RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Ravinder, Indeed, the IBM ESD furniture-type ESD simulator should be long remembered! The purpose of this kind of test is equipment a customer will WANT to buy. If we are wise, we go _beyond_ what the law requires, so we will gain the trust of our customers. Often, management views tests such as these as an expensive, necessary evil, but they are more vital than that. I once saw color TV's on sale for $75. When I asked why, the store manager told me the parent company -- which I will not name -- had gotten a great deal on color TV's and didn't realize until too late that the manufacturer sold them on the understanding that a third of 'em wouldn't work out of the box. No problem! Throw away bad set. You buy cheap TV, still make money! What it did to customer loyalty... I understand that national chain is no longer in business. Ad astra -- per Aspirin! Cortland = On 4 March, Ravinder Ajmani wrote: I fully support Lacey's views about performing some immunity testing on the products, in order to improve their reliability. Long before FCC/EU implemented EMC requirements on the electronic products, IBM had formulated emissions and immunity standards for their products. Even now some of the IBM standards are tougher than the FCC/EU standards, while a few others do not figure in EU requirements. The only purpose for these internal standards is to make sure that customer has no cause for complaints, even when the equipment is not used as per the manufacturer's recommendations. We keep on devising new tests to emulate the working of our products under severe stress conditions, some of which may be caused by the poor quality of auxiliary equipment used by our customers. Again, if these extra requirements are designed-in, the cost to the company is extremely low. All it needs is the awareness in the designers to take these requirements in to consideration at the early design stage. Bigger companies like IBM can afford to have a dedicated person overseeing these needs, but then they also have lot more products. Smaller companies can train there design engineers in EMC practices. Also, there are inexpensive tools, which although not perfect, can provide big help in making first prototype almost right. All this certainly saves you big bucks at the test labs, and putting retrofits to mitigate EMC problems, once the product has been built. As Lacey has pointed out, we are going to see more susceptibility problems in household equipment as our home PCs become faster and faster, and microprocessors are used in increasing numbers of household appliances. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Hi Scott. You wrote: It's sometimes all too easy to forget WHY we perform these tests. While we are trying to comply with written requirements in order to pass, we are also trying to ensure product performance in the real world, Time for my favourite hobby horse again... Going back even further than your memory, back in fact to 1972, the Treaty of Rome in Europe. This was when the Euro Nations decided to get into a single trading bed and knock down barriers to trade within Europe. In Europe, we called it the Common Market. In the US it is often called 'Fortress Europe'. Whatever, as a result of this treaty, all Euro Nation States had to follow Directives, one of which was raised in 1989, the EMC directive, which sort to regularise EMC performance within Europe. The purpose of this Directive, I need not remind you, is to ensure that no Euro State, or any other state for that matter, couldn't steal a trading advantage by making their equipment cheaper by building to a lesser standard of EMC performance. I suppose it was levelling the playing field, such that everything had to meet a minimum standard. Since then the standard required is slowly getting stiffer, but whether this improves the lot of the Euro Proletariat or not, I have my doubts, but sure as hell the sales of filters, screening and EMC testing services has gone through the roof. I could ask, Who are the CISPR committees, who told them what constituted a suitable EMC performance? Who voted them into power, who let them put the price of my TV up? Who told the BS and DIN people to make my life more complicated and more expensive by constantly making the EMC requirements more difficult to meet? I don't remember voting for them... But as I earn my living supporting exactly that business, it would be churlish to do so, so I wont just now. If you read the Directive, you will note that terms like 'Removal of barriers to trade', and 'free movement of goods across borders' etc. are mentioned so often it gets boring. But not once does it say anything about making the world a less EMC active place, or anything about improvements to the environment or living quality by the reduction of interference. No, the EMC Directive is a financial/political package, the politicians who approved the Directive's publication wouldn't recognise an EMC if it fell on their foot. Our activities in trying to achieve Euro EMC standards is merely to meet the political aspirations of a European Economic Area, and so far that seems to at least stopped big wars in Europe for the last 50 years or so. Maybe that's the real reason for all this. Another self opinionated twopence worth from a tired, cynical, aging EMC hack. Chris Dupres Surrey, UK. p.s. Has anybody heard about the Bad Haircut Directive? - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Chris Not to beat a dead horse, but: While your observations on the political side are very interesting and all too true, I still stand by my comments regarding immunity testing of fly-by-wire (100% electronic vs. electronic/electromechanical controlled) products. These products are potentially far more dangerous than most people realize. The tremendous flexibility of microprocessors is often abused by lazy or sloppy designers, who tend to mask out problems in software rather than correct very real and serious hardware problems. This is especially common at smaller firms, of which I have worked for many (under temporary contract). On many occasions I have had to go to the mat in design meetings in order to win a couple of days reprieve to find and fix problems prior to a software solution being implemented. The problems almost always were relatively easy to correct, once diagnosed correctly. Some could have been very dangerous under the wrong circumstances if left uncorrected. If all immunity testing requirements were struck down tomorrow, I would still want to perform some level of testing on this type of product. To not do so is to expose yourself to tremendous legal liablilities in the future. Many immunity tests may be improvised in order to get a feel for how the product performs under duress. The point is not that consumer products must always behave flawlessly, only that no dangerous conditions result. Scott -Original Message- From: Chris Dupres [SMTP:chris_dup...@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 6:29 PM To: Lacey,Scott Cc: emc-pstc Subject: RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Hi Scott. You wrote: It's sometimes all too easy to forget WHY we perform these tests. While we are trying to comply with written requirements in order to pass, we are also trying to ensure product performance in the real world, Time for my favourite hobby horse again... Going back even further than your memory, back in fact to 1972, the Treaty of Rome in Europe. This was when the Euro Nations decided to get into a single trading bed and knock down barriers to trade within Europe. In Europe, we called it the Common Market. In the US it is often called 'Fortress Europe'. Whatever, as a result of this treaty, all Euro Nation States had to follow Directives, one of which was raised in 1989, the EMC directive, which sort to regularise EMC performance within Europe. The purpose of this Directive, I need not remind you, is to ensure that no Euro State, or any other state for that matter, couldn't steal a trading advantage by making their equipment cheaper by building to a lesser standard of EMC performance. I suppose it was levelling the playing field, such that everything had to meet a minimum standard. Since then the standard required is slowly getting stiffer, but whether this improves the lot of the Euro Proletariat or not, I have my doubts, but sure as hell the sales of filters, screening and EMC testing services has gone through the roof. I could ask, Who are the CISPR committees, who told them what constituted a suitable EMC performance? Who voted them into power, who let them put the price of my TV up? Who told the BS and DIN people to make my life more complicated and more expensive by constantly making the EMC requirements more difficult to meet? I don't remember voting for them... But as I earn my living supporting exactly that business, it would be churlish to do so, so I wont just now. If you read the Directive, you will note that terms like 'Removal of barriers to trade', and 'free movement of goods across borders' etc. are mentioned so often it gets boring. But not once does it say anything about making the world a less EMC active place, or anything about improvements to the environment or living quality by the reduction of interference. No, the EMC Directive is a financial/political package, the politicians who approved the Directive's publication wouldn't recognise an EMC if it fell on their foot. Our activities in trying to achieve Euro EMC standards is merely to meet the political aspirations of a European Economic Area, and so far that seems to at least stopped big wars in Europe for the last 50 years or so. Maybe that's the real reason for all this. Another self opinionated twopence worth from a tired, cynical, aging EMC hack. Chris Dupres Surrey, UK. p.s. Has anybody heard about the Bad Haircut Directive? - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
I fully support Lacey's views about performing some immunity testing on the products, in order to improve their reliability. Long before FCC/EU implemented EMC requirements on the electronic products, IBM had formulated emissions and immunity standards for their products. Even now some of the IBM standards are tougher than the FCC/EU standards, while a few others do not figure in EU requirements. The only purpose for these internal standards is to make sure that customer has no cause for complaints, even when the equipment is not used as per the manufacturer's recommendations. We keep on devising new tests to emulate the working of our products under severe stress conditions, some of which may be caused by the poor quality of auxiliary equipment used by our customers. Again, if these extra requirements are designed-in, the cost to the company is extremely low. All it needs is the awareness in the designers to take these requirements in to consideration at the early design stage. Bigger companies like IBM can afford to have a dedicated person overseeing these needs, but then they also have lot more products. Smaller companies can train there design engineers in EMC practices. Also, there are inexpensive tools, which although not perfect, can provide big help in making first prototype almost right. All this certainly saves you big bucks at the test labs, and putting retrofits to mitigate EMC problems, once the product has been built. As Lacey has pointed out, we are going to see more susceptibility problems in household equipment as our home PCs become faster and faster, and microprocessors are used in increasing numbers of household appliances. Regards, Ravinder PCB Development and Design Department IBM Corporation - Storage Systems Division Voice : (408) 256-7956 T/L : 276-7956 Fax : (408) 256-0550 Email: ajm...@us.ibm.com *** Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. Mark Twain Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 03/04/99 05:44:33 AM Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: Chris Dupres chris_dup...@compuserve.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Ravinder Ajmani/San Jose/IBM) Subject: RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Chris Not to beat a dead horse, but: While your observations on the political side are very interesting and all too true, I still stand by my comments regarding immunity testing of fly-by-wire (100% electronic vs. electronic/electromechanical controlled) products. These products are potentially far more dangerous than most people realize. The tremendous flexibility of microprocessors is often abused by lazy or sloppy designers, who tend to mask out problems in software rather than correct very real and serious hardware problems. This is especially common at smaller firms, of which I have worked for many (under temporary contract). On many occasions I have had to go to the mat in design meetings in order to win a couple of days reprieve to find and fix problems prior to a software solution being implemented. The problems almost always were relatively easy to correct, once diagnosed correctly. Some could have been very dangerous under the wrong circumstances if left uncorrected. If all immunity testing requirements were struck down tomorrow, I would still want to perform some level of testing on this type of product. To not do so is to expose yourself to tremendous legal liablilities in the future. Many immunity tests may be improvised in order to get a feel for how the product performs under duress. The point is not that consumer products must always behave flawlessly, only that no dangerous conditions result. Scott -Original Message- From: Chris Dupres [SMTP:chris_dup...@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 6:29 PM To: Lacey,Scott Cc: emc-pstc Subject: RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Hi Scott. You wrote: It's sometimes all too easy to forget WHY we perform these tests. While we are trying to comply with written requirements in order to pass, we are also trying to ensure product performance in the real world, Time for my favourite hobby horse again... Going back even further than your memory, back in fact to 1972, the Treaty of Rome in Europe. This was when the Euro Nations decided to get into a single trading bed and knock down barriers to trade within Europe. In Europe, we called it the Common Market. In the US it is often called 'Fortress Europe'. Whatever, as a result of this treaty, all Euro Nation States had to follow Directives, one of which was raised in 1989, the EMC directive, which sort to regularise EMC performance within Europe. The purpose of this Directive, I need not remind you, is to ensure that no Euro State, or any other state for that matter, couldn't steal a trading advantage by making their equipment cheaper
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
$0.02 I just thought I'd add my two cents worth. It's sometimes all too easy to forget WHY we perform these tests. While we are trying to comply with written requirements in order to pass, we are also trying to ensure product performance in the real world, which can be a very hostile place from an EMC standpoint. Having your new microprocessor controlled washing machine jump from Gentle/Hand wash to Industrial Clean mode due to an EMC event may not be life threatening, but it sure would be aggravating when a favorite garment was destroyed. Many consumer products are now 100% electronically controlled, fly-by-wire type designs. At the same time, more and more sources of interference are being brought into proximity with them. I think the Europeans are probably well aware of this, which is why they may be thinking of introducing new standards. It is far easier and more cost effective to design in immunity than to attempt to add it on later. A robust product has a huge marketplace advantage, especially in a global marketplace. \$0.02 Scott - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Dave, I see here that we hold a different opinion... My opinion is that when I buy something I expect it to work. Perhaps with us all using windows this expectation has slipped a little ( come on LINUX! ). As a consumer, immunity testing is not a quality issue, it is a must. I don't hold true to the aspect of EMC being expensive either, my lab ( and I bet a number of other labs ) charge is well under $1k/day for testing. We can cover a lot of ground in that time. I don't believe that the bigger, more expensive labs do a better job either. They have much more over head, which you end up paying for... Ironically, they have little knowledge about what's being tested too: I bet a load of things ( which you can be held accountable for ) get missed. I believe that the best solution is a smaller lab that serves several companies, so that they intimately know what's being tested, and in short order can fully evaluate new designs and/or design changes. This is the way we operate, and so far, we have impressed our customers and the competent body we use when called for. Ironically, I've seen companies spend more money trying to avoid meeting EMC requirements than it would cost to comply. EMC should be a way of life, if it's designed in ( and by now it should be ), verification by test is not that expensive Derek Walton. Owner L F Research - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Derek: It is not so much as being organized but to what extent. Except for a few critical applications there is no need for mandatory immunity requirements if there are emission requirements. Probably the reverse is also true but to my knowledge this has never been proven. Immunity is considered by most a quality issue and as such does not need to be a part of a certification process. Some say having immunity is like using a belt and suspender. There is a growing concern that EMC means Eliminate Minor Companies. The European SLIM group is and has been investigating the necessity for all the mandatory EMC standards. Even in Europe there is concern that too many tests are required before a product can be introduced into the market. One should ask if there is a justification for additional requirements. Being organized should have nothing to do with any certification process. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 1:12 PM To: rehel...@mmm.com; n...@conformance.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Folks, I posed the question of Immunity standards being enforced in the USA to Art Whal(?) of the FCC. He did not see the need for immunity enforcement. After a lengthy discussion I formed the opinion that it is most likely the FCC will never press this issue, it will have to come from another STDs body. Pity the USA isn't as organized as Europe;-) Derek. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Nick, the IEC has immunity provisions for household equipmentit is CISPR 14-2. Does IEC 60335-1 reference this standard at all? Bob Heller === === Nick Williams n...@conformance.co.uk on 02/28/99 06:36:10 AM Please respond to Nick Williams n...@conformance.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Readers may be interested to know that the IEC committee responsible for IEC60335 have proposed an addition to section 19 of IEC60335-1 which will incorporate EMC performance tests into the standard for the first time. For those not completely familiar it, IEC60335-1 is the general requirement for household appliances and section 19 is the abnormal operating conditions section which is intended to ensure a product cannot catch fire, explode or otherwise malfunction in a dangerous way when subjected to forseeable abuse. Providing, as it does the basis, for the LVD harmonised standard EN60335 as well as other standards used in almost every other part of the world for electrical safety of household and small commercial appliances, this standard probably affects more equipment used in more homes worldwide than any other single safety standard. The newly proposed clauses are all intended to test the immunity of the product to EMC conditions to ensure that appliances which contain electronic controls do not become dangerous if the operation of those controls is disturbed by EMC related phenomena. For those interested in the details, the draft for public comment, reference number 98/264884DC, is available from the BSI. Outside the UK, if you want to contact your local standard supplier, the IEC committee draft number is 61/1547/CD. (Note - the last date for comments has now passed for the BS consultative document, and presumably for the IEC draft as well.) I should stress that this proposal relates to the IEC standard. Presumably, national/harmonised implementations of the standard in places where there are already EMC immunity provisions (EU and Australia/NZ etc.) will not need to implement this additional set of requirements. Others better qualified than I on this aspect may like to comment. Nick. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
I am working from the EN implementation of the published standard (BSEN60335-1:1995, including amendments 8913 (oct 95) 9475 (may 97) and 10168 (jan 99). According to anex NA, which lists the differences between the BS document and the IEC original, CISPR 11 and CISPR 14 were mentioned in the introduction to the IEC standard as standards dealing with non-safey aspects of household appliances. This reference has been excised from the EN document. I am not qualified to state what existing standard (if any) the proposed new immunity tests are based on or similar to, but the proposed amendment will add the following standards to the list of normative references in the IEC standard: IEC 61000-4-2, IEC 61000-4-3, IEC 61000-4-4, IEC 61000-4-5, IEC 61000-4-6, IEC 61000-4-11. Comments? Nick. At 07:28 -0600 1/3/99, rehel...@mmm.com wrote: Nick, the IEC has immunity provisions for household equipmentit is CISPR 14-2. Does IEC 60335-1 reference this standard at all? Bob Heller == SNIP - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Nick, the basic immunity standards that you call out below are the same ones called out in both the EN and IEC versions of the EMC household immunity standards CISPR 14-2 and EN 55014-2. CISPR 11 and CISPR 14 (14-1) are emission standards. Is this the wave of the future? Will safety standards add EMC requirements? Will EMC immunity requirements become necessary in the U.S. through OSHA or other safety agencies? Any other thoughts out there? Bob Heller === == Nick Williams n...@conformance.co.uk on 03/01/99 08:23:41 AM To: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 I am working from the EN implementation of the published standard (BSEN60335-1:1995, including amendments 8913 (oct 95) 9475 (may 97) and 10168 (jan 99). According to anex NA, which lists the differences between the BS document and the IEC original, CISPR 11 and CISPR 14 were mentioned in the introduction to the IEC standard as standards dealing with non-safey aspects of household appliances. This reference has been excised from the EN document. I am not qualified to state what existing standard (if any) the proposed new immunity tests are based on or similar to, but the proposed amendment will add the following standards to the list of normative references in the IEC standard: IEC 61000-4-2, IEC 61000-4-3, IEC 61000-4-4, IEC 61000-4-5, IEC 61000-4-6, IEC 61000-4-11. Comments? Nick. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Folks, I posed the question of Immunity standards being enforced in the USA to Art Whal(?) of the FCC. He did not see the need for immunity enforcement. After a lengthy discussion I formed the opinion that it is most likely the FCC will never press this issue, it will have to come from another STDs body. Pity the USA isn't as organized as Europe;-) Derek. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
From: lfresea...@aol.com Subject: Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:11:30 EST To: rehel...@mmm.com, n...@conformance.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Folks, I posed the question of Immunity standards being enforced in the USA to Art Whal(?) of the FCC. He did not see the need for immunity enforcement. After a lengthy discussion I formed the opinion that it is most likely the FCC will never press this issue, it will have to come from another STDs body. Pity the USA isn't as organized as Europe;-) Derek. Derek: I think that immunity requirements for the USA commercial market are likely about 5 years away. After about a year of argument, the FCC will probably cut them in over a three-year transition period. That's my Euro's worth. BTW, in the mid 60's, Newton Minnow, then FCC Chairman, obliquely addressed European (uhh, we were only thinking VDE way back then) regulatory practices when he said: In the US, all things which are not specifically prohibited are allowed; in Germany, all things not specifically allowed are prohibited! So, where's the pity? I didn't raise my son to be a lawyer. ;-) Ed -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 03/01/1999 Time: 12:45:46 -- - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Derek, As Art Wall told you, at this point FCC does not see enough justification to enforce compliance with EMC immunity standards. FCC might change their mind, don't worry. Procedure will require wide prior consultations with industry and end users. Sometimes Europe is too organized, remember recent discussion about odors, I would add harmonics, flicker, magnetic field, etc... and created heaven for test labs. Mirko -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 10:12 AM To: rehel...@mmm.com; n...@conformance.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Folks, I posed the question of Immunity standards being enforced in the USA to Art Whal(?) of the FCC. He did not see the need for immunity enforcement. After a lengthy discussion I formed the opinion that it is most likely the FCC will never press this issue, it will have to come from another STDs body. Pity the USA isn't as organized as Europe;-) Derek. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
This question came up a couple of years ago at the IEEE EMC Symposium. Art was the speaker and he indicted then that immunity requirements were considered to be a marketing issue, so the FCC had no plans in that area. By a show of hands, the only people in the audience that supported mandatory immunity requirements were associated with military procurement. So, don't expect the FCC or any private standards organization to press this issue. It should be noted that the FDA has opened an investigation on immunity of medical equipment, so there will most likely be some new requirements for that type of equipment. -- From: lfresea...@aol.com [SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 1:12 PM To: rehel...@mmm.com; n...@conformance.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Folks, I posed the question of Immunity standards being enforced in the USA to Art Whal(?) of the FCC. He did not see the need for immunity enforcement. After a lengthy discussion I formed the opinion that it is most likely the FCC will never press this issue, it will have to come from another STDs body. Pity the USA isn't as organized as Europe;-) Derek. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
