RE: EN55024 Surge on signal / telecom lines

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Thanks Joe.  I was working too fast and didn't question what I was seeing, but
you're right: the ITU standards were replaced by IEC61000-4-5 a while back.
 
I think we'll end up proceeding with doing the surge tests.  Without resorting
to the essential requirements route to compliance and use of a Competent Body,
we need to test to the letter of the harmonized standard, and it hardens our
product in case anyone does hook up a long outdoor run. 
 

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
phone: (604) 422-2546
fax: (604) 420-1591
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com 
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.

 

  _  

From: Joe Randolph 
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:23 PM
To: Jim Eichner; EMC-PSTC - Forum
Cc: Jim Eichner
Subject: Re: EN55024 Surge on signal / telecom lines


On 8/22/2006, Jim Eichner wrote:



What does "outdoor" really mean?  Is the intent to apply this test
even if you only have 10cm of outdoor cable connecting this product to
another part of our system?  What about a short run outdoor cable from
this product through a hole into the building?  




Hi Jim:

The reference to outdoor cables is primarily intended to cover conventional
phone lines that can be up to 20,000 feet long.  The exposure to lightning
transients and ground potential differences will diminish in rough proportion
to the length of the exposed cable.  

I doubt that you will find a consensus on what maximum length of cable is
"safe" to use without transient protection, but I think the cables in your
application will probably be sufficiently short that the exposure risk will be
greatly reduced compared to conventional phone lines.  I believe the Ethernet
specification limits the cable length to 100 meters.  I don't know the maximum
cable lengths for RS-485 and CANbus, but I had the impression the maximum
cable lengths for these were much less than 100 meters.  Can you clarify what
the expected maximum cable lengths are in your application for each of the
three types?

I suspect that you may have a case for arguing that at least some of the three
interfaces do not connect to "outside cables" in the traditional sense. 
However, I would want to have more details on the intended configuration
before commenting further on this.

Due to the transformer coupling used in Ethernet interfaces, it's pretty easy
to design Ethernet ports to withstand a 1 KV surge.  So, there's not a strong
incentive to try and exempt the Ethernet ports from the 1 KV surge test. 
Ports that are not transformer coupled are harder to protect, but certainly
not impossible.

You mention a desire to obtain some ITU standards, presumably K.44 and K.21. 
These can be purchased for a nominal fee at
http://www.itu.int/search/index.html.  I'm not sure that you actually need
these standards, since EN 55024 references IEC 61000-4-5 for the test.  




Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com <http://www.randolph-telecom.com/> 



__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-  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: EN55024 Surge on signal / telecom lines

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

On 8/22/2006, Jim Eichner wrote:



What does "outdoor" really mean?  Is the intent to apply this test
even if you only have 10cm of outdoor cable connecting this product to
another part of our system?  What about a short run outdoor cable from
this product through a hole into the building?  




Hi Jim:

The reference to outdoor cables is primarily intended to cover conventional
phone lines that can be up to 20,000 feet long.  The exposure to lightning
transients and ground potential differences will diminish in rough proportion
to the length of the exposed cable.  

I doubt that you will find a consensus on what maximum length of cable is
"safe" to use without transient protection, but I think the cables in your
application will probably be sufficiently short that the exposure risk will be
greatly reduced compared to conventional phone lines.  I believe the Ethernet
specification limits the cable length to 100 meters.  I don't know the maximum
cable lengths for RS-485 and CANbus, but I had the impression the maximum
cable lengths for these were much less than 100 meters.  Can you clarify what
the expected maximum cable lengths are in your application for each of the
three types?

I suspect that you may have a case for arguing that at least some of the three
interfaces do not connect to "outside cables" in the traditional sense. 
However, I would want to have more details on the intended configuration
before commenting further on this.

Due to the transformer coupling used in Ethernet interfaces, it's pretty easy
to design Ethernet ports to withstand a 1 KV surge.  So, there's not a strong
incentive to try and exempt the Ethernet ports from the 1 KV surge test. 
Ports that are not transformer coupled are harder to protect, but certainly
not impossible.

You mention a desire to obtain some ITU standards, presumably K.44 and K.21. 
These can be purchased for a nominal fee at
http://www.itu.int/search/index.html.  I'm not sure that you actually need
these standards, since EN 55024 references IEC 61000-4-5 for the test.  




Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com  

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__


-  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: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

CO should make the older documents more readily available.  SC I isn't
going to change CISPR 24 in the near future and EN 55024 also calls out
the dated references...


From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:41 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

In article <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E033CC1D2@orsmsx408>, Pettit,
Ghery  writes
>That is an on-going problem.  At the IEC level, CISPR 24 calls out
>various IEC 61000-4-X documents that are no longer available on the IEC
>web site, having been updated by SC77B.  I am told that the originals
>can be purchased, but you have to contact the IEC to do so.  There is
>nothing going on in CISPR SC I WG3 to update the references.  And, the
>commitment to dated references was reiterated at the CISPR SC I meeting
>in Shanghai in September.  Something about the product committee
>controlling its own destiny and not being held hostage to the whims of
>another committee...

My comments referred to the ENs. Are the *IEC* standards associated with
regulatory requirements in some countries? If so, CISPR/I should be
required to reconsider, or the Central Office should make the relevant
standards more readily available.

But if no-one bothers to take any effective action to improve the
situation
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

http://www.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:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

In article <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E033CC1D2@orsmsx408>, Pettit,
Ghery  writes
>That is an on-going problem.  At the IEC level, CISPR 24 calls out
>various IEC 61000-4-X documents that are no longer available on the IEC
>web site, having been updated by SC77B.  I am told that the originals
>can be purchased, but you have to contact the IEC to do so.  There is
>nothing going on in CISPR SC I WG3 to update the references.  And, the
>commitment to dated references was reiterated at the CISPR SC I meeting
>in Shanghai in September.  Something about the product committee
>controlling its own destiny and not being held hostage to the whims of
>another committee...

My comments referred to the ENs. Are the *IEC* standards associated with
regulatory requirements in some countries? If so, CISPR/I should be
required to reconsider, or the Central Office should make the relevant
standards more readily available.

But if no-one bothers to take any effective action to improve the
situation
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

John,

That is an on-going problem.  At the IEC level, CISPR 24 calls out
various IEC 61000-4-X documents that are no longer available on the IEC
web site, having been updated by SC77B.  I am told that the originals
can be purchased, but you have to contact the IEC to do so.  There is
nothing going on in CISPR SC I WG3 to update the references.  And, the
commitment to dated references was reiterated at the CISPR SC I meeting
in Shanghai in September.  Something about the product committee
controlling its own destiny and not being held hostage to the whims of
another committee...

Other than EN 61000-4-3:1996 being a modified version of IEC
61000-4-3:1995, the 61000-4-X series called out in Annex ZA of EN
55024:1998 are the same whether they are EN or IEC.  So, for ITE, it
would appear that either may be used as there are not supposed to be any
differences (at least according to the text in EN 55024:1998).

Ghery



From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:20 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

In article <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0338ABD6@orsmsx408>, Pettit,
Ghery  writes
>Got it.  Looked at Annex ZA in EN 55024 and it is still dated
referenced
>to the 61000-4-X series.  I still stand on my statement that SC77B can
>update the 61000-4-X series, but the original versions still need to be
>available as they are still the ones called out in the standard.

You do not use the IEC standards, you use the ENs. If any of those basic
standards have been withdrawn while still called-up in valid product
standards, then something has gone wrong:

- the basic standard should still be available;

or

- the product standard should have been updated.

I suspect that the second possibility is too often true.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

http://www.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:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

Michael Heckrotte  wrote (in <7B3D1875A9A53142AB5
d421ee97d0e601a4...@ccsexchange.ccsdomain.ccsemc.com>) about 'EN55024 &
IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability', on Wed, 10 Nov 2004:
>It is not up to the basic standard committee to know what other
>standards are calling out the basic standard as a normative reference,
>therefore the responsibility for keeping track of effective dates of the
>reference standards does fall on the product standard committee.

The Central Secretariat is responsible for withdrawals, not the
standards committee.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

In article <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0338ABD6@orsmsx408>, Pettit,
Ghery  writes
>Got it.  Looked at Annex ZA in EN 55024 and it is still dated referenced
>to the 61000-4-X series.  I still stand on my statement that SC77B can
>update the 61000-4-X series, but the original versions still need to be
>available as they are still the ones called out in the standard.

You do not use the IEC standards, you use the ENs. If any of those basic
standards have been withdrawn while still called-up in valid product
standards, then something has gone wrong:

- the basic standard should still be available;

or

- the product standard should have been updated.

I suspect that the second possibility is too often true.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

It is not up to the basic standard committee to know what other standards are
calling out the basic standard as a normative reference, therefore the
responsibility for keeping track of effective dates of the reference standards
does fall on the product standard committee.

Michael Heckrotte
Engineering Manager, CCS
(408) 463-0885 ext. 121
fax: (408) 463-0888
mheckro...@ccsemc.com




From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:20 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability


In article <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0338ABD6@orsmsx408>, Pettit,
Ghery  writes
>Got it.  Looked at Annex ZA in EN 55024 and it is still dated referenced
>to the 61000-4-X series.  I still stand on my statement that SC77B can
>update the 61000-4-X series, but the original versions still need to be
>available as they are still the ones called out in the standard.

You do not use the IEC standards, you use the ENs. If any of those basic
standards have been withdrawn while still called-up in valid product
standards, then something has gone wrong:

- the basic standard should still be available;

or

- the product standard should have been updated.

I suspect that the second possibility is too often true.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

http://www.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:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

In article <200411100938.iaa9cqul022...@hormel4.ieee.org>, G.Gremmen
 writes
>Type B standards are not listed in the OJ and are describing measurement
>setups. They may also define limits,

Some purport to do so, but it is quite clearly established in CENELEC
that the only valid limits are those in Generic, product and product-
family standards.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

Annex ZA in EN 55024:1998 uses dated references to the IEC 61000-4-X
series.  Thus, updates from SC77B do not impact the test methods to be
used.  The two amendments to EN 55024:1998 called out in the OJ do not
mention modifications in the list, so one should assume that the
amendments stand as published by CISPR.  If this is not the case the
citation should say (Modified) as it does for CISPR 24:1997 for the
initial issue of EN 55024:1998.

Ghery



From: G.Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 12:40 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

Ghery et all,

The system of ce-marking and emc testing  is different:

Standards are divided into 2 groups ( for this topic)

A/  Product(group) standards , candidates for harmonisation , must be EN
versions (example EN 55022/EN55024/EN61326/EN61000-6-4 etc. see list)

B/  Basic Standards : can be all other standards including EN's and
including some standards from group A (notably EN 55022).
(examples are the famous IEC 61000-4 series)

Type A standards are being notified using the OJ (official Journal) and
Are given a date of applicability by the publication in the OJ

Type A standard are used to define test conditions AND limits.
Type A standard (if applied) give presumption of conformity.

Type B standards are not listed in the OJ and are describing measurement
setups. They may also define limits, but these are overruled by the
harmonized standard referencing a type B standard.

When it comes to a type A standard referring to a B type, to describe a
measurement setup, a dated or undated reference may be made. If the
reference is dated, then the specified version including valid
amendments
should be applied. If undated the newest version need to be applied.
The dates mentioned in the type B standards in the foreword (dow dop)
define
the status of validity.  Of course, to be current, you need to find the
latest version to be up to date. This is an information issue that IEC
may
be helpful in. As John explained clearly, EN standards have a Annex ZA
that
their IEC or CISPR counterparts do not have. This annex gives you final
reference towards what referenced standards are actually meant in the
standards text.
So the list in the CISPR 24 part under section 2 is being overruled by
the
annex ZA. Note also that this Annex ZA list can in turn be overruled by
recent amendments or revisions.

So if defining what type of standards to be used for a product, make
your
selection from type A standards (often more then 1) according to the
latest
version of the list of OJ published harmonised (current april 2004).
Then, use Annex ZA to define what type B (basic) standards need to be
consulted to define the test set up, definitions etc.

This annex ZA is added in the phase of transferring an IEC(CISPR)
standard
to an EN standard, and in some (most) cases CENELEC adds some "Common
Modifications" to the IEC(CISPR) version , so as to ensure the EN
standard
may be applied for presumption of compliance with the essential
requirements
of the EMC directive.

Why this system ?
The European Commission decided to use the New Approach system to
publish
directives without limits and measurement methods. Only global
descriptions
of the goal to achieved where defined. The technical implementation was
left
over to the market, in case of the EMCD this was CENELEC with a mandate
to
publish candidates for harmonized standards. This harmonization phase
was
necessary to prevent CENELEC (= industry) to get too much power. After
all,
CENELEC is a private organization. Under no circumstances a private body
could obtain a status in which it publishes documents with legal value.
This
is also the reason why the EN dates are overruled by the dates in the
published OJ list.

Hope this makes thing finally clear.


Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

==
ce-test, qualified testing

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
  according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and reliability testing
Website: www.cetest.nl (english)
   www.ce-test.nl (dutch)

Phone : +31 10 415 24 26
Fax :   +31 10 415 49 53

==

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pettit, Ghery
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 22:34
To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

Annex ZA?  When I look at the list of harmonized standards for the EMC
Directive on Europa
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmst
ds/re

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

Got it.  Looked at Annex ZA in EN 55024 and it is still dated referenced
to the 61000-4-X series.  I still stand on my statement that SC77B can
update the 61000-4-X series, but the original versions still need to be
available as they are still the ones called out in the standard.

Ghery



From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 9:22 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

In article <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0338A2D0@orsmsx408>, Pettit,
Ghery  writes
>Annex ZA?  When I look at the list of harmonized standards for the EMC
>Directive on Europa
>(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harms
t
>ds/reflist.html) I do not see any of the 61000-4-X standards listed.
>Thus, the list in EN 55024, which is the list in CISPR 24, applies.
>Dated references.  Unless and until CISPR 24 or EN 55024 are updated,
>SC77B can update the 61000-4-X series all they want, but there will be
>no impact to ITE.  Or am I missing something?

You must look at the Annex ZA of the product standard (EN55xxx) to see
which editions of the referenced standards (including 61000-4 series)
apply. These referenced standards, if they are ENs, have their own
Annexes ZA for standards referenced in them.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

http://www.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:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

Ghery et all,

The system of ce-marking and emc testing  is different:

Standards are divided into 2 groups ( for this topic)

A/  Product(group) standards , candidates for harmonisation , must be EN
versions (example EN 55022/EN55024/EN61326/EN61000-6-4 etc. see list)

B/  Basic Standards : can be all other standards including EN's and
including some standards from group A (notably EN 55022).
(examples are the famous IEC 61000-4 series)

Type A standards are being notified using the OJ (official Journal) and
Are given a date of applicability by the publication in the OJ

Type A standard are used to define test conditions AND limits.
Type A standard (if applied) give presumption of conformity.

Type B standards are not listed in the OJ and are describing measurement
setups. They may also define limits, but these are overruled by the
harmonized standard referencing a type B standard.

When it comes to a type A standard referring to a B type, to describe a
measurement setup, a dated or undated reference may be made. If the
reference is dated, then the specified version including valid amendments
should be applied. If undated the newest version need to be applied.
The dates mentioned in the type B standards in the foreword (dow dop) define
the status of validity.  Of course, to be current, you need to find the
latest version to be up to date. This is an information issue that IEC may
be helpful in. As John explained clearly, EN standards have a Annex ZA that
their IEC or CISPR counterparts do not have. This annex gives you final
reference towards what referenced standards are actually meant in the
standards text.
So the list in the CISPR 24 part under section 2 is being overruled by the
annex ZA. Note also that this Annex ZA list can in turn be overruled by
recent amendments or revisions.

So if defining what type of standards to be used for a product, make your
selection from type A standards (often more then 1) according to the latest
version of the list of OJ published harmonised (current april 2004).
Then, use Annex ZA to define what type B (basic) standards need to be
consulted to define the test set up, definitions etc.

This annex ZA is added in the phase of transferring an IEC(CISPR) standard
to an EN standard, and in some (most) cases CENELEC adds some "Common
Modifications" to the IEC(CISPR) version , so as to ensure the EN standard
may be applied for presumption of compliance with the essential requirements
of the EMC directive.

Why this system ?
The European Commission decided to use the New Approach system to publish
directives without limits and measurement methods. Only global descriptions
of the goal to achieved where defined. The technical implementation was left
over to the market, in case of the EMCD this was CENELEC with a mandate to
publish candidates for harmonized standards. This harmonization phase was
necessary to prevent CENELEC (= industry) to get too much power. After all,
CENELEC is a private organization. Under no circumstances a private body
could obtain a status in which it publishes documents with legal value. This
is also the reason why the EN dates are overruled by the dates in the
published OJ list.

Hope this makes thing finally clear.


Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

==
ce-test, qualified testing

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
  according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and reliability testing
Website: www.cetest.nl (english)
   www.ce-test.nl (dutch)

Phone : +31 10 415 24 26
Fax :   +31 10 415 49 53

==

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pettit, Ghery
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 22:34
To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

Annex ZA?  When I look at the list of harmonized standards for the EMC
Directive on Europa
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmst
ds/reflist.html) I do not see any of the 61000-4-X standards listed.
Thus, the list in EN 55024, which is the list in CISPR 24, applies.
Dated references.  Unless and until CISPR 24 or EN 55024 are updated,
SC77B can update the 61000-4-X series all they want, but there will be
no impact to ITE.  Or am I missing something?

Ghery Pettit



From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:35 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

In article , Mike Hopkins
 writes


>Cenelec says the DOW is the, "Latest date by which an EN h

Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

In article <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0338A2D0@orsmsx408>, Pettit,
Ghery  writes
>Annex ZA?  When I look at the list of harmonized standards for the EMC
>Directive on Europa
>(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmst
>ds/reflist.html) I do not see any of the 61000-4-X standards listed.
>Thus, the list in EN 55024, which is the list in CISPR 24, applies.
>Dated references.  Unless and until CISPR 24 or EN 55024 are updated,
>SC77B can update the 61000-4-X series all they want, but there will be
>no impact to ITE.  Or am I missing something?

You must look at the Annex ZA of the product standard (EN55xxx) to see
which editions of the referenced standards (including 61000-4 series)
apply. These referenced standards, if they are ENs, have their own
Annexes ZA for standards referenced in them.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

Annex ZA?  When I look at the list of harmonized standards for the EMC
Directive on Europa
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmst
ds/reflist.html) I do not see any of the 61000-4-X standards listed.
Thus, the list in EN 55024, which is the list in CISPR 24, applies.
Dated references.  Unless and until CISPR 24 or EN 55024 are updated,
SC77B can update the 61000-4-X series all they want, but there will be
no impact to ITE.  Or am I missing something?

Ghery Pettit



From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:35 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

In article , Mike Hopkins
 writes


>Cenelec says the DOW is the, "Latest date by which an EN has to be
>implemented at national level by publication of an identical
>national standard or by endorsement.", not the earliest date or
>only date, but the
>  latest date: which leaves it open to happening
>sooner in some cases.  CENELEC Guide n 25, Guide on the use of
>Standards for the implementation of the EMC Directive...

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but that is
not correct. The definition you have cited is for the dop, date of
Publication.  DOW is the date of withdrawal of the previous standard,
and is normally the same as the famous docopocoss.
>
>Regarding 61000-4-4:
>
>..." When the new edition will be published, the edition dated 1995
>will still be valid up to 2007-10-01 but
> It is always better to use
>the most recent version of a standard as soon as it is available.",
>  Paco Cabeza-Lopez |Communications Manager
>|i...@cenelec.org
> ,|www.cenelec.org  (the emphasis is mine, not Paco's -- MH)

Again, this is, in general, wrong for standards (such as EN 61000-4-x)
referenced in a product standard (EN 55xxx).  You must use the standard
that is cited in Annex ZA. If it is undated, you must use the latest
edition, normally including any amendments, but there are exceptions;
IEC amendments may not always be adopted by CENELEC, and CENELEC creates
its own amendments.

For a product, product family or Generic standard, you may wish to use
it as soon as it is *notified in the Official Journal*. You must not use
it until then, even if notification is a long time happening.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

http://www.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:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

In article , Mike Hopkins
 writes


>Cenelec says the DOW is the, "Latest date by which an EN has to be
>implemented at national level by publication of an identical
>national standard or by endorsement.", not the earliest date or
>only date, but the
>  latest date: which leaves it open to happening
>sooner in some cases.  CENELEC Guide n 25, Guide on the use of
>Standards for the implementation of the EMC Directive...

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but that is
not correct. The definition you have cited is for the dop, date of
Publication.  DOW is the date of withdrawal of the previous standard,
and is normally the same as the famous docopocoss.
>
>Regarding 61000-4-4:
>
>..." When the new edition will be published, the edition dated 1995
>will still be valid up to 2007-10-01 but
> It is always better to use
>the most recent version of a standard as soon as it is available.",
>  Paco Cabeza-Lopez |Communications Manager
>|i...@cenelec.org
> ,|www.cenelec.org  (the emphasis is mine, not Paco's -- MH)

Again, this is, in general, wrong for standards (such as EN 61000-4-x)
referenced in a product standard (EN 55xxx).  You must use the standard
that is cited in Annex ZA. If it is undated, you must use the latest
edition, normally including any amendments, but there are exceptions;
IEC amendments may not always be adopted by CENELEC, and CENELEC creates
its own amendments.

For a product, product family or Generic standard, you may wish to use
it as soon as it is *notified in the Official Journal*. You must not use
it until then, even if notification is a long time happening.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

You are right. No real co-signing.

But they would not issue a statement of compliance to the EMC directive.

 

 

It should not only list the accurate  standard references, but also the serial
number

of the tested EUT,  software versions, and PCB revisions, among others.

 

Regards,

  

Gert Gremmen

Approvals manager

==

ce-test, qualified testing

Member of EMC committee CENELEC/IEC

 

 + Independent Consultancy Services

 + Compliance Testing and Design for CE

 + Improvement of product quality and reliability

 + Testing services according to:

   Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC

   Electrical Safety   73/23/EC

   Medical Devices 93/42/EC

   Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC

 

  Website:  www.ce-test.nl

  Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26

  Fax :+31 10 415 49 53

 ==

 

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hurley
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 13:45
To: G.Gremmen; 'Alex McNeil'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

 

Gert,

 

just a comment, but I'd be surprised to find a test house cosigning a DOC
under any circumstances.  It is the manufacturers responsibility to do so, the
test house only has knowledge of the particular sample tested and no control
over production etc.  The test report should list exactly the versions of
standards used.

 

The rule is that where a dated standard is referenced in a harmonised standard
then that version shall be used, where an undated standard is referenced then
the latest version shall be used.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 


From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of G.Gremmen
Sent: 09 November 2004 12:29
To: 'Alex McNeil'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

>From  OJ publication C98 from 4-23-2004

 

1/

EN 55024: 1998 +A1:2001 +A2:2003   ( based on CISPR 24:1997  (modified))

Applicable from 1-7-2001 / 10-1-2004 / 01/12/2005  respectively

 

2/

One should apply basic standards versions that are listed in this section.

 

3/

EN versions are the only one that are harmonized acc to the EMC directive

 

4/

It may be better to use the newest versions, but not in compliance related
issues

Use the date mentioned.

 

5/

No choice, just use the EN versions can be harmonized.

An EN standard may however, reference a CISPR or IEC standard to be used.

Limits and test conditions should be taken from the EN standard, however.

 

 

In general however, it’s the manufacturer that should decide what standard is

applicable to a product. A test house however, will give you a founded advice
on what standard

should cover your product to obtain compliance.

If you still want to test according to a different standard / date / version
the test house may

refuse to cosign a DoC.

 

There is a tendency to leave out dated references in harmonized standards, in
which case a test

house will select the latest published valid version of a referenced standard.

 

 

 

Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

==
ce-test, qualified testing

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
  according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and reliability testing
Website: www.cetest.nl (english)
   www.ce-test.nl (dutch)
   
Phone : +31 10 415 24 26
Fax :   +31 10 415 49 53

==

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Alex McNeil
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 12:41
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

 

Hi Guys,

 

I'm sorry if this subject has already been covered sometime in the past but I
need clarification on the following points, due to a conflict with my EMC Test
Lab.

Thanks for your help.

 

What standards dates and amendments apply within EN55024?

Is it those listed standards dates that are in section 2. Normative References?

What do we apply, IEC's or EN's?

Is it always better and justified to apply the latest revisions of IEC or EN?

 

Do we have the option of IEC's or EN's?

Thank You and Best regards 
Alex 

 



This email has been scanned for all known viruses and appropriate content by
the Messagelabs mail service.

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

EN 55024 is based on CISPR 24.  CISPR 24 uses dated references to the IEC
61000-4-X series.  As such, the specified versions apply.  There is nothing
written in EN 55024 that would update these dated references, so my
interpretation would be that the old versions still apply.  This is a problem
as you must contact the IEC to obtain the older versions (they are available
I’m told, just not on the web site).

 

Ghery Pettit

 

 

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:04 AM
To: G.Gremmen; Alex McNeil; emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: Randy Wertz
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

 

Just a comment on the EN 61000-4-X applicability:

 

Cenelec says the DOW is the, "Latest date by which an EN has to be implemented
at national level by publication of an identical national standard or by
endorsement.", not the earliest date or only date, but the latest date: which
leaves it open to happening sooner in some cases.  CENELEC Guide n 25, Guide
on the use of Standards for the implementation of the EMC Directive...

 

Regarding 61000-4-4: 

..." When the new edition will be published, the edition dated 1995 will still
be valid up to 2007-10-01 but It is always better to use the most recent
version of a standard as soon as it is available.",  Paco Cabeza-Lopez
|Communications Manager   |i...@cenelec.org
,|www.cenelec.org  (the emphasis is mine, not Paco's -- MH)

As an additional note, our customers began asking for compliance to the newly
published IEC versions BEFORE they were published. Of course, on the IEC side,
the old version is by definition obsolete and no longer availabl: Only the
2004 version of 61000-4-4 exists according to IEC. 

 

 

 

Best Regards, 

Michael Hopkins 
Manager, Customer Technical Center 
Control Technology Division 
Compliance Test Solutions 
Thermo Electron Corporation 
One Lowell Research Center 
Lowell, MA 01852 
Tel: +1 978 275 0800 ext. 334 
Mobile: +1 603 765 3736 
michael.hopk...@thermo.com 

 

One Thermo, committed to integrity, intensity, innovation & involvement 

 

 

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of G.Gremmen
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:29 AM
To: 'Alex McNeil'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

>From  OJ publication C98 from 4-23-2004

 

1/

EN 55024: 1998 +A1:2001 +A2:2003   ( based on CISPR 24:1997  (modified))

Applicable from 1-7-2001 / 10-1-2004 / 01/12/2005  respectively

 

2/

One should apply basic standards versions that are listed in this section.

 

3/

EN versions are the only one that are harmonized acc to the EMC directive

 

4/

It may be better to use the newest versions, but not in compliance related
issues

Use the date mentioned.

 

5/

No choice, just use the EN versions can be harmonized.

An EN standard may however, reference a CISPR or IEC standard to be used.

Limits and test conditions should be taken from the EN standard, however.

 

 

In general however, it’s the manufacturer that should decide what standard is

applicable to a product. A test house however, will give you a founded advice
on what standard

should cover your product to obtain compliance.

If you still want to test according to a different standard / date / version
the test house may

refuse to cosign a DoC.

 

There is a tendency to leave out dated references in harmonized standards, in
which case a test

house will select the latest published valid version of a referenced standard.

 

 

 

Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

==
ce-test, qualified testing

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
  according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and reliability testing
Website: www.cetest.nl (english)
   www.ce-test.nl (dutch)
   
Phone : +31 10 415 24 26
Fax :   +31 10 415 49 53

==

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Alex McNeil
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 12:41
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

 

Hi Guys,

 

I'm sorry if this subject has already been covered sometime in the past but I
need clarification on the following points, due to a conflict with my EMC Test
Lab.

Thanks for your help.

 

What standards dates and amendments apply within EN55024?

Is it those listed standards dates that are in section 2. Normative References?

What do we apply, IEC's or EN&

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

 

 

 

But the opinion of CENELEC and customers is not relevant for compliance.

This is something between private parties : customer – test house- cenelec.

 

This whole dow/dop thing is irrelevant for harmonized standards.

The OJ publication explicitly mentions dates 

of applicability for each harmonized standard.

 

Relevant to compliant test application is the standard as referenced to in the
OJ,

and the dated reference in this standards text.

Only if this reference is undated, the newest version

is the preferent standard to be used.

 

 

At least …. in CE-land !!

 

 

 

Regards,

  

Gert Gremmen

Approvals manager

==

ce-test, qualified testing

Member of EMC committee CENELEC/IEC

 

 + Independent Consultancy Services

 + Compliance Testing and Design for CE

 + Improvement of product quality and reliability

 + Testing services according to:

   Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC

   Electrical Safety   73/23/EC

   Medical Devices 93/42/EC

   Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC

 

  Website:  www.ce-test.nl

  Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26

  Fax :+31 10 415 49 53

 ==

 

  _  

From: Mike Hopkins [mailto:michael.hopk...@thermo.com] 
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 20:04
To: G.Gremmen; Alex McNeil; emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: Randy Wertz
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

 

Just a comment on the EN 61000-4-X applicability:

 

Cenelec says the DOW is the, "Latest date by which an EN has to be implemented
at national level by publication of an identical national standard or by
endorsement.", not the earliest date or only date, but the latest date: which
leaves it open to happening sooner in some cases.  CENELEC Guide n 25, Guide
on the use of Standards for the implementation of the EMC Directive...

 

Regarding 61000-4-4: 

..." When the new edition will be published, the edition dated 1995 will still
be valid up to 2007-10-01 but It is always better to use the most recent
version of a standard as soon as it is available.",  Paco Cabeza-Lopez
|Communications Manager   |i...@cenelec.org
,|www.cenelec.org  (the emphasis is mine, not Paco's -- MH)

As an additional note, our customers began asking for compliance to the newly
published IEC versions BEFORE they were published. Of course, on the IEC side,
the old version is by definition obsolete and no longer availabl: Only the
2004 version of 61000-4-4 exists according to IEC. 

 

 

 

Best Regards, 

Michael Hopkins 
Manager, Customer Technical Center 
Control Technology Division 
Compliance Test Solutions 
Thermo Electron Corporation 
One Lowell Research Center 
Lowell, MA 01852 
Tel: +1 978 275 0800 ext. 334 
Mobile: +1 603 765 3736 
michael.hopk...@thermo.com 

 

One Thermo, committed to integrity, intensity, innovation & involvement 

 

 

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of G.Gremmen
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:29 AM
To: 'Alex McNeil'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

>From  OJ publication C98 from 4-23-2004

 

1/

EN 55024: 1998 +A1:2001 +A2:2003   ( based on CISPR 24:1997  (modified))

Applicable from 1-7-2001 / 10-1-2004 / 01/12/2005  respectively

 

2/

One should apply basic standards versions that are listed in this section.

 

3/

EN versions are the only one that are harmonized acc to the EMC directive

 

4/

It may be better to use the newest versions, but not in compliance related
issues

Use the date mentioned.

 

5/

No choice, just use the EN versions can be harmonized.

An EN standard may however, reference a CISPR or IEC standard to be used.

Limits and test conditions should be taken from the EN standard, however.

 

 

In general however, it’s the manufacturer that should decide what standard is

applicable to a product. A test house however, will give you a founded advice
on what standard

should cover your product to obtain compliance.

If you still want to test according to a different standard / date / version
the test house may

refuse to cosign a DoC.

 

There is a tendency to leave out dated references in harmonized standards, in
which case a test

house will select the latest published valid version of a referenced standard.

 

 

 

Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

==
ce-test, qualified testing

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
  according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and reliability testing

Re: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

In article , Alex McNeil  writes

>What standards dates and amendments apply within EN55024?
>Is it those listed standards dates that are in section 2. Normative
>References?

No. You must look at Annex ZA, where you will find the applicable ENs
listed. This applies to ALL ENs that are based on IEC or CISPR
standards. Sometimes Annex ZA doesn't include anything that makes a
significant difference, but in other cases it does, very much so.

>What do we apply, IEC's or EN's?

See Annex ZA. When the standard was written there was no EN version of
CISPR16, but there is now.

>Is it always better and justified to apply the latest revisions of
>IEC or EN?

No. Again, this is explained in Annex ZA

>Do we have the option of IEC's or EN's?
>
No.

In my opinion, Annex ZA should be at the FRONT of the document, not the
back, where it is so easily overlooked.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk


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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

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

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

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

Just a comment on the EN 61000-4-X applicability:
 
Cenelec says the DOW is the, "Latest date by which an EN has to be implemented
at national level by publication of an identical national standard or by
endorsement.", not the earliest date or only date, but the latest date: which
leaves it open to happening sooner in some cases.  CENELEC Guide n 25, Guide
on the use of Standards for the implementation of the EMC Directive...
 
Regarding 61000-4-4: 

..." When the new edition will be published, the edition dated 1995 will still
be valid up to 2007-10-01 but It is always better to use the most recent
version of a standard as soon as it is available.",  Paco Cabeza-Lopez
|Communications Manager   |i...@cenelec.org
,|www.cenelec.org  (the emphasis is mine, not Paco's -- MH)

As an additional note, our customers began asking for compliance to the newly
published IEC versions BEFORE they were published. Of course, on the IEC side,
the old version is by definition obsolete and no longer availabl: Only the
2004 version of 61000-4-4 exists according to IEC. 

 

 

 

Best Regards, 

Michael Hopkins 
Manager, Customer Technical Center 
Control Technology Division 
Compliance Test Solutions 
Thermo Electron Corporation 
One Lowell Research Center 
Lowell, MA 01852 
Tel: +1 978 275 0800 ext. 334 
Mobile: +1 603 765 3736 
michael.hopk...@thermo.com 


One Thermo, committed to integrity, intensity, innovation & involvement 

 

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of G.Gremmen
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:29 AM
To: 'Alex McNeil'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability



>From  OJ publication C98 from 4-23-2004

 

1/

EN 55024: 1998 +A1:2001 +A2:2003   ( based on CISPR 24:1997  (modified))

Applicable from 1-7-2001 / 10-1-2004 / 01/12/2005  respectively

 

2/

One should apply basic standards versions that are listed in this section.

 

3/

EN versions are the only one that are harmonized acc to the EMC directive

 

4/

It may be better to use the newest versions, but not in compliance related
issues

Use the date mentioned.

 

5/

No choice, just use the EN versions can be harmonized.

An EN standard may however, reference a CISPR or IEC standard to be used.

Limits and test conditions should be taken from the EN standard, however.

 

 

In general however, it’s the manufacturer that should decide what standard is

applicable to a product. A test house however, will give you a founded advice
on what standard

should cover your product to obtain compliance.

If you still want to test according to a different standard / date / version
the test house may

refuse to cosign a DoC.

 

There is a tendency to leave out dated references in harmonized standards, in
which case a test

house will select the latest published valid version of a referenced standard.

 

 

 

Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

==
ce-test, qualified testing

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
  according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and reliability testing
Website: www.cetest.nl (english)
   www.ce-test.nl (dutch)
   
Phone : +31 10 415 24 26
Fax :   +31 10 415 49 53

==

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Alex McNeil
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 12:41
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

 

Hi Guys,

 

I'm sorry if this subject has already been covered sometime in the past but I
need clarification on the following points, due to a conflict with my EMC Test
Lab.

Thanks for your help.

 

What standards dates and amendments apply within EN55024?

Is it those listed standards dates that are in section 2. Normative References?

What do we apply, IEC's or EN's?

Is it always better and justified to apply the latest revisions of IEC or EN?

 

Do we have the option of IEC's or EN's?

Thank You and Best regards 
Alex 

 



This email has been scanned for all known viruses and appropriate content by
the Messagelabs mail service.

 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/

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

Gert,
 
just a comment, but I'd be surprised to find a test house cosigning a DOC
under any circumstances.  It is the manufacturers responsibility to do so, the
test house only has knowledge of the particular sample tested and no control
over production etc.  The test report should list exactly the versions of
standards used.
 
The rule is that where a dated standard is referenced in a harmonised standard
then that version shall be used, where an undated standard is referenced then
the latest version shall be used.
 
Regards
 
Mike
 
 

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of G.Gremmen
Sent: 09 November 2004 12:29
To: 'Alex McNeil'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability



>From  OJ publication C98 from 4-23-2004

 

1/

EN 55024: 1998 +A1:2001 +A2:2003   ( based on CISPR 24:1997  (modified))

Applicable from 1-7-2001 / 10-1-2004 / 01/12/2005  respectively

 

2/

One should apply basic standards versions that are listed in this section.

 

3/

EN versions are the only one that are harmonized acc to the EMC directive

 

4/

It may be better to use the newest versions, but not in compliance related
issues

Use the date mentioned.

 

5/

No choice, just use the EN versions can be harmonized.

An EN standard may however, reference a CISPR or IEC standard to be used.

Limits and test conditions should be taken from the EN standard, however.

 

 

In general however, it’s the manufacturer that should decide what standard is

applicable to a product. A test house however, will give you a founded advice
on what standard

should cover your product to obtain compliance.

If you still want to test according to a different standard / date / version
the test house may

refuse to cosign a DoC.

 

There is a tendency to leave out dated references in harmonized standards, in
which case a test

house will select the latest published valid version of a referenced standard.

 

 

 

Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

==
ce-test, qualified testing

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
  according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and reliability testing
Website: www.cetest.nl (english)
   www.ce-test.nl (dutch)
   
Phone : +31 10 415 24 26
Fax :   +31 10 415 49 53

==

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Alex McNeil
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 12:41
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

 

Hi Guys,

 

I'm sorry if this subject has already been covered sometime in the past but I
need clarification on the following points, due to a conflict with my EMC Test
Lab.

Thanks for your help.

 

What standards dates and amendments apply within EN55024?

Is it those listed standards dates that are in section 2. Normative References?

What do we apply, IEC's or EN's?

Is it always better and justified to apply the latest revisions of IEC or EN?

 

Do we have the option of IEC's or EN's?

Thank You and Best regards 
Alex 

 



This email has been scanned for all known viruses and appropriate content by
the Messagelabs mail service.

 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: 


Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net 


For policy questions, send mail to: 


Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 


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


http://www.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: 


Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net 


For policy questions, send mail to: 


Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@i

RE: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

>From  OJ publication C98 from 4-23-2004

 

1/

EN 55024: 1998 +A1:2001 +A2:2003   ( based on CISPR 24:1997  (modified))

Applicable from 1-7-2001 / 10-1-2004 / 01/12/2005  respectively

 

2/

One should apply basic standards versions that are listed in this section.

 

3/

EN versions are the only one that are harmonized acc to the EMC directive

 

4/

It may be better to use the newest versions, but not in compliance related
issues

Use the date mentioned.

 

5/

No choice, just use the EN versions can be harmonized.

An EN standard may however, reference a CISPR or IEC standard to be used.

Limits and test conditions should be taken from the EN standard, however.

 

 

In general however, it’s the manufacturer that should decide what standard is

applicable to a product. A test house however, will give you a founded advice
on what standard

should cover your product to obtain compliance.

If you still want to test according to a different standard / date / version
the test house may

refuse to cosign a DoC.

 

There is a tendency to leave out dated references in harmonized standards, in
which case a test

house will select the latest published valid version of a referenced standard.

 

 

 

Regards,

Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

==
ce-test, qualified testing

+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
  according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and reliability testing
Website: www.cetest.nl (english)
   www.ce-test.nl (dutch)
   
Phone : +31 10 415 24 26
Fax :   +31 10 415 49 53

==

  _  

From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Alex McNeil
Sent: dinsdag 9 november 2004 12:41
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 & IEC61000-4-X & EN61000-4-X Applicability

 

Hi Guys,

 

I'm sorry if this subject has already been covered sometime in the past but I
need clarification on the following points, due to a conflict with my EMC Test
Lab.

Thanks for your help.

 

What standards dates and amendments apply within EN55024?

Is it those listed standards dates that are in section 2. Normative References?

What do we apply, IEC's or EN's?

Is it always better and justified to apply the latest revisions of IEC or EN?

 

Do we have the option of IEC's or EN's?

Thank You and Best regards 
Alex 

 



This email has been scanned for all known viruses and appropriate content by
the Messagelabs mail service.

 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: 


Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net 


For policy questions, send mail to: 


Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 


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


http://www.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: 


Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net 


For policy questions, send mail to: 


Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 


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


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

Re: EN55024 A2 2003

[John Barnes]

Don,
The Official Journal of the European Union, volume 46 number C172, pages
2 to 15, has the most recent listing of harmonized standards under the
EMC Directive.  It shows that A2:2003 to EN 55024:1998 is the same as
A2:2002 to CISPR 24:1997.  If an EN standard, or an amendment thereto,
differs from the IEC or CISPR standard, the listing will say (modified).

John Barnes KS4GL, PE, NCE, ESDC Eng, SM IEEE
dBi Corporation
http://www.dbicorporation.com/


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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: EN55024 A2 2003

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Don,

Yes, both A2 are identical.

Vriendelijke Groeten, Best regards, Meilleures salutations,

Kristiaan Carpentier
Regulatory and Approval Engineer
Thomson multimedia Broadband Belgium N.V., S.A.
Prins Boudewijnlaan 47, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium
Tel: +32 3 443 6407 - Fax: +32 3 443 6632
e-mail: kristiaan.carpent...@thomson.net
www.speedtouch.com



From: djumbdenst...@tycoint.com [mailto:djumbdenst...@tycoint.com]
Sent: dinsdag 30 september 2003 15:33
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 A2 2003



Can anyone tell me if A2 of CISPR 24 is identical to A2 of EN 55024?  I have
not been able to find a statement from various standards sources asserting
the equivalence. 

Regards,

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: EN55024 A2 2003

[Brian Jones]

Don, and everyone

The texts are identical, except that the EN version of the standard also has
a normative Annex ZA which details the ENs to be used as normative
references.  A2 to the EN also amends this annex (to show that CISPR 20 2002
is equivalent to EN 55020).

Best wishes

Brian Jones
EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory





From: 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: EN55024 A2 2003


>
> Can anyone tell me if A2 of CISPR 24 is identical to A2 of EN 55024?  I
have
> not been able to find a statement from various standards sources asserting
> the equivalence.
>
> Regards,
>
> Don Umbdenstock
> Sensormatic
>





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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: EN55024 - Burst / fast transient test

[John Barnes]

Amund,
EN55024:1998 Table 2 2.3 for the EN16000-4-4 Electrical Fast
Transient/Burst (EFTB) test refers to note 3, which says "Applicable
only to cables which according to the manufacturer's specification
supports communication cable lengths greater than 3 m."

Please note that EN55024:1998 replaces this table as one of the COMMON
MODIFICATIONS to IEC CISPR 24:1997. 

John Barnes KS4GL, PE, NCE, ESDC Eng, SM IEEE
dBi Corporation
http://www.dbicorporation.com/


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

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

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

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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: EN55024 - Burst / fast transient test

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Amund,

CISPR24, Clause 4.2.2 Electrical fast transients

- interface ports, which are intended by the mftr to be connected to data
cables not longer than 3 meter, shall not be tested.
Regards,
Kris 


From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: dinsdag 14 januari 2003 13:25
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 - Burst / fast transient test



Does Burst testing apply for I/O cables with length less than 3 meters
according to EN55024?

I recall that some EN standards have a statement that Burst in does not
apply on I/O cables less than 3 meters.

Yes, I will buy the standard so we can follow it in detail.

Amund



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

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

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

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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"


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

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

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

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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"

RE: EN55024 and EN55022 1998

[Praveen Rao]

Hi Fred,
You might have to register to open this document.
 http://www.elliottlabs.com/reference/infoBulletin/cas/001106.htm

If not see attachment.
Praveen Rao


-Original Message-
From: Friedemann Adt [mailto:a...@viewsonic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 19 December 2000 2:31 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 and EN55022 1998



Dear collegues,

could somebody please point me in the right direction where to obtain a
summary of following impending EMC changes for IT equipment:

Generic Immunity 

from   EN 50082-1:1992  to EN55024:1998 
by Jul 1st 2001

and

Radio Interference 

from   EN 55022: 1997 to EN 55022:1998 
by Aug 1st 2001

Thank you

Fred Adt

compliance & reliability manager
a...@viewsonic.com
phone (909) 444-8958


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

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

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

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




Transition to the new editions of standards for Information Technology Equipment (ITE).htm
Description: Binary data

RE: EN55024

[rbusche]

Barry brings up a good point. The products manufactured by my company, Evans
& Sutherland, are typically high computer systems (flight simulators) used
in a Heavy Industrial environments. As such we routinely test to EN 55022
Class A (emissions) and EN 50082-2 (immunity). More recently we have also
added EN 55024 (ITE immunity) as well. Depending on the end use application,
some of our lower end image generators do not have heavy industrial immunity
but they are all Class A devices. These are not used in residential
applications but rather as light industrial products.

Rick

 -Original Message-
From:   Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com] 
Sent:   Thursday, December 07, 2000 2:39 PM
To: chr...@gnlp.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:    RE: EN55024


Hi Chris,

I agree with 99.9% of your convincing opinions with a tiny question. You
said:
"I believe its because the scope of EN 55024 is geared toward the
residential, commercial and light industrial environment. If I were
producing a piece of ITE equipment intended for a truly industrial
environment, I would consider Class A emissions (yes Class A) from EN 55022
(assuming it's ITE). I would then look for the best fit of an immunity
standard for industrial environments. Either a generic immunity standard
such as EN 50082-2 or another whose scope is directed at an industrial
environment." 

I respect the due diligence to find a best-fit immunity standard for
industrial environment, especially when customers want to do so. Please
allow me to ask a question when customer don't care:

Is there any conflict with written statement in relevant standards if we
simply follow EN55024 for ITE used in industrial environment? 



Thanks.
Best Regards,
Barry Ma
ANRITSUhttp://www.anritsu.com
Morgan Hill, CA 95037



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

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

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

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

RE: EN55024

[Barry Ma]

Hi Chris,

I agree with 99.9% of your convincing opinions with a tiny question. You said:
“I believe its because the scope of EN 55024 is geared toward the residential, 
commercial and light industrial environment. If I were producing a piece of ITE 
equipment intended for a truly industrial environment, I would consider Class A 
emissions (yes Class A) from EN 55022 (assuming it's ITE). I would then look 
for the best fit of an immunity standard for industrial environments. Either a 
generic immunity standard such as EN 50082-2 or another whose scope is directed 
at an industrial environment.” 

I respect the due diligence to find a best-fit immunity standard for industrial 
environment, especially when customers want to do so. Please allow me to ask a 
question when customer don’t care:

Is there any conflict with written statement in relevant standards if we simply 
follow EN55024 for ITE used in industrial environment? 



Thanks.
Best Regards,
Barry Ma
ANRITSUhttp://www.anritsu.com
Morgan Hill, CA 95037


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

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

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

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

RE: EN55024

[William D'Orazio]

Chris,

My point exactly!  I was starting to wonder if my question was not
clear.  By the way you just made my colleagues Gold EMC List.   
I share the same point of view, the environment shall eventually
decide the level!

Thanks to all(I enjoyed the debate),


William D'Orazio
CAE Electronics Ltd.
Electrical System Designer

Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
Fax: (514)340-5552
Email: dora...@cae.ca


-Original Message-
From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:42 AM
To: EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024



Let me first say that I think people are missing the thrust of William's
initial question.  The ensuing debate has taken a life of its own. (I can't
resist a debate, so I'll weigh in after looking at William's question).
William is wondering why EN 55024 (an ITE standard) only has immunity limits
for residential, commercial and light industrial environments while EN 55011
(an ISM standard) has emissions limits for Class A (non-residential) and
Class B (residential).   Even if you throw out the difference between ITE
and ISM, his question is still valid.  The ITE emissions standard (EN 55022)
has Class A and Class B limits just like EN 55011 (ISM). 

I beleive its because the scope of EN 55024 is geared toward the
residential, commercial and light industrial environment.  If I were
producing a piece of ITE equipment intended for a truly industrial
environment, I would consider Class A emissions (yes Class A) from EN 55022
(assuming it's ITE).  I would then look for the best fit of an immunity
standard for industrial environments.  Either a generic immunity standard
such as EN 50082-2 or another whose scope is directed at an industrial
environment.  

When applying any standard, we have to consider both the equipment
classification and environment.  As it stands right now, most ITE falls
under EN 55024, but industrial ITE would need to look at a different
standard geared toward an industrial environment.

So, to answer William's question.  I don't think we know why EN 55022 has
Class A and Class B limits while its counterpart immunity standard (EN
55024) only has residential, commercial and light industrial limits. Only
CENELEC can answer that.  As engineers, we live with the standards as
written, (while suggesting how they could be changed and questioning them
when they're screwy).  

So, that's my answer to William's question (remember, as always, it's just
the opinion of one man).  

As for the Class A vs. Class B debate ...

I'm with Ghery on this one.  Servers and mainframe computers are a prime
example of ITE equipment whose "normal" usage environment is Class A
(non-domestic).

I also agree with Gert that Class A ITE can and will be used in domestic
environments.  However, I don't agree that this means that all ITE must meet
Class B.  

There probably are a few people (not me) who would have a server or
mainframe computer in their house.  Why?  I don't know.  Maybe they have a
home business.  As the standards are now written, this doesn't make it
illegal to market the Class A equipment as such.  The standards simply
require that the manufacturer put the "Class A warning statement" (See EN
55022) in the manual.  

By making the "Class A warning statement" a requirement, CISPR is
acknowledging that Class A equipment could be used in a domestic
environment.  The responsibility is then put on the owner for taking
measures to insure that the Class A equipment doesn't interfere with his or
his neighbor's TV or radio reception.  

Consider the analogy of an industrial drill press.  It is only required to
meet industrial (Class A) emissions limits.  However, there is a distinct
possiblity that someone could buy one and put it in their house.   Does this
mean that all industrial drill presses need to meet Class B?  

Yes, the distinction between Class A and Class B environments is artificial.
The entire standards themselves are artificial (they are man-made aren't
they), but at least they are on paper and defined.  The idea of "Essential
Requirements" is even more artificial when compared to a standard.
Essential Requirements can vary from one person to another and from one
circumstance to another.  Essential Requirements are only meant to fill in
the gaps where standards may not apply or be adequate.  There is no gap
here.  As the standards are now written, they define and allow for Class A
ITE.  As they are now written, any ITE manufacturer that has done their
homework and can prove that their typical usage environment meets the
definition of Class A can market in the European Union with Class A
emissions.  If CENELEC disapproves of this, then they would have needed to
change CISPR 22 when it was harmonized as EN 55022.  Long story short...It
wasn't, so they don't.   

Of course this 

RE: EN55024

[Jim Hulbert]

I agree.  The "law" is Article 2 of the 89/336/EEC which states that equipment
shall not cause interference.  Presumption of conformance with this requirement,
per Article 10, can be on the basis of applying harmonized standards (EN 55022
for emissions from ITE) or by the Technical Construction File route (no
standards specified).  If you apply the harmonized emissions standard EN 55022
for ITE, there are class A and class B limits specified, but there is no
requirement that specific ITE must comply with one limit over the other.
Therefore, choose the limit you think is appropriate for your equipment.  You
have fully followed the requirements as spelled out in 89/336/EEC and the
presumption of conformance with the EMC Directive should be clear.

Class A versus Class B is always a lively conversation and I doubt everyone is
going to agree any time soon.

By the way, happy holidays to everyone.

Jim Hulbert
Senior Engineer - EMC
Pitney Bowes





"Pettit, Ghery"  on 12/06/2000 01:56:59 PM

Please respond to "Pettit, Ghery" 

To:   "'cet...@cetest.nl'" , "Pettit, Ghery"
  , "'William D'Orazio'" , "EMC
  Posting (E-mail)" 
cc:(bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI)

Subject:  RE: EN55024




Let's discuss apples vs apples and keep the discussion to ITE.  Household
appliances are not subject to EN 55022:1998, but have their own product
specific standard.

The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC
Professional Employment Act of 1989).  It lays down, as you note, the
essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that
it operate as intended in its itended environment.  No more, no less.  No
limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive.

The question then comes up, how do we show compliance with the essential
requirements in 89/336/EEC?  The answer, of course, is to test to the
applicable requirements that have been published in the OJ.  For ITE, the
emissions limits are contained in EN 55022:1998.  Fine.  I read EN
55022:1998 and it is simply a number of modifications to CISPR 22, 3rd
Edition.  Well and good.  I read CISPR 22, 3rd Edition and it defines Class
A and Class B.

If there are different emissions limits between various standards, that
needs to be addressed in CISPR.  My question is this - is there a
significant interference problem in Europe from ITE?  Based on a survey
returned by over 50,000 households in the U.S., there certainly isn't one
here.  Whatever is being done, it is adequate.

Peace!

Ghery

-Original Message-
From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
[mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:39 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024



Hi Ghery,group,

Standards are NO LAW !

My reply was directed against the Clause in EN 55022, not against the
possibility of
EN 55022 to define suitable environments. However, there is a standards
writing
committee guidance document that requests the committees not to deviate more
then absolutely needed from the test levels and environmental conditions
as described in the generic standards EN 50082-1/2.
The standards writing committees have been very independent (members of
CENELEC) and
all kind of powers could and have been influencing the contents of many
standards. Even today commercial interests find their way into harmonized
standards.

The EC requested CENELEC to create standards that are compatible to the
Essential requirements
of the EMC-directive, it cannot be so that a house hold kitchen machine need
to comply to
other limits then a house hold computer. The interference a receiver
receives is not less interfering
if it comes from a vacuum cleaner or from a modem. Same environment, same
levels.
The problem comes with mixed environment products. In the past products
could escape from limits
by a warning label "this product may cause radio interference" and the
suggestion to increase
distance between products. At low reception levels of FM-radio and the close
distances of
modern urban livings that solution is not sufficient anymore.
Product group level EN-type harmonized standards are
(in Europe) targeted towards the details of "how to test" and "how to judge
performance" and
"how to connect test gear" and only deviate from levels and frequency range
in the
benefit of the product group if absolutely necessary.
It would be absolutely unjust if some equipment would be able to interfere
more then
others, just because it had a label on it saying that it would only be
allowed to
use it in an heavy industrial environment, if the equipment (such as a
mainframe)
itself suggests their application in a domestic or mixed environment.

Manufacturers of Class B complying equipment could easily sue manufacturers
of equivalent
Class A equipmen

RE: EN55024

[Maxwell, Chris]

ent of the Class A vs. Class B
argument.  They could arise with either class of equipment.

See ya's later.

Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer
GN Nettest Optical Division
6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4  
Utica, NY 13502
PH:  315-797-4449
FAX:  315-797-8024
EMAIL:  chr...@gnlp.com

 





> -Original Message-
> From: Pettit, Ghery [SMTP:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 11:25 AM
> To:   'CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...'; Pettit,
> Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
> Subject:  RE: EN55024
> 
> 
> Gert,
> 
> All ITE equipment must meet the Class B limits?  Where does it say that in
> either EN 55022:1998 or CISPR 22, 3rd Edition?  Section 4.1 of CISPR 22 is
> quite clear about what equipment must meet the Class B limits.  There are
> many types of ITE that do not fall into the examples provided in the
> document.  EN 55022 does not amend this part of the document in its common
> modifications.  As 89/336/EEC does not provide limits of any kind, where
> am
> I supposed to see a requirement that servers and mainframe computers
> (which
> are, indeed, ITE) must meet the Class B limits?
> 
> Ghery Pettit
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
> [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:14 AM
> To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: EN55024
> 
> 
> Hi Group,
> 
> The type of clause (see below) from EN 55022 about adding notes and
> restrictions
> to equipment is just the type the European Commission
> objects against their use in the EN 55022 standard.
> 
> The reason is that the CENELEC was asked to propose limits and
> test methods, not to replace politics by limitng the applicability
> of their standards.
> 
> The use of such a clause to sell ITE equipment to Class A limits is
> illegal
> and will not hold when the presumption of conformity to the essential
> requirements
> of the EMC-directive is being tested.
> 
> Information equipment is and wil be used in all environments, therefore
> the distinction between such environments is artificial.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gert Gremmen, (Ing)
> 
> ce-test, qualified testing
> 
> ===
> Web presence  http://www.cetest.nl
> CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm
> /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/
> ===
> 
> 
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
> >>Of Pettit, Ghery
> >>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:46 PM
> >>To: 'William D'Orazio'; Pettit, Ghery; EMC Posting (E-mail)
> >>Subject: RE: EN55024
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>OK.  EN 55022 is the ITE specific emissions standard.  It does
> >>have two sets
> >>of limits with a statement that Class B is intended for certain product
> >>types which may be used in a domestic type environment and a
> >>statement that
> >>Class A products should have a warning that they may cause interference
> if
> >>used in a domestic environment.  CISPR 22 does not use the term
> >>"industrial"
> >>to define an environment.  It merely warns that the class A limits may
> not
> >>provide enough protection to neighboring users of the RF spectrum if the
> >>device is used in a domestic environment.
> >>
> >>Ghery
> >>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:37 PM
> >>To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; William D'Orazio; EMC Posting (E-mail)
> >>Subject: RE: EN55024
> >>
> >>
> >>BYI, EN55011 should read EN55022.
> >>
> >>William D'Orazio
> >>CAE Electronics Ltd.
> >>Electrical System Designer
> >>
> >>Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
> >>Fax: (514)340-5552
> >>Email: dora...@cae.ca
> >>
> >>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:33 PM
> >>To: 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
> >>Subject: RE: EN55024
> >>
> >>
> >>EN 55024 is the ITE specific immunity standard.  It is based on CISPR 24
> >>which makes no distinction between environments.  EN 55011 is
> >>based on CIS

RE: EN55024

[Mark Gill]

Only because I really enjoy stirring the pot...if you read EN 55022 1998,
clause 4.2 clearly states,

"Class A is a category of all other ITE which satisfies Class A ITE limits
but not the class B ITE limits. Such equipment should not be restricted in
its sale but the following warning shall be included in the instructions for
use..."

The standard does not prevent the sale of Class A equipment to residential
environments, and thus the warning marking for the interference and the need
to take adequate measures (if necessary). This could mean simply relocating
the equipment.  So what's the real risk of interference?  What if the
equipment is only out at one frequency by a few dB in a spectrum segment
that has nothing interesting?  The essential requirements of the directive
are not fulfilled only when interference is caused - even if the equipment
is compliant with Class B limits!  Imagine that, Class B and not compliant
with the Directive!

What the standard is saying is that given the closer proximity of local
receptors in residential environment, Class B equipment is less likely to
interfere than Class A, so it would be wise to design to Class B, but, it is
not required.  The less compliant you are, the higher the degree of risk for
interference.

Regards,

Mark

Disclaimer - The opinions rendered herein are my own and no reflection of
those of my employer.


-Original Message-
From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
[mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:36 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024




Just to stay with the apples:

Compliance to EN 55022 is like ordering an apple on
the Internet. Your ordered it, but will you receive
an apple ?

Compliance with EN 55022 gives presumption of compliance only.
When the product standard refuses to comply to what the EC had in
mind , the EN will finally be modified. In the mean time you have
bought a rotten apple. Not your fault, but you're liable.
That is why I insist on this topic very hard. In a few years
all these standards will be updated one after one.

If one of the local authorities finds out that your product
is Class A and being sold and used in Class B environments
-may be because a competitor complained- then you just did not fulfill
to the Essential requirements, to the EN only.

Other example:

You create interference at 1800 Mhz DECT frequencies. EN 55022 says
-no testing above 1 Gig- . The authorities say: you interfere, you should
have
known EN 55022 is not enough to comply to the essential requirements.

This is what they call "due diligence " in compliance testing.

Same with the new liability directive and product warranty directive that
will
come into force. Your product must :"be safe to the current state of
workmanship"
, always, even 10 years after it was introduced. This means that to cover
your a..
you need constant modification in the field of safeguarding your customers.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

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


>>-Original Message-
>>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:57 PM
>>To: 'cet...@cetest.nl'; Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting
>>(E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>Let's discuss apples vs apples and keep the discussion to ITE.  Household
>>appliances are not subject to EN 55022:1998, but have their own product
>>specific standard.
>>
>>The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC
>>Professional Employment Act of 1989).  It lays down, as you note, the
>>essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that
>>it operate as intended in its itended environment.  No more, no less.  No
>>limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive.
>>
>>The question then comes up, how do we show compliance with the essential
>>requirements in 89/336/EEC?  The answer, of course, is to test to the
>>applicable requirements that have been published in the OJ.  For ITE, the
>>emissions limits are contained in EN 55022:1998.  Fine.  I read EN
>>55022:1998 and it is simply a number of modifications to CISPR 22, 3rd
>>Edition.  Well and good.  I read CISPR 22, 3rd Edition and it
>>defines Class
>>A and Class B.
>>
>>If there are different emissions limits between various standards, that
>>needs to be addressed in CISPR.  My question is this - is there a
>>significant interference problem in Europe from ITE?  Based o

RE: EN55024

[CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...]

Just to stay with the apples:

Compliance to EN 55022 is like ordering an apple on
the Internet. Your ordered it, but will you receive
an apple ?

Compliance with EN 55022 gives presumption of compliance only.
When the product standard refuses to comply to what the EC had in
mind , the EN will finally be modified. In the mean time you have
bought a rotten apple. Not your fault, but you're liable.
That is why I insist on this topic very hard. In a few years
all these standards will be updated one after one.

If one of the local authorities finds out that your product
is Class A and being sold and used in Class B environments
-may be because a competitor complained- then you just did not fulfill
to the Essential requirements, to the EN only.

Other example:

You create interference at 1800 Mhz DECT frequencies. EN 55022 says
-no testing above 1 Gig- . The authorities say: you interfere, you should
have
known EN 55022 is not enough to comply to the essential requirements.

This is what they call "due diligence " in compliance testing.

Same with the new liability directive and product warranty directive that
will
come into force. Your product must :"be safe to the current state of
workmanship"
, always, even 10 years after it was introduced. This means that to cover
your a..
you need constant modification in the field of safeguarding your customers.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

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


>>-Original Message-
>>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:57 PM
>>To: 'cet...@cetest.nl'; Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting
>>(E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>Let's discuss apples vs apples and keep the discussion to ITE.  Household
>>appliances are not subject to EN 55022:1998, but have their own product
>>specific standard.
>>
>>The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC
>>Professional Employment Act of 1989).  It lays down, as you note, the
>>essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that
>>it operate as intended in its itended environment.  No more, no less.  No
>>limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive.
>>
>>The question then comes up, how do we show compliance with the essential
>>requirements in 89/336/EEC?  The answer, of course, is to test to the
>>applicable requirements that have been published in the OJ.  For ITE, the
>>emissions limits are contained in EN 55022:1998.  Fine.  I read EN
>>55022:1998 and it is simply a number of modifications to CISPR 22, 3rd
>>Edition.  Well and good.  I read CISPR 22, 3rd Edition and it
>>defines Class
>>A and Class B.
>>
>>If there are different emissions limits between various standards, that
>>needs to be addressed in CISPR.  My question is this - is there a
>>significant interference problem in Europe from ITE?  Based on a survey
>>returned by over 50,000 households in the U.S., there certainly isn't one
>>here.  Whatever is being done, it is adequate.
>>
>>Peace!
>>
>>Ghery
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
>>[mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:39 AM
>>To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Ghery,group,
>>
>>Standards are NO LAW !
>>
>>My reply was directed against the Clause in EN 55022, not against the
>>possibility of
>>EN 55022 to define suitable environments. However, there is a standards
>>writing
>>committee guidance document that requests the committees not to
>>deviate more
>>then absolutely needed from the test levels and environmental conditions
>>as described in the generic standards EN 50082-1/2.
>>The standards writing committees have been very independent (members of
>>CENELEC) and
>>all kind of powers could and have been influencing the contents of many
>>standards. Even today commercial interests find their way into harmonized
>>standards.
>>
>>The EC requested CENELEC to create standards that are compatible to the
>>Essential requirements
>>of the EMC-directive, it cannot be so that a house hold kitchen
>>machine need
>>to comply to
>>other limits then a house hold computer. The interference a receiver
>>receives is not l

Re: EN55024 & 55022 my 2p..

[ChasGrasso]

Hello,

Just want to throw my 2p --ooops 2c in.

This issue ( of ITE universally being Class B ) is not new. It started
way before 1995 when the generic standards were released mandating 
that all equipment NOT tested to the heavy immunity should be tested
to Class B emissions. I remember distinctly then a shiver going up and down
my spine!! You see, unlike the very ordered and structured approach of the
FCC who defined emissions limits to whom you were selling - the EU
regulators decided to define the emissions limits based on installation.

In the US that might be one and the same - after all, who lives in a factory.
In Europe the situation is not so clear. It is perfectly possible for folks 
to live
cheek-by-jowl with businesses i.e. in the same apartment complex. Hence 
the push ( I think)  for Class B everything for ITE. 

There is also this presumption of quality. A Class B piece of gear has 
lower emissions. Therefore the quality must be higher.

Having said all that - this thrust MUST be resisted stoutly at all levels for 
any number
of reasons:
1) Cost - We have already invested dollars in immunity.
2) Need - There is no data to support the assumption that Class A gear
has/will cause widespread disaster.
3) Legislated Quality. - Need I say more.




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

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

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

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

RE: EN55024

[William D'Orazio]

Richard,

I agree!  But why define a product standard (EN55024 in particular) that
defines limits that are only appropriate for a residential, commercial and
light industrial environment.  Am I missing something?  

Thanks in advance,

William D'Orazio
CAE Electronics Ltd.
Electrical System Designer

Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
Fax: (514)340-5552
Email: dora...@cae.ca


-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:28 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EN55024



The answer to this debate is included in the essential requirement that a
product not cause undue interference and that it operate as intended in its
intended environment. The key is the intended environment. Class A equipment
installed in a residential environment would not comply with the essential
requirements. However, that same equipment would comply if installed all
other types of environments. The standard is clear that the manufacturer
must warn the user that the equipment is a Class A device. At that point it
is the responsibility of the user to ensure that the equipment is not used
in a residential environment.

Richard Woods

--
From:  Pettit, Ghery [SMTP:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent:  Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:57 PM
To:  'cet...@cetest.nl'; Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting
(E-mail)
Subject:  RE: EN55024


Let's discuss apples vs apples and keep the discussion to ITE.  Household
appliances are not subject to EN 55022:1998, but have their own product
specific standard.

The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC
Professional Employment Act of 1989).  It lays down, as you note, the
essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that
it operate as intended in its itended environment.  No more, no less.  No
limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive.

The question then comes up, how do we show compliance with the essential
requirements in 89/336/EEC?  The answer, of course, is to test to the
applicable requirements that have been published in the OJ.  For ITE, the
emissions limits are contained in EN 55022:1998.  Fine.  I read EN
55022:1998 and it is simply a number of modifications to CISPR 22, 3rd
Edition.  Well and good.  I read CISPR 22, 3rd Edition and it defines Class
A and Class B.

If there are different emissions limits between various standards, that
needs to be addressed in CISPR.  My question is this - is there a
significant interference problem in Europe from ITE?  Based on a survey
returned by over 50,000 households in the U.S., there certainly isn't one
here.  Whatever is being done, it is adequate.

Peace!

Ghery

-Original Message-
From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
[mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:39 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024



Hi Ghery,group,

Standards are NO LAW !

My reply was directed against the Clause in EN 55022, not against the
possibility of
EN 55022 to define suitable environments. However, there is a standards
writing
committee guidance document that requests the committees not to deviate more
then absolutely needed from the test levels and environmental conditions
as described in the generic standards EN 50082-1/2.
The standards writing committees have been very independent (members of
CENELEC) and
all kind of powers could and have been influencing the contents of many
standards. Even today commercial interests find their way into harmonized
standards.

The EC requested CENELEC to create standards that are compatible to the
Essential requirements
of the EMC-directive, it cannot be so that a house hold kitchen machine need
to comply to
other limits then a house hold computer. The interference a receiver
receives is not less interfering
if it comes from a vacuum cleaner or from a modem. Same environment, same
levels.
The problem comes with mixed environment products. In the past products
could escape from limits
by a warning label "this product may cause radio interference" and the
suggestion to increase
distance between products. At low reception levels of FM-radio and the close
distances of
modern urban livings that solution is not sufficient anymore.
Product group level EN-type harmonized standards are
(in Europe) targeted towards the details of "how to test" and "how to judge
performance" and
"how to connect test gear" and only deviate from levels and frequency range
in the
benefit of the product group if absolutely necessary.
It would be absolutely unjust if some equipment would be able to interfere
more then
others, just because it had a label on it saying that it would only be
allowed to
use it in an heavy industrial environment, if the equipment (such as a
mainframe)
itself suggests their application in 

Re: EN55024

[CDUPRES]

Hi Ghery.

You wrote:

<<  The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC
 Professional Employment Act of 1989).  It lays down, as you note, the
 essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that
 it operate as intended in its itended environment.  No more, no less.  No
 limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive. >>

The Euro Directive was born of the Treat of Rome, itself born in 1972, with 
the express purpose of removing barriers to trade.  If you read the 
Directive, in the first few pages I think (from memory) that it mentions 
'Free trade', 'removal of barriers to trade', 'etc. etc about ten times, but 
in just about the whole of the document it doesn't mention Interference or 
crackling radios at all.

The Directive is there to ensure that no Euro state can steal a lead on 
another by selling goods that don't have the same technical performance,  
i.e. that are cheaper!  By doing what the Directive requires, and applying 
the CE mark, it simply allows the bureacrats to let the goods in without let 
or hindrance so that they can be traded on an equal footing with locally 
produced goods.  Trade = peace, which isn't a bad thing...   I suspect that 
the Euro MP's wouldn't know an EMC if it fell on their foot, but they voted 
it in, as it was something that could be measured and defined relatively 
easily and could therefore be given political force.

The technical standards, CISPR etc. seem to be quite arbitary in places.  For 
instance, the sudden cessation of conducted emissions and the equally sudden 
beginning or radiated emissions at 30MHz is surely a bit convenient, tho' it 
has to be said it is not entirely impractical.

No,  I reckon that the EMC Directive is not anything to do with EMC, but 
another tool by which the Euro Bureacrats can merge Europe into this Super 
State so feared by the Brits and so revered by the Galls.

There, a bit of unsolicited trite bigotry, and it isn't even Friday.

Chris Dupres
Surrey, UK.

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

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

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

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

RE: EN55024

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Whoa!

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

To paraphrase CISPR 11,

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

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

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

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

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



Gert,

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

Ghery Pettit

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


Hi Group,

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

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

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

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



Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

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


>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of Pettit, Ghery
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:46 PM
>>To: 'William D'Orazio'; Pettit, Ghery; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>
>>OK.  EN 55022 is the ITE specific emissions standard.  It does
>>have two sets
>>of limits with a statement that Class B is intended for certain product
>>types which may be used in a domestic type environment and a
>>statement that
>>Class A products should have a warning that they may cause interference if
>>used in a domestic environment.  CISPR 22 does not use the term
>>"industrial"
>>to define an environment.  It merely warns that the class A limits may not
>>provide enough protection to neighboring users of the RF spectrum if the
>>device is used in a domestic environment.
>>
>>Ghery
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:37 PM
>>To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; William D'Orazio; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>BYI, EN55011 should read EN55022.
>>
>>William D'Orazio
>>CAE Electronics Ltd.
>>Electrical System Designer
>>
>>Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
>>Fax: (514)340-5552
>>Email: dora...@cae.ca
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:33 PM
>>To: 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>EN 55024 is the ITE specific immunity standard.  It is based on CISPR 24
>>which make

RE: EN55024

[WOODS]

The answer to this debate is included in the essential requirement that a
product not cause undue interference and that it operate as intended in its
intended environment. The key is the intended environment. Class A equipment
installed in a residential environment would not comply with the essential
requirements. However, that same equipment would comply if installed all
other types of environments. The standard is clear that the manufacturer
must warn the user that the equipment is a Class A device. At that point it
is the responsibility of the user to ensure that the equipment is not used
in a residential environment.

Richard Woods

--
From:  Pettit, Ghery [SMTP:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent:  Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:57 PM
To:  'cet...@cetest.nl'; Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting
(E-mail)
Subject:  RE: EN55024


Let's discuss apples vs apples and keep the discussion to ITE.  Household
appliances are not subject to EN 55022:1998, but have their own product
specific standard.

The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC
Professional Employment Act of 1989).  It lays down, as you note, the
essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that
it operate as intended in its itended environment.  No more, no less.  No
limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive.

The question then comes up, how do we show compliance with the essential
requirements in 89/336/EEC?  The answer, of course, is to test to the
applicable requirements that have been published in the OJ.  For ITE, the
emissions limits are contained in EN 55022:1998.  Fine.  I read EN
55022:1998 and it is simply a number of modifications to CISPR 22, 3rd
Edition.  Well and good.  I read CISPR 22, 3rd Edition and it defines Class
A and Class B.

If there are different emissions limits between various standards, that
needs to be addressed in CISPR.  My question is this - is there a
significant interference problem in Europe from ITE?  Based on a survey
returned by over 50,000 households in the U.S., there certainly isn't one
here.  Whatever is being done, it is adequate.

Peace!

Ghery

-Original Message-
From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
[mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:39 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024



Hi Ghery,group,

Standards are NO LAW !

My reply was directed against the Clause in EN 55022, not against the
possibility of
EN 55022 to define suitable environments. However, there is a standards
writing
committee guidance document that requests the committees not to deviate more
then absolutely needed from the test levels and environmental conditions
as described in the generic standards EN 50082-1/2.
The standards writing committees have been very independent (members of
CENELEC) and
all kind of powers could and have been influencing the contents of many
standards. Even today commercial interests find their way into harmonized
standards.

The EC requested CENELEC to create standards that are compatible to the
Essential requirements
of the EMC-directive, it cannot be so that a house hold kitchen machine need
to comply to
other limits then a house hold computer. The interference a receiver
receives is not less interfering
if it comes from a vacuum cleaner or from a modem. Same environment, same
levels.
The problem comes with mixed environment products. In the past products
could escape from limits
by a warning label "this product may cause radio interference" and the
suggestion to increase
distance between products. At low reception levels of FM-radio and the close
distances of
modern urban livings that solution is not sufficient anymore.
Product group level EN-type harmonized standards are
(in Europe) targeted towards the details of "how to test" and "how to judge
performance" and
"how to connect test gear" and only deviate from levels and frequency range
in the
benefit of the product group if absolutely necessary.
It would be absolutely unjust if some equipment would be able to interfere
more then
others, just because it had a label on it saying that it would only be
allowed to
use it in an heavy industrial environment, if the equipment (such as a
mainframe)
itself suggests their application in a domestic or mixed environment.

Manufacturers of Class B complying equipment could easily sue manufacturers
of equivalent
Class A equipment if their limit exceeding interference was not due to
absolutely \
necessary requirements given by the nature of the product or process being
done.
(Fa electro-heating with RF-waves, welding and therapeutic use of
RF-frequencies)

Please Note also that the report mentioned is for the standards writing
committees of CENELEC creating harmonized standards and is not applicable
for IEC and/or
CISPR versions of the same standa

RE: EN55024

[Pettit, Ghery]

Let's discuss apples vs apples and keep the discussion to ITE.  Household
appliances are not subject to EN 55022:1998, but have their own product
specific standard.

The law is 89/336/EEC, the EMC Directive (or as I like to call it, the EMC
Professional Employment Act of 1989).  It lays down, as you note, the
essential requirement that a product not cause undue interference and that
it operate as intended in its itended environment.  No more, no less.  No
limits for emissions are provided in the EMC Directive.

The question then comes up, how do we show compliance with the essential
requirements in 89/336/EEC?  The answer, of course, is to test to the
applicable requirements that have been published in the OJ.  For ITE, the
emissions limits are contained in EN 55022:1998.  Fine.  I read EN
55022:1998 and it is simply a number of modifications to CISPR 22, 3rd
Edition.  Well and good.  I read CISPR 22, 3rd Edition and it defines Class
A and Class B.

If there are different emissions limits between various standards, that
needs to be addressed in CISPR.  My question is this - is there a
significant interference problem in Europe from ITE?  Based on a survey
returned by over 50,000 households in the U.S., there certainly isn't one
here.  Whatever is being done, it is adequate.

Peace!

Ghery

-Original Message-
From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
[mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:39 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024



Hi Ghery,group,

Standards are NO LAW !

My reply was directed against the Clause in EN 55022, not against the
possibility of
EN 55022 to define suitable environments. However, there is a standards
writing
committee guidance document that requests the committees not to deviate more
then absolutely needed from the test levels and environmental conditions
as described in the generic standards EN 50082-1/2.
The standards writing committees have been very independent (members of
CENELEC) and
all kind of powers could and have been influencing the contents of many
standards. Even today commercial interests find their way into harmonized
standards.

The EC requested CENELEC to create standards that are compatible to the
Essential requirements
of the EMC-directive, it cannot be so that a house hold kitchen machine need
to comply to
other limits then a house hold computer. The interference a receiver
receives is not less interfering
if it comes from a vacuum cleaner or from a modem. Same environment, same
levels.
The problem comes with mixed environment products. In the past products
could escape from limits
by a warning label "this product may cause radio interference" and the
suggestion to increase
distance between products. At low reception levels of FM-radio and the close
distances of
modern urban livings that solution is not sufficient anymore.
Product group level EN-type harmonized standards are
(in Europe) targeted towards the details of "how to test" and "how to judge
performance" and
"how to connect test gear" and only deviate from levels and frequency range
in the
benefit of the product group if absolutely necessary.
It would be absolutely unjust if some equipment would be able to interfere
more then
others, just because it had a label on it saying that it would only be
allowed to
use it in an heavy industrial environment, if the equipment (such as a
mainframe)
itself suggests their application in a domestic or mixed environment.

Manufacturers of Class B complying equipment could easily sue manufacturers
of equivalent
Class A equipment if their limit exceeding interference was not due to
absolutely \
necessary requirements given by the nature of the product or process being
done.
(Fa electro-heating with RF-waves, welding and therapeutic use of
RF-frequencies)

Please Note also that the report mentioned is for the standards writing
committees of CENELEC creating harmonized standards and is not applicable
for IEC and/or
CISPR versions of the same standard.

Hope to got things straightened out somewhat.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

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


>>-Original Message-
>>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 5:25 PM
>>To: 'CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...'; Pettit,
>>Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>Gert,
>>
>>All ITE equipment must meet the Class B limits?  Where does it say that in
>>either EN 55022:1998 or CISPR 22, 3rd Edition?  Section 4.1 of CISPR 22 is
>>qui

RE: EN55024

[CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...]

Hi Ghery,group,

Standards are NO LAW !

My reply was directed against the Clause in EN 55022, not against the
possibility of
EN 55022 to define suitable environments. However, there is a standards
writing
committee guidance document that requests the committees not to deviate more
then absolutely needed from the test levels and environmental conditions
as described in the generic standards EN 50082-1/2.
The standards writing committees have been very independent (members of
CENELEC) and
all kind of powers could and have been influencing the contents of many
standards. Even today commercial interests find their way into harmonized
standards.

The EC requested CENELEC to create standards that are compatible to the
Essential requirements
of the EMC-directive, it cannot be so that a house hold kitchen machine need
to comply to
other limits then a house hold computer. The interference a receiver
receives is not less interfering
if it comes from a vacuum cleaner or from a modem. Same environment, same
levels.
The problem comes with mixed environment products. In the past products
could escape from limits
by a warning label "this product may cause radio interference" and the
suggestion to increase
distance between products. At low reception levels of FM-radio and the close
distances of
modern urban livings that solution is not sufficient anymore.
Product group level EN-type harmonized standards are
(in Europe) targeted towards the details of "how to test" and "how to judge
performance" and
"how to connect test gear" and only deviate from levels and frequency range
in the
benefit of the product group if absolutely necessary.
It would be absolutely unjust if some equipment would be able to interfere
more then
others, just because it had a label on it saying that it would only be
allowed to
use it in an heavy industrial environment, if the equipment (such as a
mainframe)
itself suggests their application in a domestic or mixed environment.

Manufacturers of Class B complying equipment could easily sue manufacturers
of equivalent
Class A equipment if their limit exceeding interference was not due to
absolutely \
necessary requirements given by the nature of the product or process being
done.
(Fa electro-heating with RF-waves, welding and therapeutic use of
RF-frequencies)

Please Note also that the report mentioned is for the standards writing
committees of CENELEC creating harmonized standards and is not applicable
for IEC and/or
CISPR versions of the same standard.

Hope to got things straightened out somewhat.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

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


>>-Original Message-
>>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 5:25 PM
>>To: 'CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...'; Pettit,
>>Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>Gert,
>>
>>All ITE equipment must meet the Class B limits?  Where does it say that in
>>either EN 55022:1998 or CISPR 22, 3rd Edition?  Section 4.1 of CISPR 22 is
>>quite clear about what equipment must meet the Class B limits.  There are
>>many types of ITE that do not fall into the examples provided in the
>>document.  EN 55022 does not amend this part of the document in its common
>>modifications.  As 89/336/EEC does not provide limits of any
>>kind, where am
>>I supposed to see a requirement that servers and mainframe
>>computers (which
>>are, indeed, ITE) must meet the Class B limits?
>>
>>Ghery Pettit
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
>>[mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:14 AM
>>To: Pettit, Ghery; 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>Hi Group,
>>
>>The type of clause (see below) from EN 55022 about adding notes and
>>restrictions
>>to equipment is just the type the European Commission
>>objects against their use in the EN 55022 standard.
>>
>>The reason is that the CENELEC was asked to propose limits and
>>test methods, not to replace politics by limitng the applicability
>>of their standards.
>>
>>The use of such a clause to sell ITE equipment to Class A limits
>>is illegal
>>and will not hold when the presumption of conformity to the essential
>>requirements
>>of the EMC-directive is being tested.
>>
>>Information 

RE: EN55024

[Pettit, Ghery]

Gert,

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

Ghery Pettit

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


Hi Group,

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

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

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

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



Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

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


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

RE: EN55024

[CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...]

Hi Group,

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

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

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

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



Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

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


>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of Pettit, Ghery
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:46 PM
>>To: 'William D'Orazio'; Pettit, Ghery; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>
>>OK.  EN 55022 is the ITE specific emissions standard.  It does
>>have two sets
>>of limits with a statement that Class B is intended for certain product
>>types which may be used in a domestic type environment and a
>>statement that
>>Class A products should have a warning that they may cause interference if
>>used in a domestic environment.  CISPR 22 does not use the term
>>"industrial"
>>to define an environment.  It merely warns that the class A limits may not
>>provide enough protection to neighboring users of the RF spectrum if the
>>device is used in a domestic environment.
>>
>>Ghery
>>
>>-Original Message-----
>>From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:37 PM
>>To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; William D'Orazio; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>BYI, EN55011 should read EN55022.
>>
>>William D'Orazio
>>CAE Electronics Ltd.
>>Electrical System Designer
>>
>>Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
>>Fax: (514)340-5552
>>Email: dora...@cae.ca
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:33 PM
>>To: 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: RE: EN55024
>>
>>
>>EN 55024 is the ITE specific immunity standard.  It is based on CISPR 24
>>which makes no distinction between environments.  EN 55011 is
>>based on CISPR
>>11 and relates to different product families.  They do not come from the
>>same subcommittees in CISPR, so it's like comparing apples and oranges.
>>
>>Ghery Pettit
>>Intel
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:22 PM
>>To: EMC Posting (E-mail)
>>Subject: EN55024
>>
>>
>>
>>Gents,
>>
>>  Why is it that EN55011 defines test levels for both industrial and
>>residential environments (class A, B) and EN55024 does not?  Are
>>the levels
>>in EN55024 applicable to all environments (obviously not) so how does one
>>define the test levels for an ITE in an industrial environment?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>> <<...>>
>>
>>William D'Orazio
>>CAE Electronics Ltd.
>>Electrical System Designer
>>
>>Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
>>Fax: (514)340-5552
>>Email: dora...@cae.ca
>>
>>
>>---
>>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> majord...@ieee.org
>>with the single line:
>> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>
>>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>>
>>For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>>
>>To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> majord...@ieee.org
>>with the single line:
>> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>>
>>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>>
>>For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>>
>>
<>

RE: EN55024

[Pettit, Ghery]

OK.  EN 55022 is the ITE specific emissions standard.  It does have two sets
of limits with a statement that Class B is intended for certain product
types which may be used in a domestic type environment and a statement that
Class A products should have a warning that they may cause interference if
used in a domestic environment.  CISPR 22 does not use the term "industrial"
to define an environment.  It merely warns that the class A limits may not
provide enough protection to neighboring users of the RF spectrum if the
device is used in a domestic environment.

Ghery

-Original Message-
From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:37 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; William D'Orazio; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024


BYI, EN55011 should read EN55022.

William D'Orazio
CAE Electronics Ltd.
Electrical System Designer

Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
Fax: (514)340-5552
Email: dora...@cae.ca


-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:33 PM
To: 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024


EN 55024 is the ITE specific immunity standard.  It is based on CISPR 24
which makes no distinction between environments.  EN 55011 is based on CISPR
11 and relates to different product families.  They do not come from the
same subcommittees in CISPR, so it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Ghery Pettit
Intel

-Original Message-
From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:22 PM
To: EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: EN55024



Gents,

Why is it that EN55011 defines test levels for both industrial and
residential environments (class A, B) and EN55024 does not?  Are the levels
in EN55024 applicable to all environments (obviously not) so how does one
define the test levels for an ITE in an industrial environment?

Thanks in advance,

 <<...>> 

William D'Orazio
CAE Electronics Ltd.
Electrical System Designer

Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
Fax: (514)340-5552
Email: dora...@cae.ca


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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

RE: EN55024

[William D'Orazio]

BYI, EN55011 should read EN55022.

William D'Orazio
CAE Electronics Ltd.
Electrical System Designer

Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
Fax: (514)340-5552
Email: dora...@cae.ca


-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 5:33 PM
To: 'William D'Orazio'; EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55024


EN 55024 is the ITE specific immunity standard.  It is based on CISPR 24
which makes no distinction between environments.  EN 55011 is based on CISPR
11 and relates to different product families.  They do not come from the
same subcommittees in CISPR, so it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Ghery Pettit
Intel

-Original Message-
From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:22 PM
To: EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: EN55024



Gents,

Why is it that EN55011 defines test levels for both industrial and
residential environments (class A, B) and EN55024 does not?  Are the levels
in EN55024 applicable to all environments (obviously not) so how does one
define the test levels for an ITE in an industrial environment?

Thanks in advance,

 <<...>> 

William D'Orazio
CAE Electronics Ltd.
Electrical System Designer

Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
Fax: (514)340-5552
Email: dora...@cae.ca


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

RE: EN55024

[Pettit, Ghery]

EN 55024 is the ITE specific immunity standard.  It is based on CISPR 24
which makes no distinction between environments.  EN 55011 is based on CISPR
11 and relates to different product families.  They do not come from the
same subcommittees in CISPR, so it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Ghery Pettit
Intel

-Original Message-
From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:22 PM
To: EMC Posting (E-mail)
Subject: EN55024



Gents,

Why is it that EN55011 defines test levels for both industrial and
residential environments (class A, B) and EN55024 does not?  Are the levels
in EN55024 applicable to all environments (obviously not) so how does one
define the test levels for an ITE in an industrial environment?

Thanks in advance,

 <<...>> 

William D'Orazio
CAE Electronics Ltd.
Electrical System Designer

Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555)
Fax: (514)340-5552
Email: dora...@cae.ca


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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

RE: RE: EN55024 question

[Debbie Mallory]

Kaz,
 
Your questions are exactly along the line I was thinking of.
 
In the U.S., I could assume that the smart jack is provided by the telco.
and it's the demarkation point.  However, I don't know what the telcos.
provide in the EEU.  The safest approach is to assume nothing and make sure
my company's product meets EN55024 by itself.  That way you avoid
misunderstandings.  But I don't want to spend extra money on parts and
testing if I don't have to.
 
Any comments from our European forum members??
 
Regards,
 
Debbie Mallory
AFC, Inc.
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal [mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 11:41 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question


Folks,
 
Just to add to the mix of questions so far, here's a few more that Debbie
may wish to consider:
1)  is the demarkation point for the product clearly identified?  
2)  Is a smart jack always to be used with the product?  Who supplies it
(i.e. mfg. or customer)?
3)  Is the product in question specified to meet the immunity requirements
with/without the use of the smart connector?
4)  Are there a million+1garden variety smart jacks or is there only a
unique smart jack to connect with this particular product?
5)  What will the customer's obligations for installation and deployments of
the product be?
 
I guess the point I'm raising is that the product Debbie(below) refers to
has to live up to it's specs...whatever they are.  If the immunity spec is
not to be met stand-alone (i.e. without smart jack) due to whatever the mfg.
pushes onto the customer...that's fine but it should be clearly identified
on the mfg's side and to their customers in one way or another.  Any
assumptions that are made regarding what it is that Telcos supply is ok as
well...they might be wrong however, so the design docs, approvals and
customer supplied information should clearly spell out what the product
meets and what the customer's obligations are prior to deployments,
implementation and possible field issues.
 
My 2 Cents...if I'm way off track, please accept my apologies.
 
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
k...@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.com> 
calgary...@aol.com <mailto:calgary...@aol.com> 
-Original Message-
From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:00 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question



Bandele - 

Please forgive an ignorant question: 

I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see
how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to
do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines.
To wit: "outside" is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic)
that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and
subject to transients.  Direct implies to me that there is no interposing
hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices,
galvanic isolating equipment, etc).

Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of
the standards committee that wrote the requirement?

Regards, 

Peter L. Tarver, PE 
ptar...@nortelnetworks.com 


-Original Message- 
From: Bandele Adepoju 
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM 


Hello Debbie, 

If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming 
data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to 
it is considered to be an "indirect" connection.  If the jack does 
not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal 
straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a 
"direct" connection. 

Regards, 

Bandele 
Jetstream Communications, Inc. 
badep...@jetstream.com 


-Original Message- 
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [ mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
<mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com> ] 

forwarding for Debbie... 

Reply Separator 
Subject:EN55024 question 
Author: Debbie Mallory  
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   8/25/00 10:59 AM 


> Hello, 
> 
> I have a question about the use of the word "directly" in Note 2, of Table

> 2, in EN55024: 1998.  It says "Applicable only to [telecommunication] 
> ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect 
> directly to outdoor cables." 
> 
> If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the "outdoor cable" via 
> a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to 
> immunity testing) or does it not apply?  
> 
> Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the 
> EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises?
> 
> Thanks for your comments. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Debbie Mallory 
> AF

RE: RE: EN55024 question

[Bandele Adepoju]

This interpretation came from the FCC and a Notified Body - in the course of
numerous 
discussions on this subject, may I say.
 
Regards,
Bandele 
Jetstream Communications, Inc. 
badep...@jetstream.com 

-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:00 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question



Bandele - 

Please forgive an ignorant question: 

I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see
how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to
do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines.
To wit: "outside" is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic)
that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and
subject to transients.  Direct implies to me that there is no interposing
hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices,
galvanic isolating equipment, etc).

Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of
the standards committee that wrote the requirement?

Regards, 

Peter L. Tarver, PE 
ptar...@nortelnetworks.com 


-Original Message- 
From: Bandele Adepoju 
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM 


Hello Debbie, 

If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming 
data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to 
it is considered to be an "indirect" connection.  If the jack does 
not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal 
straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a 
"direct" connection. 

Regards, 

Bandele 
Jetstream Communications, Inc. 
badep...@jetstream.com 


-Original Message- 
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [ mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
<mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com> ] 

forwarding for Debbie... 

Reply Separator 
Subject:EN55024 question 
Author: Debbie Mallory  
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   8/25/00 10:59 AM 


> Hello, 
> 
> I have a question about the use of the word "directly" in Note 2, of Table

> 2, in EN55024: 1998.  It says "Applicable only to [telecommunication] 
> ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect 
> directly to outdoor cables." 
> 
> If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the "outdoor cable" via 
> a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to 
> immunity testing) or does it not apply?  
> 
> Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the 
> EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises?
> 
> Thanks for your comments. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Debbie Mallory 
> AFC, Inc. 
> Largo, FL 

RE: RE: EN55024 question

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Folks,
 
Just to add to the mix of questions so far, here's a few more that Debbie
may wish to consider:
1)  is the demarkation point for the product clearly identified?  
2)  Is a smart jack always to be used with the product?  Who supplies it
(i.e. mfg. or customer)?
3)  Is the product in question specified to meet the immunity requirements
with/without the use of the smart connector?
4)  Are there a million+1garden variety smart jacks or is there only a
unique smart jack to connect with this particular product?
5)  What will the customer's obligations for installation and deployments of
the product be?
 
I guess the point I'm raising is that the product Debbie(below) refers to
has to live up to it's specs...whatever they are.  If the immunity spec is
not to be met stand-alone (i.e. without smart jack) due to whatever the mfg.
pushes onto the customer...that's fine but it should be clearly identified
on the mfg's side and to their customers in one way or another.  Any
assumptions that are made regarding what it is that Telcos supply is ok as
well...they might be wrong however, so the design docs, approvals and
customer supplied information should clearly spell out what the product
meets and what the customer's obligations are prior to deployments,
implementation and possible field issues.
 
My 2 Cents...if I'm way off track, please accept my apologies.
 
Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng.
k...@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.com> 
calgary...@aol.com <mailto:calgary...@aol.com> 
-Original Message-
From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:00 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question



Bandele - 

Please forgive an ignorant question: 

I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see
how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to
do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines.
To wit: "outside" is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic)
that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and
subject to transients.  Direct implies to me that there is no interposing
hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices,
galvanic isolating equipment, etc).

Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of
the standards committee that wrote the requirement?

Regards, 

Peter L. Tarver, PE 
ptar...@nortelnetworks.com 


-Original Message- 
From: Bandele Adepoju 
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM 


Hello Debbie, 

If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming 
data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to 
it is considered to be an "indirect" connection.  If the jack does 
not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal 
straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a 
"direct" connection. 

Regards, 

Bandele 
Jetstream Communications, Inc. 
badep...@jetstream.com 


-Original Message- 
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [ mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
<mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com> ] 

forwarding for Debbie... 

Reply Separator 
Subject:EN55024 question 
Author: Debbie Mallory  
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   8/25/00 10:59 AM 


> Hello, 
> 
> I have a question about the use of the word "directly" in Note 2, of Table

> 2, in EN55024: 1998.  It says "Applicable only to [telecommunication] 
> ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect 
> directly to outdoor cables." 
> 
> If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the "outdoor cable" via 
> a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to 
> immunity testing) or does it not apply?  
> 
> Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the 
> EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises?
> 
> Thanks for your comments. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Debbie Mallory 
> AFC, Inc. 
> Largo, FL 

RE: RE: EN55024 question

[Peter Tarver]

Bandele -

Please forgive an ignorant question:

I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see
how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to
do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines.
To wit: "outside" is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic)
that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and
subject to transients.  Direct implies to me that there is no interposing
hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices,
galvanic isolating equipment, etc).

Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of
the standards committee that wrote the requirement?

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
ptar...@nortelnetworks.com


-Original Message-
From: Bandele Adepoju
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM


Hello Debbie,

If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming
data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to 
it is considered to be an "indirect" connection.  If the jack does 
not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal 
straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a 
"direct" connection.

Regards,

Bandele 
Jetstream Communications, Inc.
badep...@jetstream.com


-Original Message-
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com]

forwarding for Debbie...

Reply Separator
Subject:EN55024 question
Author: Debbie Mallory 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   8/25/00 10:59 AM


> Hello,
> 
> I have a question about the use of the word "directly" in Note 2, of Table
> 2, in EN55024: 1998.  It says "Applicable only to [telecommunication]
> ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect
> directly to outdoor cables."
> 
> If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the "outdoor cable" via
> a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to
> immunity testing) or does it not apply?  
> 
> Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the
> EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises?
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Debbie Mallory
> AFC, Inc.
> Largo, FL

RE: EN55024 & EN50082

[Pettit, Ghery]

Peter,

EN 50082 is the generic immunity standard.  It applies to all products for
which a product specific immunity standard has not been written.

EN 55024 (based on CISPR 24 with certain modifications) is the product
specific immunity standard for Information Technology Equipment (ITE).  It
replaces EN 50082 for those products.

Ghery S. Pettit, NCE
Intel Corporation


-Original Message-
From: peterh...@aol.com [mailto:peterh...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 11:02 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 & EN50082



Hello group,

Could someone let me know what is the difference between EN55024 and EN50082

please? It seems to me that both titles are very similar. 

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks
Peter
Email: peterh...@aol.com

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




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

RE: EN55024 & EN50082

[Edward Fitzgerald]

Peter,

In brief, EN 50 082 is the generic standard and
EN 50 024 is a product standard that takes precedence over the generic
standard.

I hope this helps a little, let me know if you need a more in depth
answer.

Edward Fitzgerald
Director
Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
GSM Tel. : +44 4685 33 100

European Technology Services (EMEA)
Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy
Regional Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK.

GLOBAL INtelLIGENCE Site  psst... spread
the word !



-Original Message-
From: peterh...@aol.com [mailto:peterh...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 7:02 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN55024 & EN50082



Hello group,

Could someone let me know what is the difference between EN55024 and
EN50082 
please? It seems to me that both titles are very similar. 

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks
Peter
Email: peterh...@aol.com

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


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