Anyone know where to obtain a copy of the T1 Technical Report No. 12,
entitled: 'DS1 ESF data link application guidelines', 1991, as
referenced in footnote 14 on page 18 of ANSI T1.403-1995? ANSI's
website didn't seem to offer much help...thanks
Dwight
--
Allen,
Try,
STEWARD, Glen Rock PA, Phone 717-235-7512, Fax 717-235-7954
CORCOM, Libertyville IL, Phone 708-680-7400
AMPHENOL, (sorry, I don't have a phone number available)
MAXCONN, San Jose (do you know the way?) CA, Phone 408-435-5050 Fax:
408-435-8377
We use an Amphenol FRJ-468 which is
Hi Andrew,
You said: It is just like an ordinary transmission line such as stripline.
Please allow me to say something different.
(1) When a signal propagates along a transmission line, we could observe a
current loop from source to load through the transmission line. The signal
velocity
Try a search in www.partminer.com that's a hope.
Ralph Cameron
EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronic Equipment
(After sale)
- Original Message -
From: Allan, James james_al...@milgo.com
To: 'emc-pstc' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 1:19 PM
James,
My company is also having problems with Spectrum Control, only in the PI
filtered D-SUB connectors, all pin counts. They are having capacity
problems at the factory and there is no relief in sight. There is no real
equivalent to these connectors when you consider insertion loss over the
HELP! I am looking for an equivalent to a connector from Spectrum Control
part number 93538-1. This is a shielded 8 position modular phone jack with a
capacitive filter of 110 pf at 710VDC on each pin. It was formerly Amp part
number 93538-1 before Spectrum Control bought the rights. Any one out
Dan,
Your email brings up two good points. One is an error that I made. EN
61000-6-2 is a Generic Standard, not a product specific or product family
standard. My humble apologies (bow).
The second point is that I never considered the possibility of a Generic
Standard being entirely replaced
Chirs,
Everything you said sounds reasonable except EN61000-6-2 is not a product
specific standard; it is a generic standard.
Dan Kinney
Horner APG
(317) 916-4274
-Original Message-
From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:35 AM
To:
Hi Lauren
In Europe a brown grounded conductor seems only to apply in
the automobile industry.
I however recently had some equipment field labelled and was picked up on
the point of the white wire with a blue stripe.
However the inspector allowed it to pass on the understanding
Don,
I had a look through the ITE immunity spec EN55024 to see if
it contained a better definition of acceptability. Section 7 defines
performance criteria, and places the level of acceptability as that
defined by the manufacturer. If it is not defined by the manufacturer,
then it is what the
Lauren -
Electrical code requirements are generally enforced by the authority having
jurisdiction (AHJ) for the region. This individual determines what
requirements apply (in accordance with local legislation), and what
exceptions may be possible or acceptable. The general rule is adherence to
Don,
The manufacturer defines the acceptable level of degradation. It must be
consistent
through out all the reports on your products.
When I test my products I specify that the image must be 'clearly
discernable' (i.e. if you can see the image of a person, but you can't
easily tell whether it's
The solution is to be found in the Criteria being
defined for transients tests.
EN 50082-1 defines criterion B for EFT testing.
Performance loss (full loss) is allowed , but only if the equipment
is self restoring it's mode of operation after the test.
The authors of the 130-4 did have the
In addition to that:
the EEN 61000-6-2 is the newer (IEC originated) version of the EN 50082-2.
Both are valid, EN 50082-2 being in it's end of life, EN 61000-6-2 not
yet mandatory . We call this a transitory period. It depends
of the products lifespan which one you use.
No mystery at all, it
Richard,
All are labeling is in English. We did not use any country codes or symbols
to represent countries, however we did of course apply the alert symbol.
Oh, on the notification front, I am getting conflicting information on the
necessity to notify for ISM equipment. My notified body
Hello Friends,
We are testing a CCTV system to the alarm systems standard EN50130-4. The
standard identifies the usual immunity requirements with different levels.
The interesting situation is that degradation of the video as viewed on the
monitor is allowed for conducted immunity and radiated
William,
I beleive that EN 50081-2 and EN50082-2 were among the original standards
for CE marking. When enforcement of the EMC Directive went in place on 1
January 1996, these standards were already in place. As such, it isn't any
suprise to me that they don't supercede any other standards.
Safe from what? The majority opinion is that exposure to EM fields is
considered to be safe if the exposure is less than specified in standards.
These standards are based upon short term observable effects to cells. The
very minority opinion is that much much lower levels of fields can cause
According to their website:
The report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones entitled Mobile
Phones
and Health was published on Thursday, 11 May. A press conference was also held
on 11
May at The Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
The report is available here:
Hello Carla,
EN 60950 has already been ratified by CENELEC BT, dated January 1, 2000.
The following related dates have been set:
doa (date of announcement, publication in the EU Official Journal): July 1,
2000
dop (date of publication in at least one European member country): January
1, 2001
20 matches
Mail list logo
