RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
You've got it just about 100% correct. The DoW for EN 55022:1998 is 1 August 2001. It is effective right now if you want to use it. It is the only game in town as of the DoW. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:37 AM To: Gary McInturff; Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Reference CISPR 22:1997, Clause 3.5 "telecommunication ports Ports which are intended to be connected to telecommunication networks (e.g. public switched telecommunication networks, integrated services digital networks), local area networks (e.g. Ethernet, Token Ring) and similar networks." This definition indicates that LAN boards such as Ethernet & Token Ring will be treated as telecommunication ports and will require conducted emissions to be performed as part of the emission testing. This definition is carried over to EN 55022 and is effective next year. Am I misinterpreting something here? Thanks Pryor - Original Message - From: Gary McInturff To: 'Pryor McGinnis' ; Pettit, Ghery ; ; Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:54 AM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Define telecom port. > A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not > connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition > before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the > time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, > Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer > distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort > of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet > Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual > metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication ports on > it. > Gary > > > -Original Message- > From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM > To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Confusing isn't? > > - Original Message - > From: Pettit, Ghery > To: ; ; > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this > > year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. > > > > Ghery Pettit > > Intel > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net > > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > > > > > The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001. Look > at > > the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance > to > > conducted emissions yet. > > > > > > __ Reply Separator > > _ > > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > Author: "Pryor McGinnis" at ADEMCONET > > Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to end > > users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end > products. > > > > I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be > > required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold to > > end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards should > > test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The LAN board > > manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His concern is > > that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in another > > manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board > manufacturer > > ask for second opinions. > > > > Many thanks for your answers. > > > > Best Regards, > > Pryor > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net] > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM > > > To: emc-pstc > > > Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > > > Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member. > > > > > > If a manufacturer purchases LAN boards which have been tested for > >
Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Hi All, I could not resist adding my two cents worth. In the last several years I spent at Bell Labs in NJ (moved to CA 4 1/2 years ago), part of my funding came from a group that was responsible for UTP (Cat 5) and associated hardware. On immunity performance, we were not able to find a shielded system that would outperform UTP using the interface circuits I had design input on. (When I first proposed the circuitry, the group had an internal Bell Labs "balun" expert review it. He did not understand how it worked.) Emissions were lower compared to several shielded systems we measured. The data was published at EMC Roma about 1995. If I can dig it up, I will try to post it to my site later this month. Several formats of data were used including 100 Mb speeds. We even did a demonstration of a 600 Mb over UTP cable (section of the cable is within sight at this moment). The conducted emissions on telecom leads spec was just being written at that time. As I recall, we were pretty close to meeting it except the method in the proposed standard was not workable, so we used current probes and moving the cables to maximize current (just like RE testing). The net result is that UTP with the appropriate interface circuits (not expensive, either) performs quite well compared to STP systems. If anyone wants more into, email directly to me and I will try and hook them up with someone at Bell Labs in NJ who is currently on the project. It's been a while and I am not sure what the present status of that work is. BTW, I recall that starting with a VERY well balanced source/load, Cat5 cable inherently had about 12 dB better balance, and therefore performance, than Cat3 for the high frequency immunity/radiated measurements that I made. I did not get much into the signal transmission differences between Cat3 and Cat5 though. Doug Gary McInturff wrote: > > > Another little nagging problem exists. Without going into the whole > historically precedence UTP was a pretty important reason why ethernet was > adopted so widely. The wiring was pretty much in place because of the cables > that had been run for connecting office telephones etc. People don't want to > drag in new cables (STP) because of the cost. I happen to agree with you > assements below and wouldn't even consider UTP if it weren't for the > existing installs and the 805 standard that (prefers?) it. > Thanks > Gary > > -Original Message- -- --- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.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: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Hello Paolo, Group, If any PC source creates a common mode current flowing through your LAN card, then into the UTP cable then this current will show up as "conducted emission". Its not the data that radiates, it's noise from the PC board. As soon as the LAN cable gets long enough, it will radiate : that's the outside world in my humble opinion. Conducted emission does not have to stay conducted. This test is also to control low frequency ( < 30 Mhz) radiated emissions. STP will fix that, if the RJ connector permits the shield to connect VERY WELL to the LAN's card bracket AND the bracket is WELL inserted in WELL constructed PC enclosure. Three conditions, of which most often at least one fails to be fully compliant in many STP networks. The dataflow of a CAT5 UTP cable WILL NOT contribute to any interference. if it did so, the card would not work. Data will arrive too distorted at the other side. Not even if it is running close to other wiring. The twisting effect will compensate for every mutual coupling in neighboring cables. (unless a CM current exists !) How do you think ADSL modems work on ordinary (often unshielded) phone cables (not even CAT 5). Or just plain old ISDN data over miles of phone wire without radiating. UTP will often get interfered however due to CM capacitive 50/60 Hz coupling (E-field) This drives the receiver out of it's common mode range ( or if transformer coupled, the CMMRR of it is too bad, effectively transferring CM voltage into DM voltage). STP will help here too (but better/cheaper solutions exist : personal experience!). Modern 100 MHZ LAN data transfer over a 2 wire non coaxial cable is real high Tec. A friend of my replaced a 5 meter CAT5 cable by 1 meter of ordinary telephone cable (twisted) It did not work. To my opinion, STP is not necessary and is often erroneously prescribed: a waist of money. 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 Paolo Roncone >>Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 4:45 PM >>To: 'eric.lif...@ni.com' >>Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' >>Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports >> >> >> >>Hi Eric, >> >>I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be >>to protect the "outside" (i.e. public) environment from >>interference. So only ports that connect to public telecom >>networks should be covered by the standard. The problem is (as >>pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the new CISPR22 / >>EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition of >>telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter if they connect >>to the "outside world" or not. >> >>Regards, >> >>Paolo Roncone >>Compuprint s.p.a. >>Italy >> >>-Messaggio originale- >>Da: eric.lif...@ni.com [SMTP:eric.lif...@ni.com] >>Inviato: mercoledì 6 settembre 2000 17.55 >>A:emc-p...@ieee.org >>Oggetto: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports >> >> >>All, >> >>As a not-quite-outside-observer (strictly EN 55011 here) of this >>thread, it's >>not fun seeing LAN ports classified as telecom; IMO that's >>overkill for the >>folks using EN 55022. >> >>Up till now, I considered a port to be telecom only if it >>connects a client >>facility to a carrier's network (DSL, ISDN, T1 and so on). >> >>With repeaters every 5 meters, USB and 1394 can support a bus >>long enough to >>connect between adjacent buildings. So, I wonder if some fanatic >>will soon be >>promoting USB/1394 ports as telecom? >> >>If Chris is right, and the EN 55022 version of the old telecom >>port conducted >>emission standard was intended to protect other telecom signals >>in a bundle, >>then I would think that this test is clearly redundant to the >>immunity tests >>(61000-4-6 and -4-3) that offer the needed protection from the other end. >> >>Does this emission requirement appear to be a waste of time and >>money to anyone >>else? >> >>Regards, >>Eric Lifsey >>Compliance Manager >>National Instruments >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Please respond to "Chris Allen" >> >>To: "Pryor McGinnis" >>cc: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, >> gary.mcin
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
For what it's worth: We bought a printer server made in France, it requires STP (shielded) cable for CE compliance. We use it to test our 10/100 Ethernet ports. So at least one French/EU entity believes in STP cable. I also have a small 4 port 10/100 hub at home, it requires STP to pass. Uh, I haven't bought any STP cable yet. :) I do have a little interesting EMI experience: I'm an amateur radio operator and have HF (1.8 to 30 MHz) equipment in my van. I am picking up noise every ~100 kHz or so in several bands, up to 15 dB above the noise floor, from a few meters outside my house. The regular pulsing noise is present even if the 10/100 Ethernet is idle (all computers off), but the Toshiba cable modem is always on. Cable modems uplink on 5 to 50 MHz, right through prime ham radio real estate. But, there could be other sources to blame, I'll find it when I get enough time Eric Lifsey Please respond to lfresea...@aol.com To: david_ster...@ademco.com, chris_al...@eur.3com.com, c...@prodigy.net, cet...@cetest.nl cc: emc-p...@ieee.org, gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com, john_mo...@eur.3com.com (bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Hi all, just thought I'd throw a few Euros in... First, until folks in the computer world know what shielded cable means ( anything less that 40 dB is lossy insulation;-))) ), I'd stear clear of specifying them. This is 20 years of experience talking, and shields seem to cause more problems ( 'cause they are missinstalled ) than they fix: right Ken J? Second, the probability of interference ( or immunity ) from LAN wiring depends a lot on where they are routed. If LAN wires are bundled with phone wires, interference will result... Conducted emissions control on LANs will minimize this. Remember, the LAN can act as a path for noise to leave the PC, it need not be direct LAN sourced noise! Poor layout of a LAN card causes this Third, I've tested a bunch of LAN cards from different folks There is a huge difference between vendors. Not all cards have the ability to terminate a shield properly. I would suggest that vendors comply with conducted limits deemed appropriate by the power that be, without applying any form of shielding. If you disagree with the powers that be, join the committee that develops the requiremnt in the first place! I say this as a LAN product end user... and someone active in the committees that write the requirements for my products. Thanks, Derek. --- 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: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Another little nagging problem exists. Without going into the whole historically precedence UTP was a pretty important reason why ethernet was adopted so widely. The wiring was pretty much in place because of the cables that had been run for connecting office telephones etc. People don't want to drag in new cables (STP) because of the cost. I happen to agree with you assements below and wouldn't even consider UTP if it weren't for the existing installs and the 805 standard that (prefers?) it. Thanks Gary -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com To: chris_al...@eur.3com.com; c...@prodigy.net; cet...@cetest.nl Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com; john_mo...@eur.3com.com Sent: 9/7/00 6:09 AM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Hello Group, North America has likely the largest installed base of Ethernet, Fast-ethernet, Token-Ring and Arcnet in the world. STP cable is seldom installed (some use it for secure installations to inhibit listening devices). We have no complaints of interference with our TV or telephone systems. Grounding? I doubt if grounding problems are the culprit, since physical layer specifications define transformer isolation of STP cables. Certainly you can get coupling into long parallel runs of telephone and Arcnet (2.5 MHz), 10BaseT Ethernet (10 MHz) and Token-ring (4/16 MHz). The 125 MHz nominal of 100BaseTX lies above the EN55022 conducted emission band and the transient is lower so it can theoretically pass, however most cards auto-negotiate between 10BaseT and 100BaseTX. Connectivity Supposing your product manages to meet conducted emissions w/o STP, what does it connect with? The other end of the cable can connect to any compatible network product. If a PC hub or switch is relocated can a company replace UTP with STP? To protect the installation you must use STP everywhere. Therefore invoke the STP loophole. David Sterner ADEMCO Syosset NY __ Reply Separator _____ Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: "Gert Gremmen" at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/6/2000 2:53 PM Hello Group, >From EMC emissions point of view, any cable connected to any device is prone to conducted emission problems. The is because grounding problems in a PCB exist or enclosure currents flow between shielded connectors. This leads to CM currents that will be measured. The criterion for testing is if any cable gets that long that frequencies below 30 Mhz can get out : l > lambda/4 This requires cables to be longer than 2m50 at 30 Mhz to over 750 m at 150 KHz. This requirements is easily met by LAN and other ports. In the past no electrical equipment had any cable but the mains. The ITE equipment was recognized to have PSTN cables that long. Now antenna cables on Radio/TV gets the same treatment (and more) Cable television distribution system need conducted testing too. My opinion is that any "network" connection needs testing for Conducted emissions. In the case of the PC and the LAN card: definitely test. The attenuation of ground noise in any slot of the MB by the LAN card to the LAN cable, shielded or unshielded is unknown. In one MB it may pass, the other may fail. 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 Chris Allen >>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 10:40 AM >>To: Pryor McGinnis >>Cc: david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; >>gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com; John Moore >>Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports >> >> >> >> >> >>Pryor, >> >>Unfortunately, I don't think the definition is in question. It >>specifically >>states, that for the purposes of the standard, LANs are to be >>considered as >>telecomms ports as per section 3.6. It probably would have been >>less ambiguous >>if the standard defined Telecomms ports as "Ports which are intended to be >>connected to the telecomms network OR LANs OR similar networks. >> >>As far as enforcement goes this will not change from the current method of >>enforcing compliance, primarily via the end user requesting DoCs and the >>relevent test data to back this document up. >>
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Hi all, just thought I'd throw a few Euros in... First, until folks in the computer world know what shielded cable means ( anything less that 40 dB is lossy insulation;-))) ), I'd stear clear of specifying them. This is 20 years of experience talking, and shields seem to cause more problems ( 'cause they are missinstalled ) than they fix: right Ken J? Second, the probability of interference ( or immunity ) from LAN wiring depends a lot on where they are routed. If LAN wires are bundled with phone wires, interference will result... Conducted emissions control on LANs will minimize this. Remember, the LAN can act as a path for noise to leave the PC, it need not be direct LAN sourced noise! Poor layout of a LAN card causes this Third, I've tested a bunch of LAN cards from different folks There is a huge difference between vendors. Not all cards have the ability to terminate a shield properly. I would suggest that vendors comply with conducted limits deemed appropriate by the power that be, without applying any form of shielding. If you disagree with the powers that be, join the committee that develops the requiremnt in the first place! I say this as a LAN product end user... and someone active in the committees that write the requirements for my products. Thanks, Derek. --- 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: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Hello Group, North America has likely the largest installed base of Ethernet, Fast-ethernet, Token-Ring and Arcnet in the world. STP cable is seldom installed (some use it for secure installations to inhibit listening devices). We have no complaints of interference with our TV or telephone systems. Grounding? I doubt if grounding problems are the culprit, since physical layer specifications define transformer isolation of STP cables. Certainly you can get coupling into long parallel runs of telephone and Arcnet (2.5 MHz), 10BaseT Ethernet (10 MHz) and Token-ring (4/16 MHz). The 125 MHz nominal of 100BaseTX lies above the EN55022 conducted emission band and the transient is lower so it can theoretically pass, however most cards auto-negotiate between 10BaseT and 100BaseTX. Connectivity Supposing your product manages to meet conducted emissions w/o STP, what does it connect with? The other end of the cable can connect to any compatible network product. If a PC hub or switch is relocated can a company replace UTP with STP? To protect the installation you must use STP everywhere. Therefore invoke the STP loophole. David Sterner ADEMCO Syosset NY __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: "Gert Gremmen" at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/6/2000 2:53 PM Hello Group, >From EMC emissions point of view, any cable connected to any device is prone to conducted emission problems. The is because grounding problems in a PCB exist or enclosure currents flow between shielded connectors. This leads to CM currents that will be measured. The criterion for testing is if any cable gets that long that frequencies below 30 Mhz can get out : l > lambda/4 This requires cables to be longer than 2m50 at 30 Mhz to over 750 m at 150 KHz. This requirements is easily met by LAN and other ports. In the past no electrical equipment had any cable but the mains. The ITE equipment was recognized to have PSTN cables that long. Now antenna cables on Radio/TV gets the same treatment (and more) Cable television distribution system need conducted testing too. My opinion is that any "network" connection needs testing for Conducted emissions. In the case of the PC and the LAN card: definitely test. The attenuation of ground noise in any slot of the MB by the LAN card to the LAN cable, shielded or unshielded is unknown. In one MB it may pass, the other may fail. 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 Chris Allen >>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 10:40 AM >>To: Pryor McGinnis >>Cc: david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; >>gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com; John Moore >>Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports >> >> >> >> >> >>Pryor, >> >>Unfortunately, I don't think the definition is in question. It >>specifically >>states, that for the purposes of the standard, LANs are to be >>considered as >>telecomms ports as per section 3.6. It probably would have been >>less ambiguous >>if the standard defined Telecomms ports as "Ports which are intended to be >>connected to the telecomms network OR LANs OR similar networks. >> >>As far as enforcement goes this will not change from the current method of >>enforcing compliance, primarily via the end user requesting DoCs and the >>relevent test data to back this document up. >> >>I believe the requirement goes back to a test that was performed >>under either >>VDE 0805 or 0806 (it was a long time ago that I had to perform >>the test). It was >>specifically aimed at unscreened cables over a certain length >>being placed in >>cable ducts and their impact on adjacent telecomms cables (if >>anybody remebers >>StarLan this was the product I was involved in). >> >>Chris. >> >> >> >> >> >>"Pryor McGinnis" on 05/09/2000 20:54:51 >> >>Please respond to "Pryor McGinnis" >> >>Sent by: "Pryor McGinnis" >> >> >>To: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, >> gary.mcintu...@worldw
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Hello Group, >From EMC emissions point of view, any cable connected to any device is prone to conducted emission problems. The is because grounding problems in a PCB exist or enclosure currents flow between shielded connectors. This leads to CM currents that will be measured. The criterion for testing is if any cable gets that long that frequencies below 30 Mhz can get out : l > lambda/4 This requires cables to be longer than 2m50 at 30 Mhz to over 750 m at 150 KHz. This requirements is easily met by LAN and other ports. In the past no electrical equipment had any cable but the mains. The ITE equipment was recognized to have PSTN cables that long. Now antenna cables on Radio/TV gets the same treatment (and more) Cable television distribution system need conducted testing too. My opinion is that any "network" connection needs testing for Conducted emissions. In the case of the PC and the LAN card: definitely test. The attenuation of ground noise in any slot of the MB by the LAN card to the LAN cable, shielded or unshielded is unknown. In one MB it may pass, the other may fail. 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 Chris Allen >>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 10:40 AM >>To: Pryor McGinnis >>Cc: david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; >>gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com; John Moore >>Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports >> >> >> >> >> >>Pryor, >> >>Unfortunately, I don't think the definition is in question. It >>specifically >>states, that for the purposes of the standard, LANs are to be >>considered as >>telecomms ports as per section 3.6. It probably would have been >>less ambiguous >>if the standard defined Telecomms ports as "Ports which are intended to be >>connected to the telecomms network OR LANs OR similar networks. >> >>As far as enforcement goes this will not change from the current method of >>enforcing compliance, primarily via the end user requesting DoCs and the >>relevent test data to back this document up. >> >>I believe the requirement goes back to a test that was performed >>under either >>VDE 0805 or 0806 (it was a long time ago that I had to perform >>the test). It was >>specifically aimed at unscreened cables over a certain length >>being placed in >>cable ducts and their impact on adjacent telecomms cables (if >>anybody remebers >>StarLan this was the product I was involved in). >> >>Chris. >> >> >> >> >> >>"Pryor McGinnis" on 05/09/2000 20:54:51 >> >>Please respond to "Pryor McGinnis" >> >>Sent by: "Pryor McGinnis" >> >> >>To: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, >> gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com >>cc:(Chris Allen/GB/3Com) >>Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports >> >> >> >> >> >>I do not disagree with the positions posted on this subject. My >>question is >>how does the EU interpret and enforce this requirement/definition. >> >>Pryor >> >>- Original Message - >>From: >>To: ; >>Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:07 PM >>Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports >> >> >>> >>> LAN ports >>> Testing Conducted RF Emissions on LAN twisted-pair lines is almost >>> contrary to the intent of EN 55022 as Gary pointed out. Conducted >>> emissions is more appropriate for asynchronous analog lines. >>> >>> LAN transmissions are digital and synchronous (except >>maybe ATM); the >>> receiver part of the interface circuitry locks onto the >>frequency of >>> data, rejecting spurious frequencies. The signals are >>truely digital, >>> not analog as in a modem. >>> >>> Arcnet, Ethernet, and Fast Ethernet TP cabling links two points >>(node, >>> hub, switch, bridge) which digitally reconstitute the signal, >>> eliminating spurious cable frequencies. >>> >>> Token-Ring is peer-peer, usually through a passive hub. Each node >>> (peer) reconstitutes the signal as above. >>> >>> Ethernet, F-E and Token-Ring ANSI/IEE
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
This sort of question has already come up in CISPR SC G (the owner of CISPR 22). There is a CDV (Committee Draft for Vote) being prepared that, if adopted as a Final Draft International Standard (FDIS), will put a halt to the definition creep that has been happening with this issue. The text doesn't get rid of LANs as a telecom port, but it does prevent administrations from calling things like RS-232 (yes, Australia has tried to justify this as a telecom port), USB, 1393, etc telecom ports. Nothing happens fast in the IEC, so don't hold your breath waiting for this change to happen, but we are working on it. When the CDV comes out there will be a voting period on it and if it passes, it will then be re-issued as an FDIS for final vote. I wouldn't expect any final action for at least a year or more. Ghery Pettit Intel Member, US CISPR G TAG -Original Message- From: eric.lif...@ni.com [mailto:eric.lif...@ni.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 8:55 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports All, As a not-quite-outside-observer (strictly EN 55011 here) of this thread, it's not fun seeing LAN ports classified as telecom; IMO that's overkill for the folks using EN 55022. Up till now, I considered a port to be telecom only if it connects a client facility to a carrier's network (DSL, ISDN, T1 and so on). With repeaters every 5 meters, USB and 1394 can support a bus long enough to connect between adjacent buildings. So, I wonder if some fanatic will soon be promoting USB/1394 ports as telecom? If Chris is right, and the EN 55022 version of the old telecom port conducted emission standard was intended to protect other telecom signals in a bundle, then I would think that this test is clearly redundant to the immunity tests (61000-4-6 and -4-3) that offer the needed protection from the other end. Does this emission requirement appear to be a waste of time and money to anyone else? Regards, Eric Lifsey Compliance Manager National Instruments Please respond to "Chris Allen" To: "Pryor McGinnis" cc: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com, "John Moore" (bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Pryor, Unfortunately, I don't think the definition is in question. It specifically states, that for the purposes of the standard, LANs are to be considered as telecomms ports as per section 3.6. It probably would have been less ambiguous if the standard defined Telecomms ports as "Ports which are intended to be connected to the telecomms network OR LANs OR similar networks. As far as enforcement goes this will not change from the current method of enforcing compliance, primarily via the end user requesting DoCs and the relevent test data to back this document up. I believe the requirement goes back to a test that was performed under either VDE 0805 or 0806 (it was a long time ago that I had to perform the test). It was specifically aimed at unscreened cables over a certain length being placed in cable ducts and their impact on adjacent telecomms cables (if anybody remebers StarLan this was the product I was involved in). Chris. "Pryor McGinnis" on 05/09/2000 20:54:51 Please respond to "Pryor McGinnis" Sent by: "Pryor McGinnis" To: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com cc:(Chris Allen/GB/3Com) Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports I do not disagree with the positions posted on this subject. My question is how does the EU interpret and enforce this requirement/definition. Pryor - Original Message - From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:07 PM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > LAN ports > Testing Conducted RF Emissions on LAN twisted-pair lines is almost > contrary to the intent of EN 55022 as Gary pointed out. Conducted > emissions is more appropriate for asynchronous analog lines. > > LAN transmissions are digital and synchronous (except maybe ATM); the > receiver part of the interface circuitry locks onto the frequency of > data, rejecting spurious frequencies. The signals are truely digital, > not analog as in a modem. > > Arcnet, Ethernet, and Fast Ethernet TP cabling links two points (node, > hub, switch, bridge) which digitally reconstitute the signal, > eliminating spurious cable frequencies. > > Token-Ring is peer-peer, usually through a passive hub. Each node > (peer) reconstitutes the signal as above. > > Ethernet, F-E and Token-Ring ANSI/IEEE or ISO/IEC physical layer > requirements define interfaces, cable lengths/type(s) and timing. > > Coax cable rules for Arcnet, 10B
Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
All,
As a not-quite-outside-observer (strictly EN 55011 here) of this thread, it's
not fun seeing LAN ports classified as telecom; IMO that's overkill for the
folks using EN 55022.
Up till now, I considered a port to be telecom only if it connects a client
facility to a carrier's network (DSL, ISDN, T1 and so on).
With repeaters every 5 meters, USB and 1394 can support a bus long enough to
connect between adjacent buildings. So, I wonder if some fanatic will soon be
promoting USB/1394 ports as telecom?
If Chris is right, and the EN 55022 version of the old telecom port conducted
emission standard was intended to protect other telecom signals in a bundle,
then I would think that this test is clearly redundant to the immunity tests
(61000-4-6 and -4-3) that offer the needed protection from the other end.
Does this emission requirement appear to be a waste of time and money to anyone
else?
Regards,
Eric Lifsey
Compliance Manager
National Instruments
Please respond to "Chris Allen"
To: "Pryor McGinnis"
cc: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org,
gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com, "John Moore"
(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC)
Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Pryor,
Unfortunately, I don't think the definition is in question. It specifically
states, that for the purposes of the standard, LANs are to be considered as
telecomms ports as per section 3.6. It probably would have been less ambiguous
if the standard defined Telecomms ports as "Ports which are intended to be
connected to the telecomms network OR LANs OR similar networks.
As far as enforcement goes this will not change from the current method of
enforcing compliance, primarily via the end user requesting DoCs and the
relevent test data to back this document up.
I believe the requirement goes back to a test that was performed under either
VDE 0805 or 0806 (it was a long time ago that I had to perform the test). It was
specifically aimed at unscreened cables over a certain length being placed in
cable ducts and their impact on adjacent telecomms cables (if anybody remebers
StarLan this was the product I was involved in).
Chris.
"Pryor McGinnis" on 05/09/2000 20:54:51
Please respond to "Pryor McGinnis"
Sent by: "Pryor McGinnis"
To: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org,
gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com
cc:(Chris Allen/GB/3Com)
Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
I do not disagree with the positions posted on this subject. My question is
how does the EU interpret and enforce this requirement/definition.
Pryor
- Original Message -
From:
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>
> LAN ports
> Testing Conducted RF Emissions on LAN twisted-pair lines is almost
> contrary to the intent of EN 55022 as Gary pointed out. Conducted
> emissions is more appropriate for asynchronous analog lines.
>
> LAN transmissions are digital and synchronous (except maybe ATM); the
> receiver part of the interface circuitry locks onto the frequency of
> data, rejecting spurious frequencies. The signals are truely digital,
> not analog as in a modem.
>
> Arcnet, Ethernet, and Fast Ethernet TP cabling links two points
(node,
> hub, switch, bridge) which digitally reconstitute the signal,
> eliminating spurious cable frequencies.
>
> Token-Ring is peer-peer, usually through a passive hub. Each node
> (peer) reconstitutes the signal as above.
>
> Ethernet, F-E and Token-Ring ANSI/IEEE or ISO/IEC physical layer
> requirements define interfaces, cable lengths/type(s) and timing.
>
> Coax cable rules for Arcnet, 10Base2 Ethernet) permit connection to
> multiple nodes but again, the digital nature of the signals and the
> well-defined connectivity rules prevent problems.
>
> David
>
>
> __ Reply Separator
> _
> Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> Author: "Gary McInturff" at
> ADEMCONET
> Date:9/5/2000 10:54 AM
>
>
> Define telecom port.
> A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not
> connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition
> before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the
> time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally,
> Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer
> distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some
sort
> of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet
> Protocol (Voip) and does
Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Pryor, Unfortunately, I don't think the definition is in question. It specifically states, that for the purposes of the standard, LANs are to be considered as telecomms ports as per section 3.6. It probably would have been less ambiguous if the standard defined Telecomms ports as "Ports which are intended to be connected to the telecomms network OR LANs OR similar networks. As far as enforcement goes this will not change from the current method of enforcing compliance, primarily via the end user requesting DoCs and the relevent test data to back this document up. I believe the requirement goes back to a test that was performed under either VDE 0805 or 0806 (it was a long time ago that I had to perform the test). It was specifically aimed at unscreened cables over a certain length being placed in cable ducts and their impact on adjacent telecomms cables (if anybody remebers StarLan this was the product I was involved in). Chris. "Pryor McGinnis" on 05/09/2000 20:54:51 Please respond to "Pryor McGinnis" Sent by: "Pryor McGinnis" To: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com cc:(Chris Allen/GB/3Com) Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports I do not disagree with the positions posted on this subject. My question is how does the EU interpret and enforce this requirement/definition. Pryor - Original Message - From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:07 PM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > LAN ports > Testing Conducted RF Emissions on LAN twisted-pair lines is almost > contrary to the intent of EN 55022 as Gary pointed out. Conducted > emissions is more appropriate for asynchronous analog lines. > > LAN transmissions are digital and synchronous (except maybe ATM); the > receiver part of the interface circuitry locks onto the frequency of > data, rejecting spurious frequencies. The signals are truely digital, > not analog as in a modem. > > Arcnet, Ethernet, and Fast Ethernet TP cabling links two points (node, > hub, switch, bridge) which digitally reconstitute the signal, > eliminating spurious cable frequencies. > > Token-Ring is peer-peer, usually through a passive hub. Each node > (peer) reconstitutes the signal as above. > > Ethernet, F-E and Token-Ring ANSI/IEEE or ISO/IEC physical layer > requirements define interfaces, cable lengths/type(s) and timing. > > Coax cable rules for Arcnet, 10Base2 Ethernet) permit connection to > multiple nodes but again, the digital nature of the signals and the > well-defined connectivity rules prevent problems. > > David > > > ______ Reply Separator > _ > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Author: "Gary McInturff" at > ADEMCONET > Date:9/5/2000 10:54 AM > > > Define telecom port. > A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not > connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition > before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the > time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, > Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer > distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort > of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet > Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual > metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication ports on > it. > Gary > > > -Original Message- > From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM > To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Confusing isn't? > > - Original Message - > From: Pettit, Ghery > To: ; ; > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this > > year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. > > > > Ghery Pettit > > Intel > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net > > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > > > > > The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is Septemb
Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
I do not disagree with the positions posted on this subject. My question is how does the EU interpret and enforce this requirement/definition. Pryor - Original Message - From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:07 PM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > LAN ports > Testing Conducted RF Emissions on LAN twisted-pair lines is almost > contrary to the intent of EN 55022 as Gary pointed out. Conducted > emissions is more appropriate for asynchronous analog lines. > > LAN transmissions are digital and synchronous (except maybe ATM); the > receiver part of the interface circuitry locks onto the frequency of > data, rejecting spurious frequencies. The signals are truely digital, > not analog as in a modem. > > Arcnet, Ethernet, and Fast Ethernet TP cabling links two points (node, > hub, switch, bridge) which digitally reconstitute the signal, > eliminating spurious cable frequencies. > > Token-Ring is peer-peer, usually through a passive hub. Each node > (peer) reconstitutes the signal as above. > > Ethernet, F-E and Token-Ring ANSI/IEEE or ISO/IEC physical layer > requirements define interfaces, cable lengths/type(s) and timing. > > Coax cable rules for Arcnet, 10Base2 Ethernet) permit connection to > multiple nodes but again, the digital nature of the signals and the > well-defined connectivity rules prevent problems. > > David > > > ______ Reply Separator > _ > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Author: "Gary McInturff" at > ADEMCONET > Date:9/5/2000 10:54 AM > > > Define telecom port. > A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not > connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition > before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the > time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, > Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer > distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort > of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet > Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual > metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication ports on > it. > Gary > > > -Original Message- > From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM > To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Confusing isn't? > > - Original Message - > From: Pettit, Ghery > To: ; ; > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this > > year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. > > > > Ghery Pettit > > Intel > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net > > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > > > > > The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001. Look > at > > the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance > to > > conducted emissions yet. > > > > > > __ Reply Separator > > _ > > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > Author: "Pryor McGinnis" at ADEMCONET > > Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to end > > > users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end > products. > > > > I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be > > required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold to > > > end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards should > > test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The LAN board > > > manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His concern is > > that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in another > > manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board > manu
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
If LAN's cause interference, the mechanism would be radiated, not
conducted. Testing may be moot on LAN's whose fundimental frequency
lies between 150kHz and 100MHz; STP is the only way to 'pass'.
Of course STP has safety implications due to earthing potentials.
David
__ Reply Separator
_________
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Author: "Mowbray; John H" at
ADEMCONET
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:9/5/2000 12:06 PM
Gary
If you read the definition of telecomm ports in CISPR 22 (sect. 3.6) it
includes Local Area Networks, and other similar networks. Some people have
even tried to extend this to RS 232 because of past abuses of this interface
(like stretching the cable length to several hundred feet).
There is a great concern in some European Countries that LAN cables can
cause interference.
John Mowbray
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:55 AM
To: 'Pryor McGinnis'; Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com;
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Define telecom port.
A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do
not
connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary
condition
before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of
the
time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally,
Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for
longer
distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is
some sort
of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over
Internet
Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual
metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication
ports on
it.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Confusing isn't?
- Original Message -
From: Pettit, Ghery
To: ; ;
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th
of this
> year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new
standard.
>
> Ghery Pettit
> Intel
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net
> Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>
>
>
> The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001.
Look
at
> the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring
compliance
to
> conducted emissions yet.
>
>
> __ Reply Separator
> _
> Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> Author: "Pryor McGinnis" at ADEMCONET
> Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who
sells to end
> users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end
products.
>
> I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions
would be
> required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards
sold to
> end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards
should
> test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The
LAN board
> manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His
concern is
> that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in
another
> manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board
manufacturer
> ask for second opinions.
>
> Many thanks for your answers.
>
> Best Regards,
> Pryor
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM
> > To: emc-pstc
> > Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> >
> > Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member.
> &g
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
LAN ports Testing Conducted RF Emissions on LAN twisted-pair lines is almost contrary to the intent of EN 55022 as Gary pointed out. Conducted emissions is more appropriate for asynchronous analog lines. LAN transmissions are digital and synchronous (except maybe ATM); the receiver part of the interface circuitry locks onto the frequency of data, rejecting spurious frequencies. The signals are truely digital, not analog as in a modem. Arcnet, Ethernet, and Fast Ethernet TP cabling links two points (node, hub, switch, bridge) which digitally reconstitute the signal, eliminating spurious cable frequencies. Token-Ring is peer-peer, usually through a passive hub. Each node (peer) reconstitutes the signal as above. Ethernet, F-E and Token-Ring ANSI/IEEE or ISO/IEC physical layer requirements define interfaces, cable lengths/type(s) and timing. Coax cable rules for Arcnet, 10Base2 Ethernet) permit connection to multiple nodes but again, the digital nature of the signals and the well-defined connectivity rules prevent problems. David __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: "Gary McInturff" at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/5/2000 10:54 AM Define telecom port. A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication ports on it. Gary -Original Message- From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Confusing isn't? - Original Message - From: Pettit, Ghery To: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this > year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. > > Ghery Pettit > Intel > > > -Original Message- > From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001. Look at > the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance to > conducted emissions yet. > > > __________ Reply Separator > _ > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Author: "Pryor McGinnis" at ADEMCONET > Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM > > > Hello All, > > The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to end > users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end products. > > I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be > required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold to > end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards should > test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The LAN board > manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His concern is > that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in another > manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board manufacturer > ask for second opinions. > > Many thanks for your answers. > > Best Regards, > Pryor > > > -Original Message- > > From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM > > To: emc-pstc > > Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member. > > > > If a manufacturer purchases LAN boards which have been tested for > > conducted emissions in a host, is the manufacturer required to retest the > > LAN Ports for conducted emissions if the manufacturer sells his product > with > >
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Gary
If you read the definition of telecomm ports in CISPR 22 (sect. 3.6) it
includes Local Area Networks, and other similar networks. Some people have
even tried to extend this to RS 232 because of past abuses of this interface
(like stretching the cable length to several hundred feet).
There is a great concern in some European Countries that LAN cables can
cause interference.
John Mowbray
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:55 AM
To: 'Pryor McGinnis'; Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com;
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Define telecom port.
A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do
not
connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary
condition
before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of
the
time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally,
Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for
longer
distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is
some sort
of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over
Internet
Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual
metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication
ports on
it.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Confusing isn't?
- Original Message -
From: Pettit, Ghery
To: ; ;
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th
of this
> year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new
standard.
>
> Ghery Pettit
> Intel
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net
> Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>
>
>
> The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001.
Look
at
> the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring
compliance
to
> conducted emissions yet.
>
>
> ______________ Reply Separator
> _
> Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> Author: "Pryor McGinnis" at ADEMCONET
> Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who
sells to end
> users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end
products.
>
> I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions
would be
> required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards
sold to
> end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards
should
> test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The
LAN board
> manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His
concern is
> that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in
another
> manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board
manufacturer
> ask for second opinions.
>
> Many thanks for your answers.
>
> Best Regards,
> Pryor
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM
> > To: emc-pstc
> > Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
> >
> > Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member.
> >
> > If a manufacturer purchases LAN boards which have been tested
for
> > conducted emissions in a host, is the manufacturer required to
retest
the
> > LAN Ports for conducted emissions if the manufacturer sells his
product
> with
> > the LAN board installed?
> >
> > I am very interested in your comm
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Seems more likely I was. Actually, I have run these tests anyway for other reasons I just git riled up by a single segment of the community that imposes restrictions on the rest of the world. Okay, I just get riled up about a lot of stuff. Gary -Original Message- From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:37 AM To: Gary McInturff; Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Reference CISPR 22:1997, Clause 3.5 "telecommunication ports Ports which are intended to be connected to telecommunication networks (e.g. public switched telecommunication networks, integrated services digital networks), local area networks (e.g. Ethernet, Token Ring) and similar networks." This definition indicates that LAN boards such as Ethernet & Token Ring will be treated as telecommunication ports and will require conducted emissions to be performed as part of the emission testing. This definition is carried over to EN 55022 and is effective next year. Am I misinterpreting something here? Thanks Pryor - Original Message - From: Gary McInturff To: 'Pryor McGinnis' ; Pettit, Ghery ; ; Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:54 AM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Define telecom port. > A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not > connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition > before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the > time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, > Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer > distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort > of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet > Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual > metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication ports on > it. > Gary > > > -Original Message- > From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM > To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Confusing isn't? > > ----- Original Message - > From: Pettit, Ghery > To: ; ; > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this > > year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. > > > > Ghery Pettit > > Intel > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net > > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > > > > > The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001. Look > at > > the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance > to > > conducted emissions yet. > > > > > > __ Reply Separator > > _ > > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > Author: "Pryor McGinnis" at ADEMCONET > > Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to end > > users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end > products. > > > > I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be > > required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold to > > end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards should > > test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The LAN board > > manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His concern is > > that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in another > > manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board > manufacturer > > ask for second opinions. > > > > Many thanks for your answers. > > > > Best Regards, > > Pryor > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net] > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM > > > To: emc-pstc > > > Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > > > Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member. > > > > > > I
Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Reference CISPR 22:1997, Clause 3.5 "telecommunication ports Ports which are intended to be connected to telecommunication networks (e.g. public switched telecommunication networks, integrated services digital networks), local area networks (e.g. Ethernet, Token Ring) and similar networks." This definition indicates that LAN boards such as Ethernet & Token Ring will be treated as telecommunication ports and will require conducted emissions to be performed as part of the emission testing. This definition is carried over to EN 55022 and is effective next year. Am I misinterpreting something here? Thanks Pryor - Original Message - From: Gary McInturff To: 'Pryor McGinnis' ; Pettit, Ghery ; ; Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:54 AM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Define telecom port. > A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not > connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition > before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the > time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, > Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer > distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort > of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet > Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual > metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication ports on > it. > Gary > > > -Original Message- > From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM > To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Confusing isn't? > > ----- Original Message - > From: Pettit, Ghery > To: ; ; > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this > > year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. > > > > Ghery Pettit > > Intel > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net > > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > > > > > The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001. Look > at > > the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance > to > > conducted emissions yet. > > > > > > __ Reply Separator > > _ > > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > Author: "Pryor McGinnis" at ADEMCONET > > Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to end > > users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end > products. > > > > I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be > > required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold to > > end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards should > > test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The LAN board > > manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His concern is > > that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in another > > manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board > manufacturer > > ask for second opinions. > > > > Many thanks for your answers. > > > > Best Regards, > > Pryor > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net] > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM > > > To: emc-pstc > > > Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > > > Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member. > > > > > > If a manufacturer purchases LAN boards which have been tested for > > > conducted emissions in a host, is the manufacturer required to retest > the > > > LAN Ports for conducted emissions if the manufacturer sells his product > > with > > > the LAN board installed? > > > > > > I am very interested in your comments. > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Pryor McGinnis > > > c...@prodigy.net <mailto:c...@prodig
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Define telecom port. A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort of "bridge" that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual metallic connection. That "birdge" has the only telecommunication ports on it. Gary -Original Message- From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Confusing isn't? - Original Message - From: Pettit, Ghery To: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this > year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. > > Ghery Pettit > Intel > > > -Original Message- > From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net > Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001. Look at > the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance to > conducted emissions yet. > > > __________ Reply Separator > _ > Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Author: "Pryor McGinnis" at ADEMCONET > Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM > > > Hello All, > > The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to end > users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end products. > > I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be > required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold to > end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards should > test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The LAN board > manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His concern is > that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in another > manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board manufacturer > ask for second opinions. > > Many thanks for your answers. > > Best Regards, > Pryor > > > -Original Message- > > From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM > > To: emc-pstc > > Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member. > > > > If a manufacturer purchases LAN boards which have been tested for > > conducted emissions in a host, is the manufacturer required to retest the > > LAN Ports for conducted emissions if the manufacturer sells his product > with > > the LAN board installed? > > > > I am very interested in your comments. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Pryor McGinnis > > c...@prodigy.net <mailto:c...@prodigy.net> > > www.ctl-lab.com <http://www.ctl-lab.com> > > > > --- > > 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:
