be used now, but so can R&TTE for equipment that is within scope of 
RED. The key article is
Article 48
Transitional provisions
Member States shall not impede, for the aspects covered by this Directive, the 
making available on the market or putting into service of radio equipment 
covered by this Directive which is in conformity with the relevant Union 
harmonisation legislation applicable before 13 June 2016 and which was placed 
on the market before 13 June 2017.

Please see explanation of this in  Application of Directives 2014/53/EU, 
2014/35/EU and 2014/30/EU, 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16681/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf

Regards
Charlie

From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
Sent: 03 November 2016 17:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

Charlie –

Article 49
Transposition 1.
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 12 June 2016, the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They 
shall forthwith communicate the text of those measures to the Commission. They 
shall apply those measures from 13 June 2016.

Article 50
Repeal
Directive 1999/5/EC is repealed with effect from 13 June 2016.

RED is effective now. Unless I missed something deferring it’s adoption.


Peter Tarver

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 09:00
The RED doesn’t need to be used until next June, so I would wait as it may well 
be published in the next listing which is likely to be within next 2 months.

Regards
Charlie

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[Peter Tarver]

Charlie –

Article 49
Transposition 1.
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 12 June 2016, the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They 
shall forthwith communicate the text of those measures to the Commission. They 
shall apply those measures from 13 June 2016.

Article 50
Repeal
Directive 1999/5/EC is repealed with effect from 13 June 2016.

RED is effective now. Unless I missed something deferring it’s adoption.


Peter Tarver

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 09:00

The RED doesn’t need to be used until next June, so I would wait as it may well 
be published in the next listing which is likely to be within next 2 months.

Regards
Charlie

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Receiver Blocking or Desensitization Test per ETSI EN Standards

[Grace Lin]

Dear Members,

Have you had experience in *receiver blocking or desensitization test* per
ETSI EN standards?  It seems this test is required for all receiver
categories per ETSI EN 302 195.  For ETSI EN 300 330, receiver blocking or
desensitization test applies to receiver category 1 and 2 only.


The first question is what specifications for a combining network to
connect two signal generators to the measurement instrument?  Manufacturer(s)
and model(s) are of great help.


Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.


Best regards,

Grace Lin

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[Cortland Richmond]

On 11/3/2016 3:36 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
I think ETSI is justified in resisting the Commission's bid to insist 
that 'a standard is only harmonized if we say so'.


*Someone* has missed the astounding concept that "harmony" and 
"harmonize" are English words ANYONE can use.  And that one should 
indicate with whom or what harmony is to be achieved.


sarc/ I wonder how long the EU bureaucracy's definition of "is" runs. 
And gets to use it. /sarc



Cortland Richmond

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[John Woodgate]

See my previous post about 'hi-jacking'. I think ETSI is justified in resisting 
the Commission's bid to insist that 'a standard is only harmonized if we say 
so'.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 7:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
 
>Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
>Directive 2014/53/EU
This phrase can mean only one thing: meant to be used as a Harmonized standard 
in the sense of the directive as OJ publication.
ETSI should have written : "Intended to be harmonized….", as it is not the 
standard that
could claim the harmonization property, but the  OJ publication only.
The discussion if a standard is harmonized in any other way is not relevant. 
Standards are by definition
a harmonisation (in the generic sense)  instrument.
Regards,
Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

 
+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing
+ Education
Web:www.cetest.nl <http://www.cetest.nl>  (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 2 November 2016 15:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
Dear Members,
The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:
"
Short Range Devices (SRD);
Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories (ULP-AMI-P) 
operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz
Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
Directive 2014/53/EU
"
This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a 
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with the 
essential requirements?
Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Grace Lin
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
Fo

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

>Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
>Directive 2014/53/EU

This phrase can mean only one thing: meant to be used as a Harmonized standard 
in the sense of the directive as OJ publication.

ETSI should have written : "Intended to be harmonized….", as it is not the 
standard that
could claim the harmonization property, but the  OJ publication only.

The discussion if a standard is harmonized in any other way is not relevant. 
Standards are by definition
a harmonisation (in the generic sense)  instrument.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing
+ Education

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 2 November 2016 15:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

Dear Members,

The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:

"
Short Range Devices (SRD);
Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories (ULP-AMI-P) 
operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz
Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
Directive 2014/53/EU
"

This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a 
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with the 
essential requirements?

Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[John Woodgate]

That's how it should be, and was, but the Commission insists that a standard 
isn't harmonized *until* it is listed.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 5:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
 
Michael make an excellent point.  A standard is not harmonized because it is in 
the OJ.  It gets in the OJ because it is harmonized; and presumption of 
compliance to a directive is only able to be done when an already harmonized 
standard is listed in the OJ.
 
​
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.
 
From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 8:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
 
Hi Grace,
 
Are you asking because the word “Harmonised” appears in the title of the 
standard?
 
No, it does not mean that it can be used for presumption of conformity to the 
RED.
 
Basically…..
 
When you work at ETSI, the basic document template you start with… has that 
wording in the title.
You work on the standard (as a Draft) and then it is finally voted and 
published.   
When published, it is a “Harmonised Standard” because people agree it is a good 
standard.
 
The next step is for the EU Commission to decide if it is suitable to 
demonstrate presumption of conformity to the EU Directive (in this case, the 
RED).   If they think so, then it is added to the OJ.
 
When (if) the standard appears on the OJ, then it does provide presumption of 
conformity (if you fully, correctly, test to it; and pass)
 
Just because it has the word “Harmonised” on the front page, does not mean it 
is in the OJ.
 
 
Actually this is an interesting little thing here.   Often, many of us (myself 
included) will say things like  “Is that standard harmonised yet?” or “I used 
the Harmonised standard”.   But, strictly speaking, that is not great 
terminology.
What we really mean is:  “Is the standard harmonised and listed on the Official 
Journal yet?”
Technically speaking, a standard can be “Harmonised” when it has been voted and 
finally published.
It is a harmonised standard which is actually listed on the Official Journal, 
which provides the presumption of conformity.
 
 
Thanks,
 
Michael.
 
 
 
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 November 2016 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
 
Dear Members,
 
The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:
 
"
Short Range Devices (SRD);
Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories (ULP-AMI-P) 
operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz
Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
Directive 2014/53/EU
"
 
This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a 
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with the 
essential requirements?
 
Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.
 
Best regards,
Grace Lin
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher m

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[John Woodgate]

In fact, the Commission hi-jacked the term 'harmonized' from the original 
meaning ' when it has been voted and finally published [as an EN]' to mean 
'published in the OJ'. 
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
 
Hi Grace,
 
Are you asking because the word “Harmonised” appears in the title of the 
standard?
 
No, it does not mean that it can be used for presumption of conformity to the 
RED.
 
Basically…..
 
When you work at ETSI, the basic document template you start with… has that 
wording in the title.
You work on the standard (as a Draft) and then it is finally voted and 
published.   
When published, it is a “Harmonised Standard” because people agree it is a good 
standard.
 
The next step is for the EU Commission to decide if it is suitable to 
demonstrate presumption of conformity to the EU Directive (in this case, the 
RED).   If they think so, then it is added to the OJ.
 
When (if) the standard appears on the OJ, then it does provide presumption of 
conformity (if you fully, correctly, test to it; and pass)
 
Just because it has the word “Harmonised” on the front page, does not mean it 
is in the OJ.
 
 
Actually this is an interesting little thing here.   Often, many of us (myself 
included) will say things like  “Is that standard harmonised yet?” or “I used 
the Harmonised standard”.   But, strictly speaking, that is not great 
terminology.
What we really mean is:  “Is the standard harmonised and listed on the Official 
Journal yet?”
Technically speaking, a standard can be “Harmonised” when it has been voted and 
finally published.
It is a harmonised standard which is actually listed on the Official Journal, 
which provides the presumption of conformity.
 
 
Thanks,
 
Michael.
 
 
 
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 November 2016 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1
 
Dear Members,
 
The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:
 
"
Short Range Devices (SRD);
Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories (ULP-AMI-P) 
operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz
Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
Directive 2014/53/EU
"
 
This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a 
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with the 
essential requirements?
 
Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.
 
Best regards,
Grace Lin
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-
--

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[dward]

Michael make an excellent point.  A standard is not harmonized because it is in 
the OJ.  It gets in the OJ because it is harmonized; and presumption of 
compliance to a directive is only able to be done when an already harmonized 
standard is listed in the OJ.

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 8:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

 

Hi Grace,

 

Are you asking because the word “Harmonised” appears in the title of the 
standard?

 

No, it does not mean that it can be used for presumption of conformity to the 
RED.

 

Basically…..

 

When you work at ETSI, the basic document template you start with… has that 
wording in the title.

You work on the standard (as a Draft) and then it is finally voted and 
published.   

When published, it is a “Harmonised Standard” because people agree it is a good 
standard.

 

The next step is for the EU Commission to decide if it is suitable to 
demonstrate presumption of conformity to the EU Directive (in this case, the 
RED).   If they think so, then it is added to the OJ.

 

When (if) the standard appears on the OJ, then it does provide presumption of 
conformity (if you fully, correctly, test to it; and pass)

 

Just because it has the word “Harmonised” on the front page, does not mean it 
is in the OJ.

 

 

Actually this is an interesting little thing here.   Often, many of us (myself 
included) will say things like  “Is that standard harmonised yet?” or “I used 
the Harmonised standard”.   But, strictly speaking, that is not great 
terminology.

What we really mean is:  “Is the standard harmonised and listed on the Official 
Journal yet?”

Technically speaking, a standard can be “Harmonised” when it has been voted and 
finally published.

It is a harmonised standard which is actually listed on the Official Journal, 
which provides the presumption of conformity.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 November 2016 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

 

Dear Members,

 

The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:

 

"

Short Range Devices (SRD);

Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories (ULP-AMI-P) 
operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz

Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
Directive 2014/53/EU

"

 

This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a 
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with the 
essential requirements?

 

Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Best regards,

Grace Lin

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://pr

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[Charlie Blackham]

Grace

A Notified Body opinion is required until the standard is listed in the OJ.

According to the ETSI work program, 
https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=46535, 
ETSI were expecting it to be published in the OJ on 23rd September, but it 
hasn’t been yet.

The RED doesn’t need to be used until next June, so I would wait as it may well 
be published in the next listing which is likely to be within next 2 months.

Regards
Charlie

From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 November 2016 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

Dear Members,

The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:

"
Short Range Devices (SRD);
Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories (ULP-AMI-P) 
operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz
Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
Directive 2014/53/EU
"

This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a 
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with the 
essential requirements?

Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[Michael Derby]

Hi Grace,

 

Are you asking because the word “Harmonised” appears in the title of the 
standard?

 

No, it does not mean that it can be used for presumption of conformity to the 
RED.

 

Basically…..

 

When you work at ETSI, the basic document template you start with… has that 
wording in the title.

You work on the standard (as a Draft) and then it is finally voted and 
published.   

When published, it is a “Harmonised Standard” because people agree it is a good 
standard.

 

The next step is for the EU Commission to decide if it is suitable to 
demonstrate presumption of conformity to the EU Directive (in this case, the 
RED).   If they think so, then it is added to the OJ.

 

When (if) the standard appears on the OJ, then it does provide presumption of 
conformity (if you fully, correctly, test to it; and pass)

 

Just because it has the word “Harmonised” on the front page, does not mean it 
is in the OJ.

 

 

Actually this is an interesting little thing here.   Often, many of us (myself 
included) will say things like  “Is that standard harmonised yet?” or “I used 
the Harmonised standard”.   But, strictly speaking, that is not great 
terminology.

What we really mean is:  “Is the standard harmonised and listed on the Official 
Journal yet?”

Technically speaking, a standard can be “Harmonised” when it has been voted and 
finally published.

It is a harmonised standard which is actually listed on the Official Journal, 
which provides the presumption of conformity.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 November 2016 14:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

 

Dear Members,

 

The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:

 

"

Short Range Devices (SRD);

Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories (ULP-AMI-P) 
operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz

Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
Directive 2014/53/EU

"

 

This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a 
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with the 
essential requirements?

 

Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Best regards,

Grace Lin

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[Grace Lin]

Dear Members,

The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:

"
Short Range Devices (SRD);
Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories
(ULP-AMI-P) operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz
Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of
the Directive 2014/53/EU
"

This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with
the essential requirements?

Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Table 6 H-field limits per ETSI EN 300 330-1 v1.8.1

[John Woodgate]

Yes, that is what it means. It might be made clearer just by adding a comma 
after 72, but a simple graphic would make the meaning totally certain.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 4:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Table 6 H-field limits per ETSI EN 300 330-1 v1.8.1
 
Dear Members,
 
Could someone please help me with the interpretation of "72 descending 3 dB/oct 
above 0.03 MHz" for the frequency range of 0.009<=f<0.090 MHz?
 
Does it mean:
for the frequency range of 0.009 to 0.030 MHz, the limit is 72,
for the frequency rage of 0.030 to 0.090 MHz, the limit is "72 descending 3 
dB/oct"?
 
Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.
 
Best regards,
Grace Lin
 
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Table 6 H-field limits per ETSI EN 300 330-1 v1.8.1

[Grace Lin]

Dear Members,

Could someone please help me with the interpretation of "72 descending 3
dB/oct above 0.03 MHz" for the frequency range of 0.009<=f<0.090 MHz?

Does it mean:
for the frequency range of 0.009 to 0.030 MHz, the limit is 72,
for the frequency rage of 0.030 to 0.090 MHz, the limit is "72 descending 3
dB/oct"?

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Grandfathered requirements for ETSI

[Michael Derby]

Hello,

 

In general, no.   The standards change to keep up with changes in
interference level, spectrum planning, problems seen, etc.

As I think John Woodgate already said..  You can sit on the standards
committee and influence it.

I used to be on the group for writing EN 300 328 and EN 301 893 (I am not
anymore, I should add!   V1.8.1 was not me!  J ) and the group was mostly
made up of manufacturers protecting the interests of their companies, and
regulators protecting their spectrum.

 

Can I ask exactly what the problem is?   Is it the Medium Access Protocol
issue?   Are you concerned that your device may choose to change channel
mid-operation, or something?

Actually, I'm guessing that (spectrum sharing) cannot be the issue because
that aspect of V1.8.1 became mandatory on 23rd October 2012.

Is it the new power measurements?

 

I'm curious because maybe there is a solution, after all.

 

If that fails, I have the ETSI group chairman's e-mail address, if you want
it.   J

 

Michael.

 

 

Michael Derby

Regulatory Engineer

ACB Europe

 

From: Mark Tucker [mailto:mtuc...@murata.com] 
Sent: 07 August 2013 18:01
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Grandfathered requirements for ETSI

 

Hi, 

My company makes 2.4 GHz proprietary wireless products for European use (not
WiFi, BT or ZB). These units are qualified under EN 300 328. We understand
that EN 300328 v1.8.1 will become law the 1st of 2015. 

We've been selling wireless products for many years in the EU and the
installed base is in the 10s of thousands of units. However, the changes
dictated by v1.8.1 will break our radio protocol and destroy the
compatibility between new units (that must be v1.8.1 compliant) and those
already installed in the field. This is a huge issue for us and any other
vendor that may have the misfortune of having a large installed base of
pre-existing products. 

Is there any provision in ETSI rules that allows for backwards compatibility
with preexisting products? I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't
have made some sort of provision for this. 

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. 

Mark 
















Mark Tucker
Director of Hardware Engineering
RFM
3079 Premiere Parkway, Suite 140
Duluth GA 30097
mtuc...@murata.com 

- Forwarded by Mark Tucker/US/MuRata on 08/07/2013 12:57 PM - 

From:"IEEE LISTSERV Server (16.0)"  
To:Mark Tucker , 
Date:08/07/2013 12:56 PM 
Subject:Welcome to the emc-pstc email list 

  _  




[Last updated on: 18-Oct-2011]
  ***
  * *
  *   The IEEE PSES EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum   *
  * *
  ***

  18 Oct 2011

Welcome to the EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum!


**  To send a message to the EMC-PSTC Forum, simply send an e-mail
   message to the following address:

   emc-p...@ieee.org

   All mail sent to this Internet address will be re-sent to about
   900+ worldwide subscribers to the EMC-PSTC list by an automated
   list server (Listserv).  Listserver posting may take up to 8
   hours.

   Please set your mailer to ASCII text.  ASCII text is readable
   by all mailers, while other mail formats are not. Do not attach files.

**  To SUBSCRIBE to the EMC-PSTC mailing list, send an email message to
   lists...@ieee.org  and place the command:

   SUB EMC-PSTC 

   in the body of the message.

**  HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE

   The only way to UNSUBSCRIBE, or remove your name, from a list is to
   send an email message to lists...@ieee.org and place the
   command

   SIGNOFF EMC-PSTC

   in the body of the message.
   Do not append a signature file.

**  HOW TO SET LISTSERV OPTIONS

   The listserv understands many commands and has many options.
   For a complete list of options send the command "INFO REFCARD" to
   lists...@ieee.org and a complete list of commands will
   be emailed back to you.  The most commonly used commands are listed
   below.  As with all commands to the listserv, send an email message
   to lists...@listserv.ieee.org and include the commands in the body
   of your message, one command per line.


** Old messages   will be   Archived at (aprox. Feb. 2003):

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

**  Should you have any questions, send them to:

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

** Subscribe or Unsubscribe issues should addressed to:

Scott Douglas   emcp...@radiusnorth.

Re: [PSES] Grandfathered requirements for ETSI

[John Woodgate]

In message 
, 
dated Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Mark Tucker  writes:


We've been selling wireless products for many years in the EU and the 
installed base is in the 10s of thousands of units. However, the 
changes dictated by v1.8.1 will break our radio protocol and destroy 
the compatibility between new units (that must be v1.8.1 compliant) and 
those already installed in the field. This is a huge issue for us and 
any other vendor that may have the misfortune of having a large 
installed base of pre-existing products.


Is there any provision in ETSI rules that allows for backwards 
compatibility with preexisting products? I have a hard time believing 
that they wouldn't have made some sort of provision for this.    


I don't know the details of this development, and I'm afraid I don't 
have time to research it, but there is a general principle, which may be 
very cold comfort for you.


If you don't bother to watch what happens to standards that affect your 
products, others will make decisions that you may find adversely affects 
your products, even if that was not intended (as would normally be the 
case; standards committees try to behave responsibly, but are not 
infallible).


By 'watch', I mean participate in the standards work, at least at the 
trade association level, and preferably at the national standards 
committee level if possible.


So contact your national standards committee IMMEDIATELY and ask for 
leave to present your case (if you are certain of it) to the committee. 
If possible, copy your application and explanation of your concerns to 
the Secretary of the relevant ETSI committee, whose contact details you 
should be able to find on the ETSI web site (but it is a bit of a maze).

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Grandfathered requirements for ETSI

[Mark Tucker]

Hi,

My company makes 2.4 GHz proprietary wireless products for European use 
(not WiFi, BT or ZB). These units are qualified under EN 300 328. We 
understand that EN 300328 v1.8.1 will become law the 1st of 2015. 

We've been selling wireless products for many years in the EU and the 
installed base is in the 10s of thousands of units. However, the changes 
dictated by v1.8.1 will break our radio protocol and destroy the 
compatibility between new units (that must be v1.8.1 compliant) and those 
already installed in the field. This is a huge issue for us and any other 
vendor that may have the misfortune of having a large installed base of 
pre-existing products. 

Is there any provision in ETSI rules that allows for backwards 
compatibility with preexisting products? I have a hard time believing that 
they wouldn't have made some sort of provision for this. 

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. 

Mark
















Mark Tucker
Director of Hardware Engineering
RFM
3079 Premiere Parkway, Suite 140
Duluth GA 30097
mtuc...@murata.com

- Forwarded by Mark Tucker/US/MuRata on 08/07/2013 12:57 PM -

From:   "IEEE LISTSERV Server (16.0)" 
To: Mark Tucker , 
Date:   08/07/2013 12:56 PM
Subject:Welcome to the emc-pstc email list



[Last updated on: 18-Oct-2011]
   ***
   * *
   *   The IEEE PSES EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum   *
   * *
   ***

   18 Oct 2011

Welcome to the EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum!


**  To send a message to the EMC-PSTC Forum, simply send an e-mail
message to the following address:

emc-p...@ieee.org

All mail sent to this Internet address will be re-sent to about
900+ worldwide subscribers to the EMC-PSTC list by an automated
list server (Listserv).  Listserver posting may take up to 8
hours.

Please set your mailer to ASCII text.  ASCII text is readable
by all mailers, while other mail formats are not. Do not attach files.

**  To SUBSCRIBE to the EMC-PSTC mailing list, send an email message to
lists...@ieee.org  and place the command:

SUB EMC-PSTC 

in the body of the message.

**  HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE

The only way to UNSUBSCRIBE, or remove your name, from a list is to
send an email message to lists...@ieee.org and place the
command

SIGNOFF EMC-PSTC

in the body of the message.
Do not append a signature file.

**  HOW TO SET LISTSERV OPTIONS

The listserv understands many commands and has many options.
For a complete list of options send the command "INFO REFCARD" to
lists...@ieee.org and a complete list of commands will
be emailed back to you.  The most commonly used commands are listed
below.  As with all commands to the listserv, send an email message
to lists...@listserv.ieee.org and include the commands in the body
of your message, one command per line.


** Old messages   will be   Archived at (aprox. Feb. 2003):

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

**  Should you have any questions, send them to:

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

** Subscribe or Unsubscribe issues should addressed to:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 Mike Cantwellmcantw...@ieee.org

.

   **
   **
   *   Charter and Guidelines   *
   **
   **

 05 September 2001


This Forum is operated by the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society.
The Forum was founded to discuss product safety issues.  But, we also
discuss product EMC and other product regulatory issues.

We discuss world-wide standards and regulations.  We discuss technical
issues related to interpretation and measurement.  And, we discuss
safety and EMC issues not currently published in standards and
regulations.  This Forum is a tool to help us do our jobs by sharing
information.


MESSAGE CONTENT GUIDELINES
--

1.  Postings and responses should be limited to information or queries
relating to Product Safety, EMC, or Regulatory Compliance topics.

2.  Posted information should not be confidential or in any way
proprietary.

3.  Please don't use the EMC-PSTC for private correspondence.  Private
correspondence should be addressed directly, unless it has broad
appeal or interest.

4.  Please put your name at the end of any message you send (some e-mail
a

Re: [PSES] Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

[Carl Newton]

Thanks all.  I know that this is compliance 101, but I needed to do a sanity
check in case there's a clause in the R&TTED that I'm missing.  I've
reviewed it and don't see any such thing (article 5).  

John- you're absolutely correct.   I used DoW because I can never remember
how many "c"s are in docopocoss.

Carl

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

In message <000c01ce8174$b2b997e0$182cc7a0$@gmail.com>, dated Mon, 15 Jul
2013, Carl Newton  writes:

>I?m in a debate with a lab and a manufacturer that insist that a R&TTE 
>device doesn?t need to be re-evaluated against a new revision standard 
>when the previous is withdrawn.
>
> 
>
>ETSI EN 300 228 V1.7.1 loses the presumption of conformity in 2014 
>(December I think).  Customer is installing a ZigBee component within 
>his ITE device and wishes to apply the ZigBee transceiver compliance to 
>his device.   I?ve argued that revision V1.8.1 which is listed in the 
>OJ must be applied after the DoW.  Both the ZigBee component 
>manufacturer and the test lab involved argue that once a device is 
>?certified? that retesting is not necessary.
>
> 
>
>I?ve double-checked the Blue Guide and I believe that their 
>interpretation is not correct and that after the DoW the current 
>revision listed in the OJ must be stated on the DoC.   Safety in 
>numbers, looking for a sanity check here.

You are almost right; the OJ actually gives the 'docopocoss' - the Date Of
Cessation Of Presumption Of Conformity Of the Superseded Standard, and after
THAT date only the current version of the standard is valid. 
It is not always the same as the dow.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always
empty just when you want it?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

[Charlie Blackham]

Carl

You're correct, and there's no such thing as "certification" for the EU.

The relevant part of the Directive are:

Article 10
Conformity assessment procedures
4. Where a manufacturer has applied the harmonised standards referred to in 
Article 5(1), radio equipment not within the scope of paragraph 3 shall be 
subject to the procedures described in any one of Annexes III, IV or V at the 
choice of the manufacturer.
5. Where a manufacturer has not applied or has only applied in part the 
harmonised standards referred to in Article 5(1), radio equipment not within 
the scope of paragraph 3 of this Article shall be subject to the procedures 
described in either of Annexes IV or V at the choice of the manufacturer.

If you haven't used a Harmonised Standard (which must of course be current at 
the point in time that particular product is placed on the market), you must 
use a Notified Body. And for Annex IV, a NB should follow R&TTECA guidance, 
which says (in effect) Harmonised Standards should generally be used where 
possible. . . .

The important thing though is the word "apply". It may well be that a Zigbee 
device compliant with V1.7.1 would actually need little or no actual "testing" 
in order to be compliant with V1.8.1, but an "assessment" must be done and 
documented.

Regards
Charlie




From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 July 2013 17:02
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

Group,

I'm in a debate with a lab and a manufacturer that insist that a R&TTE device 
doesn't need to be re-evaluated against a new revision standard when the 
previous is withdrawn.

ETSI EN 300 228 V1.7.1 loses the presumption of conformity in 2014 (December I 
think).  Customer is installing a ZigBee component within his ITE device and 
wishes to apply the ZigBee transceiver compliance to his device.   I've argued 
that revision V1.8.1 which is listed in the OJ must be applied after the DoW.  
Both the ZigBee component manufacturer and the test lab involved argue that 
once a device is "certified" that retesting is not necessary.

I've double-checked the Blue Guide and I believe that their interpretation is 
not correct and that after the DoW the current revision listed in the OJ must 
be stated on the DoC.   Safety in numbers, looking for a sanity check here.

Thanks,

Carl
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

[John Woodgate]

In message <000c01ce8174$b2b997e0$182cc7a0$@gmail.com>, dated Mon, 15 
Jul 2013, Carl Newton  writes:


I?m in a debate with a lab and a manufacturer that insist that a R&TTE 
device doesn?t need to be re-evaluated against a new revision standard 
when the previous is withdrawn.


 

ETSI EN 300 228 V1.7.1 loses the presumption of conformity in 2014 
(December I think).  Customer is installing a ZigBee component within 
his ITE device and wishes to apply the ZigBee transceiver compliance to 
his device.   I?ve argued that revision V1.8.1 which is listed in the 
OJ must be applied after the DoW.  Both the ZigBee component 
manufacturer and the test lab involved argue that once a device is 
?certified? that retesting is not necessary. 


 

I?ve double-checked the Blue Guide and I believe that their 
interpretation is not correct and that after the DoW the current 
revision listed in the OJ must be stated on the DoC.   Safety in 
numbers, looking for a sanity check here.


You are almost right; the OJ actually gives the 'docopocoss' - the Date 
Of Cessation Of Presumption Of Conformity Of the Superseded Standard, 
and after THAT date only the current version of the standard is valid. 
It is not always the same as the dow.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

[Michael Derby]

You are correct Carl.   The device always needs to be 'assessed' to the
latest 'requirements'.

 

...and the easiest way to do this, is to 'test' to the latest 'standard'.

 

If they are following the harmonised standard route, then they will need to
show compliance with EN 300 328 V1.8.1 before December 2014.   (Some tests
will need re-testing)

 

If they do not wish to do that, then they will need to go to a Notified Body
for an opinion because they will no longer have the luxury of "presumption
of conformity" because the standard listed on their DoC will no longer be
the harmonised one (from December 2014).

 

Of course, if they do go to a Notified Body with their old results (V1.7.1)
and ask for an opinion to the new requirements (V1.8.1), then the Notified
Body should ask for some justification.   You don't need to test to
harmonised standards when you go to a Notified Body, but the Notified Body
should be asking for some justification for compliance, which is typically
equivalent to the latest harmonised standards.

Most likely, the Notified Body would ask them to demonstrate how it would
meet the V1.8.1 requirements.   J

 

You're right that there's no certification for Europe on R&TTE equipment.
It's all DoC, to the latest requirements.

 

So, I think you are right.   The lab and manufacturer seem like they are
wrong.

 

 

 

Michael.

 

 

Michael Derby

Regulatory Engineer

ACB Europe

 

From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 July 2013 17:02
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

 

Group,

 

I'm in a debate with a lab and a manufacturer that insist that a R&TTE
device doesn't need to be re-evaluated against a new revision standard when
the previous is withdrawn.

 

ETSI EN 300 228 V1.7.1 loses the presumption of conformity in 2014 (December
I think).  Customer is installing a ZigBee component within his ITE device
and wishes to apply the ZigBee transceiver compliance to his device.   I've
argued that revision V1.8.1 which is listed in the OJ must be applied after
the DoW.  Both the ZigBee component manufacturer and the test lab involved
argue that once a device is "certified" that retesting is not necessary.  

 

I've double-checked the Blue Guide and I believe that their interpretation
is not correct and that after the DoW the current revision listed in the OJ
must be stated on the DoC.   Safety in numbers, looking for a sanity check
here.

 

Thanks,

 

Carl

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

[Pettit, Ghery]

Carl,

The lab is incorrect.  Any product on the market in the EU must meet the 
current version of standards.  If the new one has already been listed, use it.  
That way you don't have to re-test when the DoW rolls around.  You are on the 
right track.

Ghery S. Pettit

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carl Newton
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 9:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: emcl...@gmail.com
Subject: Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

Group,

I'm in a debate with a lab and a manufacturer that insist that a R&TTE device 
doesn't need to be re-evaluated against a new revision standard when the 
previous is withdrawn.

ETSI EN 300 228 V1.7.1 loses the presumption of conformity in 2014 (December I 
think).  Customer is installing a ZigBee component within his ITE device and 
wishes to apply the ZigBee transceiver compliance to his device.   I've argued 
that revision V1.8.1 which is listed in the OJ must be applied after the DoW.  
Both the ZigBee component manufacturer and the test lab involved argue that 
once a device is "certified" that retesting is not necessary.

I've double-checked the Blue Guide and I believe that their interpretation is 
not correct and that after the DoW the current revision listed in the OJ must 
be stated on the DoC.   Safety in numbers, looking for a sanity check here.

Thanks,

Carl
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Grandfathered ETSI standards for CE Marking?

[Carl Newton]

Group,

 

I'm in a debate with a lab and a manufacturer that insist that a R&TTE
device doesn't need to be re-evaluated against a new revision standard when
the previous is withdrawn.

 

ETSI EN 300 228 V1.7.1 loses the presumption of conformity in 2014 (December
I think).  Customer is installing a ZigBee component within his ITE device
and wishes to apply the ZigBee transceiver compliance to his device.   I've
argued that revision V1.8.1 which is listed in the OJ must be applied after
the DoW.  Both the ZigBee component manufacturer and the test lab involved
argue that once a device is "certified" that retesting is not necessary.  

 

I've double-checked the Blue Guide and I believe that their interpretation
is not correct and that after the DoW the current revision listed in the OJ
must be stated on the DoC.   Safety in numbers, looking for a sanity check
here.

 

Thanks,

 

Carl


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] 100V, 100ms ETSI Transient or Surge

[jeff collins]

Group,

Has anyone performed or can point me to a 100V, 100ms transient/surge spec for 
ETSI?

I have a product that needs to meet this requirement and the client states it's 
required under ETSI 132-2 which it is not. ( At least not under the current 
revision )

However, I have found several DC brick manufacturers claiming compliance to an 
ETSI 132-2 spec for a 
100V, 100ms transient. 

One dc brick manufacturer states:

The impetus for the change to 100V for 100ms input voltage transient protection 
is primarily due to a particular 
interpretation of the ETSI ETS300 132-2 specification. A number of our 
customers have uniquely interpreted
this document to indicate that a 100V input transient for 100ms is a necessary 
requirement of all dc/dc converters
to meet this specification. We feel that this interpretation of the ETSI spec 
will become more widespread
and eventually could become an industry standard for dc/dc converters. The 
specific requirement states
that all dc/dc converters must have the ability to withstand a transient that 
lasts between 10ms and 100ms of
100V amplitude without shutting down or being damaged. The actual ETSI 
specification is admittedly very
vague and does not even mention the amplitude of the voltage step. Many 
companies have interpreted the exact
same document differently and indicate that 100V for 10    
 
μs input voltage transient capability is acceptable. In fact, nearly all dc/dc 
converters available on the market today provide a lower level of 
protection. We havedecided to implement this design change on new products so 
that we can satisfy both sets of customers, regardless
of how they interpret this ETSI specification. Therefore, we are providing 
protection above and beyond
what is expected and required in the marketplace. Meeting the demanding 
requirements of our global customers
will result in increased worldwide compliance for our product line.
 
Any experience, updates or comments on this is appreciated.
 
Thanks,
 
Jeff

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

[Fred Townsend]

In the US the hams are secondary to the military. Also allowed are RFID tags
and police robots as non-interfering tertiary users.

Fred Townsend

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Charlie
Blackham
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 5:42 AM
To: itl-emc user group; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

 

David

 

Look at  European Frequency Allocations in CEPT ERC report 25,
http://www.erodocdb.dk/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ERCRep025.pdf. 

433 MHz is allocated as an Amateur Radio Band, EN 301 783.

 

Regards

Charlie

 

From: itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il] 
Sent: 20 August 2012 13:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

 

Hello,

Any ideas for the appropriate R&TTE radio standard for a 433 MHz band, 0.5W
conducted RF power, radio device?

Any ideas will be appreciated.

 

Regards,

David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer

Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel

Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101

Mail e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill  Web  <http://www.itl.co.il>
www.itl.co.il

 

 <http://app.sqm.co.il/SitePages/Questionnaire.aspx> Fill out Customer
Satisfaction Survey

 

 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

[Sundstrom, Michael]

I thought the ISM 430 MHz band, had way less than 500 mW levels ???

Michael Sundstrom
OHD TREQ Dallas
Electronic Lab Analyst EMC Lead
(214) 579 6312  office
(940) 390 3644  cell
KB5UKT

From: Anthony Thomson [mailto:ton...@europe.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

Perhaps David’s interest is in the unlicenced 433.05 to 434.79 Industrial, 
Scientific & Medical (ISM) band.

The applicable standards are:
EN 300 220-3 for radio (R&TTED)
EN 301 489-3 for EMC, also required under the R&TTED

Standards are available free of charge at: http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp

T




- Original Message -

From: Charlie Blackham

Sent: 08/20/12 01:42 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

David









Look at  European Frequency Allocations in CEPT ERC report 25, 
http://www.erodocdb.dk/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ERCRep025.pdf.




433 MHz is allocated as an Amateur Radio Band, EN 301 783.









Regards




Charlie









From: itl-emc user group 
[mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]<mailto:[mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]>
Sent: 20 August 2012 13:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio









Hello,




Any ideas for the appropriate R&TTE radio standard for a 433 MHz band, 0.5W 
conducted RF power, radio device?




Any ideas will be appreciated.









Regards,




David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer




Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel




Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101




Mail e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill<mailto:e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill>  
Web www.itl.co.il<http://www.itl.co.il>









Fill out Customer Satisfaction 
Survey<http://app.sqm.co.il/SitePages/Questionnaire.aspx>














-






This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>





All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html





Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.





Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>





For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>





-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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...@radiusnorth.net<mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher ma

Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

[Charlie Blackham]

Not with a 0.5 W radio.

The device would have to comply with the relevant spectrum requirements as a 
short range device which can be found in 
http://www.erodocdb.dk/Docs/doc98/official/pdf/REC7003e.pdf  and details on 
Equipment Classes at  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/rtte/documents/index_en.htm#h2-5 and 
would be limited to 10mW, or less, depending on application and duty cycle.

Regards
Charlie

From: Anthony Thomson [mailto:ton...@europe.com]
Sent: 20 August 2012 14:04
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

Perhaps David’s interest is in the unlicenced 433.05 to 434.79 Industrial, 
Scientific & Medical (ISM) band.

The applicable standards are:
EN 300 220-3 for radio (R&TTED)
EN 301 489-3 for EMC, also required under the R&TTED

Standards are available free of charge at: http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp

T




- Original Message -

From: Charlie Blackham

Sent: 08/20/12 01:42 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

David









Look at  European Frequency Allocations in CEPT ERC report 25, 
http://www.erodocdb.dk/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ERCRep025.pdf.




433 MHz is allocated as an Amateur Radio Band, EN 301 783.









Regards




Charlie









From: itl-emc user group 
[mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]<mailto:[mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]>
Sent: 20 August 2012 13:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio









Hello,




Any ideas for the appropriate R&TTE radio standard for a 433 MHz band, 0.5W 
conducted RF power, radio device?




Any ideas will be appreciated.









Regards,




David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer




Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel




Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101




Mail e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill<mailto:e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill>  
Web www.itl.co.il<http://www.itl.co.il>









Fill out Customer Satisfaction 
Survey<http://app.sqm.co.il/SitePages/Questionnaire.aspx>














-






This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>





All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html





Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.





Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>





For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>





-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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...@radiusnorth.net<mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

[Cortland Richmond]

433.05 - 434.79 MHz is an ISM frequency band in Europe and low power 
radios in that band have occasionally been a problem when brought to the 
US, as (I am sure) FRS radios have been in the EU.


From the link you provided:
--
(footnote) 5.138  The following bands:

6 765 - 6 795 kHz (centre frequency 6 780 kHz),
433.05 - 434.79 MHz (centre frequency 433.92 MHz) in Region 1 except in 
the countries mentioned in No. 5.280,

61 - 61.5 GHz (centre frequency 61.25 GHz),
122 - 123 GHz (centre frequency 122.5 GHz), and
244 - 246 GHz (centre frequency 245 GHz)

are designated for industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) 
applications. The use of these frequency bands for ISM applications
shall be subject to special authorisation by the administration 
concerned, in agreement with other administrations whose
radiocommunication services might be affected. In applying this 
provision, administrations shall have due regard to the latest

relevant ITU-R Recommendations.


Cortland Richmond


On 8/20/2012 0842, Charlie Blackham wrote:


David

Look at European Frequency Allocations in CEPT ERC report 25, 
http://www.erodocdb.dk/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ERCRep025.pdf.


433 MHz is allocated as an Amateur Radio Band, EN 301 783.

Regards

Charlie

*From:*itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]
*Sent:* 20 August 2012 13:20
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

Hello,

Any ideas for the appropriate R&TTE radio standard for a 433 MHz band, 
0.5W conducted RF power, radio device?


Any ideas will be appreciated.

*Regards,***

*David Shidlowsky***| Technical Writer

*Address*1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel

*Tel*972-8-9186113*Fax* 972-8-9153101

*Mail*e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill 
<mailto:e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill> *Web* www.itl.co.il 
<http://www.itl.co.il>






-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

[Anthony Thomson]

Perhaps David’s interest is in the unlicenced 433.05 to 434.79 Industrial, 
Scientific & Medical (ISM) band.
The applicable standards are:
EN 300 220-3 for radio (R&TTED)
EN 301 489-3 for EMC, also required under the R&TTED
Standards are available free of charge at: 
http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp 
T
- Original Message -
From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: 08/20/12 01:42 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

David 
Look at European Frequency Allocations in CEPT ERC report 25, 
http://www.erodocdb.dk/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ERCRep025.pdf . 
433 MHz is allocated as an Amateur Radio Band, EN 301 783. 
Regards 
Charlie 

From: itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]
 *Sent:* 20 August 2012 13:20
 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 *Subject:* [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio 
Hello, 
Any ideas for the appropriate R&TTE radio standard for a 433 MHz band, 0.5W 
conducted RF power, radio device? 
Any ideas will be appreciated. 
Regards,
David Shidlowsky| Technical Writer 
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel 
Tel 972-8-9186113 *Fax* 972-8-9153101 
Mail e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill  *Web*http://www.itl.co.il 
Fill out CustomerSatisfaction Survey 
http://app.sqm.co.il/SitePages/Questionnaire.aspx 
-
  
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to < 
emc-p...@ieee.org >
 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
 Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/  can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
 Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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...@radiusnorth.net >
 Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org >
 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org >
 David Heald < dhe...@gmail.com >

 -
 
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to < 
emc-p...@ieee.org >
 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
 Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/  can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
 Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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...@radiusnorth.net >
 Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org >
 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org >
 David Heald < dhe...@gmail.com >

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

[Charlie Blackham]

David

Look at  European Frequency Allocations in CEPT ERC report 25, 
http://www.erodocdb.dk/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ERCRep025.pdf.
433 MHz is allocated as an Amateur Radio Band, EN 301 783.

Regards
Charlie

From: itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]
Sent: 20 August 2012 13:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

Hello,
Any ideas for the appropriate R&TTE radio standard for a 433 MHz band, 0.5W 
conducted RF power, radio device?
Any ideas will be appreciated.

Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill<mailto:e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill>  
Web www.itl.co.il<http://www.itl.co.il>

Fill out Customer Satisfaction 
Survey<http://app.sqm.co.il/SitePages/Questionnaire.aspx>


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Appropriate ETSI standard for 433 MHz Band Radio

[itl-emc user group]

Hello,
Any ideas for the appropriate R&TTE radio standard for a 433 MHz band, 0.5W 
conducted RF power, radio device?
Any ideas will be appreciated.

Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail e...@itl.co.i/dav...@itl.co.ill  
Web www.itl.co.il

Fill out Customer Satisfaction 
Survey


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

R&TTE: Revision of ETSI EN 300 328

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

It came to my attention that (copied from the 2011-02-18 ZVEI presentation,
which I can share with those who are interested in the subject)

/Start quote: TCAM decided in the 26th meeting, to revise the above standard
in the following points: 

*   not only to restrict the application area to wide band data systems
*   the ensured, equal media usage (especially when the band is congested 
*   and for that purpose suited, verifiable media access mechanisms

ETSI TC ERM restricts the implementation of the above TCAM demands solely to
automatic adaptive mechanisms in every device (read: Automatic Adaptivity
orients itself to the requirements of consumer end-products, thereby
performance and application area for industrial products is significantly
reduced, so that wireless cannot be used anymore in Europe for many
applications.

/End quote.

Question: anyone knows why this has been promoted at this point? When will it
take effect, if adopted?
The ZVEI presentation hints at the possibility of a solution (establish an
Industrial Class within EN 300 328).

Thanks,
N. Shani
Ottawa, ON

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 300330-1/2 query

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Charlie,
Thanks for your reply. And thank you for reacquainting me with the "all 
versions" checkbox.

Best regards, 
Ron Pickard 
Sent from my Blackberry



From: Charlie Blackham 
To: Ron Pickard; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Sent: Tue Jul 27 12:59:07 2010
Subject: RE: [PSES] ETSI EN 300330-1/2 query 


Ron

 

EN 300330-2 v1.3.1 is available from the ETSI website, but you have to tick the 
“All versions” box on the search page (http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp )

 

Regards

Charlie

 

 

From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com] 
Sent: 27 July 2010 18:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 300330-1/2 query

 

To those that may know,

 

The latest R&TTED harmonized standards list published in the OJ on15-Dec-2009 
lists EN 300330-2 v1.3.1 (2006-01) as being a final draft and is indicated on 
the cover as being a “Candidate Harmonized European Standard 
(Telecommunications series). This is curious as ETSI’s website only provides EN 
300330-2 v1.5.1 (2010-02), but it’s understandable as it was released by ETSI 
after the HS list was published.

 

This raises a couple of questions:

- Why was a draft standard included in the R&TTED’s harmonized standards list? 
(Maybe that’s all they had from 2006-2010)

- Does anyone have any idea when will the next release of this R&TTED list be 
in the OJ? (Hopefully, EN 300330-2 v1.5.1 will be included in it)

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: [PSES] ETSI EN 300330-1/2 query

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Ron

 

EN 300330-2 v1.3.1 is available from the ETSI website, but you have to tick
the “All versions” box on the search page
(http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp )

 

Regards

Charlie

 

 

From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com] 
Sent: 27 July 2010 18:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 300330-1/2 query

 

To those that may know,

 

The latest R&TTED harmonized standards list published in the OJ on15-Dec-2009
lists EN 300330-2 v1.3.1 (2006-01) as being a final draft and is indicated on
the cover as being a “Candidate Harmonized European Standard
(Telecommunications series). This is curious as ETSI’s website only provides
EN 300330-2 v1.5.1 (2010-02), but it’s understandable as it was released by
ETSI after the HS list was published.

 

This raises a couple of questions:

- Why was a draft standard included in the R&TTED’s harmonized standards
list? (Maybe that’s all they had from 2006-2010)

- Does anyone have any idea when will the next release of this R&TTED list be
in the OJ? (Hopefully, EN 300330-2 v1.5.1 will be included in it)

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

ETSI EN 300330-1/2 query

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

To those that may know,

 

The latest R&TTED harmonized standards list published in the OJ on15-Dec-2009
lists EN 300330-2 v1.3.1 (2006-01) as being a final draft and is indicated on
the cover as being a “Candidate Harmonized European Standard
(Telecommunications series). This is curious as ETSI’s website only provides
EN 300330-2 v1.5.1 (2010-02), but it’s understandable as it was released by
ETSI after the HS list was published.

 

This raises a couple of questions:

- Why was a draft standard included in the R&TTED’s harmonized standards
list? (Maybe that’s all they had from 2006-2010)

- Does anyone have any idea when will the next release of this R&TTED list be
in the OJ? (Hopefully, EN 300330-2 v1.5.1 will be included in it)

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Mobile Phone Charger - ETSI EN 301 489-34 ?

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Does anyone know anything about the forthcoming standard(s) for harmonised
mobile phone chargers or whom to contact for advance information about the
testing of these ?
 
Please feel free to contact me directly if you wish.
 
Thanks in advance for any information,
T
 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Charlie,
 
Thanks, what you write is probably the only possible conclusion.
 
I have the prototype with software like defined for production with these
switching on and off of the transmitter several times per second. I planned to
do myself some precompilance testing and I have read the standards to find how
to do it. Now I see that it is not so easy - I have to ask to prepare special
device version (from (-1) 4.2.1 I understand second sample is permissible only
if temporary antenna connector is fitted) with possibility to switch
transmitter on, off, and (may be) normal working. The other way can be
synchronising the measurements with on/off cycle of device but)
I'm not sure if for EMC testing I have to use the same sample (it is my first
attempt to R&TTE), but software is a part of EMC resistance system and
modifying it is not what I like the best. Filling the reader with some filling
mass is important for ESD, so I assume once prepared and filled with this mass
device can't be modified.
Fortunately I have the inputs directed to the processor and not directly to
the LEDs and buzzer so extending the communication protocol would be enough
(but only for sample for tests).
 
It looks that it would be not possible to do the _right_ tests of my device
taken directly from production.
 
Regards
Piotr Galka
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Charlie Blackham <mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>  
To: 'Piotr Galka' <mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl>  ; 'EMC-PSTC'
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>  
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement



Piotr

 

When you say “the receiver doesn’t work”, I presume you mean
“receiver doesn’t detect anything”, rather than the whole device is
powered off.

 

When the device is not transmitting, the transmitter is in idle mode, 
and so
has to meet the transmitter idle mode limits. These are the same as the
Receiver Spurious Emissions limits.

 

I would suggest that you equipment has to meet two spurious emissions
requirements:

 

(1) Transmitter Spurious Emissions when its transmitting operating

(2) Transmitter Idle Spurious Emissions / Receiver Spurious Emissions 
when
it’s not transmitting.

 

Regards

Charlie

 

From: Piotr Galka [mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl] 
Sent: 01 April 2010 11:45
To: EMC-PSTC; Charlie Blackham
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

 

Charlie,

It does not matter whether it’s a “transceiver” or a “co-located
receiver and transmitter” – what matters is whether or not it continually
transmits.

 

Receiver Spurious limits are (typically) lower than transmitter 
spurious
limits. If the transmitter and receiver are co-located and the device
continually transmits then only the “transmitter spurious emissions
limits” are relevant.

 

True, and the easiest way is to forgot about energy saving (90% 
possible) and
just to transmit continually.

But my question was: what if device _not_ transmits continually and how 
to
interpret receiver requirements if you can't make the receiver working when
transmitter doesn't emit continuous field, as receiver works by analysing the
voltage amplitude fluctuations at transmitter antenna.

 

Regards

Piotr Galka

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Piotr

 

When you say “the receiver doesn’t work”, I presume you mean “receiver
doesn’t detect anything”, rather than the whole device is powered off.

 

When the device is not transmitting, the transmitter is in idle mode, and so
has to meet the transmitter idle mode limits. These are the same as the
Receiver Spurious Emissions limits.

 

I would suggest that you equipment has to meet two spurious emissions
requirements:

 

(1) Transmitter Spurious Emissions when its transmitting operating

(2) Transmitter Idle Spurious Emissions / Receiver Spurious Emissions when
it’s not transmitting.

 

Regards

Charlie

 

From: Piotr Galka [mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl] 
Sent: 01 April 2010 11:45
To: EMC-PSTC; Charlie Blackham
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

 

Charlie,

It does not matter whether it’s a “transceiver” or a “co-located
receiver and transmitter” – what matters is whether or not it continually
transmits.

 

Receiver Spurious limits are (typically) lower than transmitter spurious
limits. If the transmitter and receiver are co-located and the device
continually transmits then only the “transmitter spurious emissions
limits” are relevant.

 

True, and the easiest way is to forgot about energy saving (90% possible) and
just to transmit continually.

But my question was: what if device _not_ transmits continually and how to
interpret receiver requirements if you can't make the receiver working when
transmitter doesn't emit continuous field, as receiver works by analysing the
voltage amplitude fluctuations at transmitter antenna.

 

Regards

Piotr Galka

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Charlie,

It does not matter whether it’s a “transceiver” or a “co-located
receiver and transmitter” – what matters is whether or not it continually
transmits.

 

Receiver Spurious limits are (typically) lower than transmitter spurious
limits. If the transmitter and receiver are co-located and the device
continually transmits then only the “transmitter spurious emissions
limits” are relevant.

 

True, and the easiest way is to forgot about energy saving (90% possible) and
just to transmit continually.

But my question was: what if device _not_ transmits continually and how to
interpret receiver requirements if you can't make the receiver working when
transmitter doesn't emit continuous field, as receiver works by analysing the
voltage amplitude fluctuations at transmitter antenna.

 

Regards

Piotr Galka

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message <7135750B072E4D3FB42D75155533DA28@MmPc21>, dated Thu, 1 Apr 
2010, Piotr Galka  writes:

>>>In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers 
>>>or co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous 
>>>transmissions."
>>>Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is for 
>>>"co-located receivers and transmitters" only or also for 
>>>"transceivers" >?
>>
>> It is somewhat ambiguous grammatically. But applying a technical 
>>argument  we can resolve it. a 'transceiver' and a 'co-located 
>>receiver and  transmitter' are technically things of the same kind,
>
>At that moment I supposed you are going to say that continuous 
>transmission applies also to transceiver.

Well, I now understand that it can. The answer to your original question 
is that 'No requirement' applies to both transceivers and to co-located 
receivers and transmitters.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

John,

Sorry, I didn't plan to make it so long but I couldn't stop writing.

>>In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers or 
>>co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions."
>>Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is for 
>>"co-located receivers and transmitters" only or also for "transceivers" >?
>
> It is somewhat ambiguous grammatically. But applying a technical argument 
> we can resolve it. a 'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and 
> transmitter' are technically things of the same kind,

At that moment I supposed you are going to say that continuous transmission 
applies also to transceiver.

> and I suppose a transceiver doesn't use continuous transmission, so we 
> could remove 'co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous 
> transmissions' without changing the meaning of the sentence:
>
> Not required for transceivers
>
In my (current) understanding (thinking only about RFID readers) the 
transceiver can use continuous transmission.
Forget Mifare for while (where reader must send something to ask transponder 
and wait for answer (with field on)) and think about Unique 125 kHz.
The reader makes the continuous 125 kHz field and waits to see the 
modulation on it. If we assume that making continuous 125 kHz field without 
modulation is not transmission then we come to decide that such RFID reader 
has not transmitter.
It was my previous (2004) understanding - I assumed that this field is only 
powering the transponder and not transmission so the device is not under 
R&TTE, but I see that Unique RFID readers are declared to R&TTE so I changed 
my understanding and now I think such reader is transmitting continuously, 
and I think such reader is a transceiver, so the transceiver can use 
continuous transmission, and of course can use not continuous transmission.
That is why your conclusion based on assumption that transceiver doesn't use 
continuous transmission didn't make me being sure how to understand that 
sentence.

But you may be right - in Duty cycle definition (302 291-1:7.3.1) they 
specify on-time of the "message" to total time. As continuous field has no 
message so Unique reader has transmitter with Duty cycle = 0. I know 125kHz 
reader is not under 302 291-1, but it is possible to make the 13.56 readers 
working the same way.
>From that continuous field is not continuous transmission so there are no 
transceivers with continuous transmission and may be the reader should pass 
the Receiver requirements with field on.
It looks as newer ending story until we consider 3 states:
1. Transmitter is sending the message.
2. Transmitter sets up the continuous field (to receive the answer)
3. Transmitter is switched off (for environment protection)
and based on it define such parameters like duty cycle and the requirements.

I have no wide view on the subject, but I think the most popular "Close 
Range Inductive Communication equipment operating at 13,56MHz" are RFID 
readers so when reading 302 291-1 (and 2) having the RFID reader in mind I 
should have no questions.

>>If it is for transceivers also then: How to do the receiver measurements ?
>>Receiver works by seeing the modulation of the 13.56MHz field by the 
>>transponder. When you have no field do you say such receiver is working or 
>>not.
>
> When there is no field, it doesn't matter whether the receiver works or 
> not.
If transceivers (with not continuous transmission) are not excluded (still 
not sure) from (302 291-2) "4.3.1 Receiver spurious radiations" than I think 
to measure those radiations it does matter if receiver works or not even if 
there is no field as transmitter is switched off.
The other aspect is that from data sheet of IC we use I can't find if the 
receiver part is switched off if transmitter is switched off (it can be done 
that way, I think).

> But that probably doesn't answer your question.

Yes, I'm still not sure.

> You can determine whether the receiver works at any time by using a 
> separate 13.5 MHz source.

It may be not true.
I don't understand everything in the IC data sheet, but there is a register 
to set the phase shift between the transmission to transponder and its 
answer used to decode the answer. Setting it you adopt (experimentally) the 
IC to your hardware.
>From that I suppose it can be not possible to determine if receiver works by 
using separate source.

There is a way around my question - be not so green and newer switch off the 
field.

Best Regards

Piotr Galka

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http

RE: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

It does not matter whether it’s a “transceiver” or a “co-located
receiver and transmitter” – what matters is whether or not it continually
transmits.

 

Receiver Spurious limits are (typically) lower than transmitter spurious
limits. If the transmitter and receiver are co-located and the device
continually transmits then only the “transmitter spurious emissions
limits” are relevant.

 

Regards

Charlie

 

From: Fred Townsend [mailto:ftowns...@sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: 31 March 2010 19:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

 

John I would argue the other case. The statement is not ambiguous and a
'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter' are technically
different things. I would offer a few tests:

1.  Can the transmitter and receiver functions operate separately and
independently? yes = transmitter and receiver; no = transceiver
2.  Does the device share major components other than cabinet and power 
supply?
 yes = transceiver ; no = transmitter and receiver

I would not expect any author of such a specification to be deliberately
ambiguous (politicians excepted).


Fred Townsend
DC to Light


John Woodgate wrote: 

In message <64E79FA814D3472AA68233483EE31294@MmPc21>, dated Wed, 31 Mar 2010,
Piotr Galka  <mailto:piotr.ga...@micromade.pl> 
writes: 




In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers or
co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions." 
Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is for "co-located
receivers and transmitters" only or also for "transceivers" >? 


It is somewhat ambiguous grammatically. But applying a technical argument we
can resolve it. a 'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter'
are technically things of the same kind, and I suppose a transceiver doesn't
use continuous transmission, so we could remove 'co-located receivers and
transmitters using continuous transmissions' without changing the meaning of
the sentence: 

Not required for transceivers 

Instead of that sentence, a simple table would be clearer, and less liable to
be incorrectly translated. It's difficult to do tables in plain ASCII, but
maybe this will not be too badly garbled: 

Transceivers. Not required 

Co-located receivers and transmitters 
using continuous transmissions... Not required 




  
If it is for transceivers also then: How to do the receiver measurements ? 
Receiver works by seeing the modulation of the 13.56MHz field by the
transponder. When you have no field do you say such receiver is working or
not. 


When there is no field, it doesn't matter whether the receiver works or not.
But that probably doesn't answer your question. You can determine whether the
receiver works at any time by using a separate 13.5 MHz source. 

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

John Woodgate wrote:


In message <4bb38e6f.6090...@sbcglobal.net>
 , dated Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Fred
Townsend    writes: 



John I would argue the other case. The statement is not 
ambiguous and a
'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter' are technically
different things. I would offer a few tests: 
1.Can the transmitter and receiver functions operate separately 
and
independently? yes = transmitter and receiver; no = transceiver 
2.Does the device share major components other than cabinet and 
power
supply?  yes = transceiver ; no = transmitter and receiver 
I would not expect any author of such a specification to be 
deliberately
ambiguous (politicians excepted). 



Believe me, it is VERY difficult to avoid *unintended* ambiguity when 
writing
standards. There is absolutely NO question of *deliberate* ambiguity though. 



How can you make sense of the whole sentence, based on your 
interpretation? 




In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for 
transceivers or
co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions." 


My guess, it is an attempt to differentiate between continuous 
broadcast or
telemetry and ICAS (Intermittent commercial - amateur) operation.  FT




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message <4bb38e6f.6090...@sbcglobal.net>, dated Wed, 31 Mar 2010, 
Fred Townsend  writes:

>John I would argue the other case. The statement is not ambiguous and a 
>'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter' are 
>technically different things. I would offer a few tests:
>1.Can the transmitter and receiver functions operate separately and 
>independently? yes = transmitter and receiver; no = transceiver
>2.Does the device share major components other than cabinet and power 
>supply?  yes = transceiver ; no = transmitter and receiver
>I would not expect any author of such a specification to be 
>deliberately ambiguous (politicians excepted).

Believe me, it is VERY difficult to avoid *unintended* ambiguity when 
writing standards. There is absolutely NO question of *deliberate* 
ambiguity though.
>
How can you make sense of the whole sentence, based on your 
interpretation?
>
>
>In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers 
>or co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous 
>transmissions."

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

John I would argue the other case. The statement is not ambiguous and a
'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter' are technically
different things. I would offer a few tests:


1.  Can the transmitter and receiver functions operate separately and
independently? yes = transmitter and receiver; no = transceiver
2.  Does the device share major components other than cabinet and power 
supply?
 yes = transceiver ; no = transmitter and receiver

I would not expect any author of such a specification to be deliberately
ambiguous (politicians excepted).


Fred Townsend
DC to Light


John Woodgate wrote: 

In message <64E79FA814D3472AA68233483EE31294@MmPc21>, dated Wed, 31 Mar 
2010,
Piotr Galka   
writes: 



In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for 
transceivers or
co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions." 
Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is 
for
"co-located receivers and transmitters" only or also for "transceivers" >? 



It is somewhat ambiguous grammatically. But applying a technical 
argument we
can resolve it. a 'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter'
are technically things of the same kind, and I suppose a transceiver doesn't
use continuous transmission, so we could remove 'co-located receivers and
transmitters using continuous transmissions' without changing the meaning of
the sentence: 

Not required for transceivers 

Instead of that sentence, a simple table would be clearer, and less 
liable to
be incorrectly translated. It's difficult to do tables in plain ASCII, but
maybe this will not be too badly garbled: 

Transceivers. Not required 

Co-located receivers and transmitters 
using continuous transmissions... Not required 



  
If it is for transceivers also then: How to do the receiver 
measurements ? 
Receiver works by seeing the modulation of the 13.56MHz field 
by the
transponder. When you have no field do you say such receiver is working or
not. 



When there is no field, it doesn't matter whether the receiver works or 
not.
But that probably doesn't answer your question. You can determine whether the
receiver works at any time by using a separate 13.5 MHz source. 



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message <64E79FA814D3472AA68233483EE31294@MmPc21>, dated Wed, 31 Mar 
2010, Piotr Galka  writes:

>In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers 
>or co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous 
>transmissions."
>Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is for 
>"co-located receivers and transmitters" only or also for "transceivers" >?

It is somewhat ambiguous grammatically. But applying a technical 
argument we can resolve it. a 'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver 
and transmitter' are technically things of the same kind, and I suppose 
a transceiver doesn't use continuous transmission, so we could remove 
'co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions' 
without changing the meaning of the sentence:

Not required for transceivers

Instead of that sentence, a simple table would be clearer, and less 
liable to be incorrectly translated. It's difficult to do tables in 
plain ASCII, but maybe this will not be too badly garbled:

Transceivers. Not required

Co-located receivers and transmitters
using continuous transmissions... Not required

> 
>If it is for transceivers also then: How to do the receiver 
>measurements ?
>Receiver works by seeing the modulation of the 13.56MHz field by the 
>transponder. When you have no field do you say such receiver is working 
>or not.

When there is no field, it doesn't matter whether the receiver works or 
not. But that probably doesn't answer your question. You can determine 
whether the receiver works at any time by using a separate 13.5 MHz 
source.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

All,
 
Because of energy saving we plan to switch on the 13.56MHz field in typical,
small Mifare RFID reader for short periods (let us say 10ms) 4 times a second.
In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers or
co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions."
Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is for "co-located
receivers and transmitters" only or also for "transceivers" ?
 
If it is for transceivers also then: How to do the receiver measurements ?
Receiver works by seeing the modulation of the 13.56MHz field by the
transponder. When you have no field do you say such receiver is working or not.
 
Best Regards
 
Piotr Galka
MicroMade
Poland
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: [PSES] Old ETSI standard

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Kim

 

You can access all the previous versions of GSM standards, including 4.9.0, if
you click the “GSM UMTS 3GPP Specifications” link at the bottom of the
ETSI Publications Download Area (http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp ):

 

http://webapp.etsi.org/key/key.asp?GSMS
ecPart1=51&GSMSpecPart2=010&Search=search 

 

regards

Charlie

 

From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk] 
Sent: 19 March 2010 13:53
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Old ETSI standard

 

Hi

 

Can someone send me a copy of ETSI TS 151 010 V4.9.0.  I can only get version
4.10.0 at ETSI web

(The standards are free, so it is no violation of copy rights)

 

Is this the same as TS 51 010 (GSM 11.10) ??

 

Best regards

 

Mr. Kim Boll Jensen

Bolls Rådgivning

Ved Gadekæret 11F

DK-3660 Stenløse

 

Phone: +45 48 18 35 66

 

k...@bolls.dk

www.bolls.dk

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: Old ETSI standard

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Kim
 
I believe I was able to locate the standard on the ETSI website 
 
Is this it? 
 
ETSI TS 151 010-1 V4.9.0 (2002-07)
 
If so, then what you need to do is check "All versions" on the Versioning
field on the Standards Download page at ETSI.org. 
 
I ran into the same issues when trying to locate an old version of a standard
not too long ago. Believe this is different than the old interface which if I
recall correctly showed all versions of a standard. 
 
Hope this helps. 
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott

[] General Public  
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:53 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Old ETSI standard



Hi

 

Can someone send me a copy of ETSI TS 151 010 V4.9.0.  I can only get version
4.10.0 at ETSI web

(The standards are free, so it is no violation of copy rights)

 

Is this the same as TS 51 010 (GSM 11.10) ??

 

Best regards

 

Mr. Kim Boll Jensen

Bolls Rådgivning

Ved Gadekæret 11F

DK-3660 Stenløse

 

Phone: +45 48 18 35 66

 

k...@bolls.dk

www.bolls.dk

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Old ETSI standard

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi

 

Can someone send me a copy of ETSI TS 151 010 V4.9.0.  I can only get version
4.10.0 at ETSI web

(The standards are free, so it is no violation of copy rights)

 

Is this the same as TS 51 010 (GSM 11.10) ??

 

Best regards

 

Mr. Kim Boll Jensen

Bolls Rådgivning

Ved Gadekæret 11F

DK-3660 Stenløse

 

Phone: +45 48 18 35 66

 

k...@bolls.dk

www.bolls.dk

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Conformation of licenced band adherence to standard ETSI regulations

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Folks

Does anyone know if in-country testing and homologation is required for
Licenced ETSI/ITU bands product in Argentiana? 
 
The document I have is Resolución 235 SC/2001
 
Thanks in advance for you help.
 
Christopher
408-871-1804 x 295

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
, 
dated Thu, 17 Sep 2009, pat.law...@slpower.com writes:

>Testing may have shown that some mains transformers have problems with 
>successive half-sines of the same polarity.  For example,  ' + - + _ + 
>- +'  (the underscore is a half-cycle dropout at 180 degrees.)

If they had 'problems', the product would be unreliable in the field. 
That is not a subject for EMC testing.

The effect on the transformer is to cause acoustic noise and mechanical 
vibration. There is likely to be a large inrush current, but that is 
investigated when testing to IEC/EN 61000-3-3. I don't see why IEC 
61000-4-11 is concerned with that.

The vague phrase: "Shorter durations in the table, in particular the 
half-cycle, should be tested to be sure that the equipment under test 
operates within the performance limits specified for it ." [i.e. 
Criterion A applies!] should not be there. It pre-empts a decision as to 
which criterion (NOTE: the singular is 'criterion', not 'criteria') A, B 
or C to apply to the test.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In IEC 61000-4-11:2004 above Table 1, is the vague phrase:
"Shorter durations in the table, in particular the half-cycle, should be 
tested to be sure that the equipment under test operates . . . "

Testing may have shown that some mains transformers have problems with 
successive half-sines of the same polarity.  For example,  ' + - + _ + - 
+'  (the underscore is a half-cycle dropout at 180 degrees.)

Pat Lawler
EMC Engineer
SL Power Electronics Corp.

william.t.sy...@motorola.com wrote on 09/17/2009 01:36:42 PM:
> I believe the change is to reflect alignment with the base 
> dips/interruptions spec EN/IEC 61000-4-11:2004 Table 1 . "Preferred 
> test level and  durations for voltage dips", Class 2, which has both
> 1/2 and 1  cycle 0% dips. 
>  
> See EN 300 386 v1.4.1 Section 2.1 Normative References [14]. The 
> previous  EN 300386 v1.3.2 cited an undated reference for 
> 61000-4-11, but the new one is a  dated reference (2004).
>  
> William T.  Sykes
> Compliance  Engineer
> Motorola Home &  Networks Mobility
> 101 Tournament  Drive
> Horsham, PA  19044
> 215-323-2619
> william.t.sy...@motorola.com 
> 
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org  [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Monrad 
Monsen
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:08 PM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386  v1.4.1
> 
> I need help in understanding ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 (2008-04).   In 
> section 7.2.2.4 (page 26) for "Other than telecommunication centres,
> AC power  ports", the standard gives the requirement for a "voltage 
> dips and short  interruptions immunity test" (7.2.2.4.4) stating 
thefollowing:
>Residual voltage  %  
> 0   Criteria  B
>Cycle0.5
>   Residual  voltage  %  
> 0   Criteria  B
>Cycle1
> 
> Both have the same performance criteria requirement (Criteria B) 
> and both are full voltage interruptions (0%), so the two entries are
> redundant.  Obviously, this is a typographical error.  We just need 
> to  know which is the actual requirement of the standard.  Either 
> the standard  wants us to test for a half cycle (10 ms) or for a 
> full cycle (20 ms).
> 
> In  the earlier revision (ETSI EN 300 386 v1.1.3), section 7.2.2.4 
> required the  following voltage interruption  test:
>   Voltage  reduction  %  
> >95   Criteria  B
>Duration ms 10
> 
> Did ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 intend to keep the same duration using 
> 0.5 cycle (same as 10ms from the past) so the other entry is the 
> actual error,  or did the committee really want to increase the 
> required voltage interruption  immunity by testing a full 1.0 cycle 
> (doubles the requirement to 20ms) so the  first entry is really the 
error?
> 
> Note:  ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 is  titled "Electromagnetic 
> compatibility and Radio Spectrum Matters (ERM);  Telecommunication 
> network equipment; ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) 
> requirements."  The date of withdrawal (dow) or date when this 
> standard  revision becomes mandatory in Europe is 31 July 2011.
> 
> Thank you. 
> -- 
> 
> Monrad  L. Monsen
> Worldwide Compliance  Officer
> Sun  Microsystems
> monrad.mon...@sun.com
> 303.272.9612  Office
> 
>   
> 
> -
> 
> This  message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
> emc-pstc discussion  list. To post a message to the list, send your 
> e-mail to 
> 
> All emc-pstc  postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
> Graphics  (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to
> that URL. 
> 
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
> Mike Cantwell   
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

ETSI TR102273 certified lab

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hello Friends,

We need to test a product in a lab certified to ETSI TR 102273.  Does anyone
know of a lab with this certification?  A California location would be
desirable, 92630 area code.

Many thanks,

Don Umbdenstock
Manager Compliance Engineering

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

And deviates from CISPR 24 which only requires the ½ cycle dip.  Still
doesn’t answer why ETSI made the change.

 

Ghery Pettit

Intel Corporation

 

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of SYKES WILLIAM
T-WRQ876
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:37 PM
To: Monrad Monsen; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1

 

All:

 

I believe the change is to reflect alignment with the base dips/interruptions
spec EN/IEC 61000-4-11:2004 Table 1 . "Preferred test level and durations for
voltage dips", Class 2, which has both 1/2 and 1 cycle 0% dips. 

 

See EN 300 386 v1.4.1 Section 2.1 Normative References [14]. The previous EN
300386 v1.3.2 cited an undated reference for 61000-4-11, but the new one is a
dated reference (2004).

 

William T. Sykes

Compliance Engineer

Motorola Home & Networks Mobility

101 Tournament Drive

Horsham, PA 19044

215-323-2619

william.t.sy...@motorola.com 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Monrad Monsen
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:08 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1

I need help in understanding ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 (2008-04).  In section
7.2.2.4 (page 26) for "Other than telecommunication centres, AC power ports",
the standard gives the requirement for a "voltage dips and short interruptions
immunity test" (7.2.2.4.4) stating the following:
  Residual voltage %  0  Criteria B
  Cycle   0.5
  Residual voltage %  0  Criteria B
  Cycle   1

Both have the same performance criteria requirement (Criteria B) and both are
full voltage interruptions (0%), so the two entries are redundant.  Obviously,
this is a typographical error.  We just need to know which is the actual
requirement of the standard.  Either the standard wants us to test for a half
cycle (10 ms) or for a full cycle (20 ms).

In the earlier revision (ETSI EN 300 386 v1.1.3), section 7.2.2.4 required the
following voltage interruption test:
  Voltage reduction %  >95 
Criteria B
      Duration ms   10

Did ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 intend to keep the same duration using 0.5 cycle
(same as 10ms from the past) so the other entry is the actual error, or did
the committee really want to increase the required voltage interruption
immunity by testing a full 1.0 cycle (doubles the requirement to 20ms) so the
first entry is really the error?

Note:  ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 is titled "Electromagnetic compatibility and
Radio Spectrum Matters (ERM); Telecommunication network equipment;
ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requirements."  The date of withdrawal
(dow) or date when this standard revision becomes mandatory in Europe is 31
July 2011.

Thank you. 

-- 

Monrad L. Monsen
Worldwide Compliance Officer
Sun Microsystems
monrad.mon...@sun.com
303.272.9612 Office

  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

All:
 
I believe the change is to reflect alignment with the base dips/interruptions
spec EN/IEC 61000-4-11:2004 Table 1 . "Preferred test level and durations for
voltage dips", Class 2, which has both 1/2 and 1 cycle 0% dips. 
 
See EN 300 386 v1.4.1 Section 2.1 Normative References [14]. The previous EN
300386 v1.3.2 cited an undated reference for 61000-4-11, but the new one is a
dated reference (2004).
 
William T. Sykes
Compliance Engineer
Motorola Home & Networks Mobility
101 Tournament Drive
Horsham, PA 19044
215-323-2619
william.t.sy...@motorola.com 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Monrad Monsen
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:08 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1


I need help in understanding ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 (2008-04).  In section
7.2.2.4 (page 26) for "Other than telecommunication centres, AC power ports",
the standard gives the requirement for a "voltage dips and short interruptions
immunity test" (7.2.2.4.4) stating the following:
  Residual voltage %  0  Criteria B
  Cycle   0.5
  Residual voltage %  0  Criteria B
  Cycle   1

Both have the same performance criteria requirement (Criteria B) and both are
full voltage interruptions (0%), so the two entries are redundant.  Obviously,
this is a typographical error.  We just need to know which is the actual
requirement of the standard.  Either the standard wants us to test for a half
cycle (10 ms) or for a full cycle (20 ms).

In the earlier revision (ETSI EN 300 386 v1.1.3), section 7.2.2.4 required the
following voltage interruption test:
  Voltage reduction %  >95 
Criteria B
      Duration ms   10

Did ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 intend to keep the same duration using 0.5 cycle
(same as 10ms from the past) so the other entry is the actual error, or did
the committee really want to increase the required voltage interruption
immunity by testing a full 1.0 cycle (doubles the requirement to 20ms) so the
first entry is really the error?

Note:  ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 is titled "Electromagnetic compatibility and
Radio Spectrum Matters (ERM); Telecommunication network equipment;
ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requirements."  The date of withdrawal
(dow) or date when this standard revision becomes mandatory in Europe is 31
July 2011.

Thank you. 
-- 


Monrad L. Monsen
Worldwide Compliance Officer
Sun Microsystems
monrad.mon...@sun.com
303.272.9612 Office

  


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Clarification on ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

I need help in understanding ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 (2008-04).  In section
7.2.2.4 (page 26) for "Other than telecommunication centres, AC power ports",
the standard gives the requirement for a "voltage dips and short interruptions
immunity test" (7.2.2.4.4) stating the following:
  Residual voltage %  0  Criteria B
  Cycle   0.5
  Residual voltage %  0  Criteria B
  Cycle   1

Both have the same performance criteria requirement (Criteria B) and both are
full voltage interruptions (0%), so the two entries are redundant.  Obviously,
this is a typographical error.  We just need to know which is the actual
requirement of the standard.  Either the standard wants us to test for a half
cycle (10 ms) or for a full cycle (20 ms).

In the earlier revision (ETSI EN 300 386 v1.1.3), section 7.2.2.4 required the
following voltage interruption test:
  Voltage reduction %  >95 
Criteria B
  Duration ms   10

Did ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 intend to keep the same duration using 0.5 cycle
(same as 10ms from the past) so the other entry is the actual error, or did
the committee really want to increase the required voltage interruption
immunity by testing a full 1.0 cycle (doubles the requirement to 20ms) so the
first entry is really the error?

Note:  ETSI EN 300 386 v1.4.1 is titled "Electromagnetic compatibility and
Radio Spectrum Matters (ERM); Telecommunication network equipment;
ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requirements."  The date of withdrawal
(dow) or date when this standard revision becomes mandatory in Europe is 31
July 2011.

Thank you. 
-- 


Monrad L. Monsen
Worldwide Compliance Officer
Sun Microsystems
monrad.mon...@sun.com
303.272.9612 Office

  


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: ETSI 301 489-1

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

I believe the frequency range was chosen based on threat assessment from
Radios operating above 800MHz - ie GSM(800MHz), DCS(1800MHz),
DECT(1880-1900MHz), etc...
 
Dustin Oaks
Compliance Engineer
 
PELCO   | 3500 Pelco Way | Clovis Ca, 93612 | 559-292-1981 x3348



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
david.cole...@selex-comms.com
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:31 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: ETSI 301 489-1



Noob quick question - why does this RTTE standard skip from 1000MHz to 1400
MHz for RF immunity? 

Best Regards,
Dave Coleman AIIRSM
SELEX Communications Ltd. 

“Usually I try to take it one day at a time, but lately several have
attacked me at once...” 

This email and any attached files contains company confidential information
which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s) or
entity to which it is addressed and solely for the purposes set forth therein.
If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error
please notify the sender by return, delete it from your system and destroy any
local copies. It is strictly forbidden to use the information in this email
including any attachment or part thereof including copying, disclosing,
distributing, amending or using for any other purpose.

In addition the sender excludes all liabilities (whether tortious or common
law) for damage or breach arising or related to this email including but not
limited to viruses and libel.
SELEX Communications Limited is a Private Limited Company registered in
England and Wales under Company Number 964533 and whose Registered Office is
Lambda House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon, SS14 3EL. England.
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


- -

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmission is
legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the
individual(s) or entities named above. This email and any files transmitted
with it are the property of Pelco. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted
to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone
call to +1-559-292-1981 or forward the e-mail to administra...@pelco.com and
then permanently delete the e-mail and destroy all soft and hard copies of the
message and any attachments. Thank you for your cooperation. 
- -


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

ETSI 301 489-1

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Noob quick question - why does this RTTE standard skip from 1000MHz to 1400
MHz for RF immunity? 

Best Regards,
Dave Coleman AIIRSM
SELEX Communications Ltd. 

“Usually I try to take it one day at a time, but lately several have
attacked me at once...” 

This email and any attached files contains company confidential information
which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s) or
entity to which it is addressed and solely for the purposes set forth therein.
If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error
please notify the sender by return, delete it from your system and destroy any
local copies. It is strictly forbidden to use the information in this email
including any attachment or part thereof including copying, disclosing,
distributing, amending or using for any other purpose.

In addition the sender excludes all liabilities (whether tortious or common
law) for damage or breach arising or related to this email including but not
limited to viruses and libel.
SELEX Communications Limited is a Private Limited Company registered in
England and Wales under Company Number 964533 and whose Registered Office is
Lambda House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon, SS14 3EL. England.
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

R: Final draft of ETSI standards.

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Final draft is the documents that goes on Public enquiry or vote
Some changes will be possible
 
 
Paolo Gemma
Siemens S.p.A.
Com CRD MW ST EMC & Safety
SS Padana sup. KM 158 20060 Cassina de' Pecchi (MI) Italy
phone +39 02 2437 6587fax +39 0224376375
mobile +39 348 3690185
e-mail  <mailto:paolo.ge...@siemens.com> paolo.ge...@siemens.com
 

  _  

Da: emc-p...@ieee.org per conto di Daniel Liang
Inviato: ven 26/05/2006 5.38
A: emc-p...@ieee.org
Oggetto: Final draft of ETSI standards.


Dear all experts,
 
For the ETSI standards show  "final draft" version on the cover page, is it
valid for testing or just use for reference? Or I should wait for the next
verion without this wording?
 
Regards,
 
Daniel.


  _  

Do You Yahoo!?
 <http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/?id=77072> �
�誥轎煤G蚘眊ㄜ笢弊郔轎煤滅馮毀嶼僵閉湮蚘眊 -
 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 

Final draft of ETSI standards.

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Dear all experts,
 
For the ETSI standards show  "final draft" version on the cover page, is it
valid for testing or just use for reference? Or I should wait for the next
verion without this wording?
 
Regards,
 
Daniel.


  _  

Do You Yahoo!?
捇誥轎煤G蚘眊ㄜ笢弊郔轎煤滅馮毀嶼僵閉湮蚘眊
<http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/?id=77072>  -
 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

ETSI EN 302 297, clause 4.3.13 Limits to cabinet radiation

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Dear Group
 
within  the above menitoned  requirements the measurement of cabinet radiation 
is defined up 4.5 GHz with a QP detector.
However I am  not aware of a definiton for the QP detector above 1 GHz.
 
Anybody can point me in the right direction, which BW should be used for this 
test and where the QP detector is defined
 
 
Regards
Markus Plangger
 
-  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 

ETSI EN 300 132-2 Section 4.9

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi to all,
 
Would anyone know if equipment installed in a Telco central office is required
to meet the conducted emissions requirements of ETSI EN 300 132-2 Section 4.9?
I have found references to other sections of this standard in various
documents but only found Cisco datasheets claiming compliance to section 4.9.
So I wonder if the general practice may be not to apply this section when
evaluating conformance to this standard.
 
Thanks,
Eric

Éric Meunier

Designer EMC/Environmental

 

E-mail:  <mailto:eric.meun...@ca.kontron.com> eric.meun...@ca.kontron.com

 

Kontron Canada Inc.

616, rue Curé-Boivin

Boisbriand, Québec

Canada, J7G 2A7

 

Tel: 1-450-437-4661 ext. 2419

Fax: 1-450-437-8053

L'information contenue dans le présent document est la propriété de Kontron
Canada inc. et est divulguée en toute confidentialité. Cette information ne
doit pas être utilisée, divulguée à d'autres personnes ou reproduite sans
le consentement écrit explicite de Kontron Canada inc.

The information contained in this document is confidential and the sole
property of Kontron Canada Inc. It shall not be used, disclosed to others or
reproduced without the express written consent of Kontron Canada Inc.

 

 
-  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: ETSI EN 300 386, Directive 83/336/EEC?

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Leen,
Thanks for that link.

To all,
However, it's nice to know that even the EU Commission makes a mistake or two
>from time to time.
According to that linked document, that list of harminized standards pertains
to Council Directive
83/336/EEC. Since there is no Directive 83/336/EEC to my knowledge, I am sure
they wanted to
actually reference Directive 89/336/EEC.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com



  
 
 l...@lucent.com  
 
 Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org   
 
  
  To 
 chris_al...@eur.3com.com 
 
 11/14/2005 04:10 AM  
  cc 
 emc-p...@ieee.org
 
  
 Subject 
 RE: ETSI EN 300 386  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 




Chris,

The ETSI EN 300 386 is listed in the OJ dated 5th October 2005, pages 22 & 23.
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUri
erv/site/en/oj/2005/c_246/c_24620051005en00010024.pdf

Kind regards,

Leen Mak
Lucent Technologies

>>  -Original Message-
>>  From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Chris
>>  Allen
>>  Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 11:45
>>  To: emc-p...@ieee.org
>>  Subject: ETSI EN 300 386
>>
>>
>>  I have been asked to take a look at ETSI EN 300 386 and
>>  it's applicability to
>>  WAN products in the EU. I have checked the OJ dated 10th
>>  October 2005 and the
>>  standard is not listed.
>>
>>  Does anyone know what the status of this standard is or
>>  have a view on whether
>>  or not this standard can be applied to products connected
>>  to the telecomms
>>  network instead of EN55022 / EN55024?
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>  Chris.
>>
>>  -
>>  
>>  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/listserv/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/listserv/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/listserv/reques