Steve: Please tell me more about the immunity standards- they are non existent in Canada
Ralph Cameron EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronic Equipment (After sale) p.s Ever listen to the radio near some home treadmills? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Grobe" <ste...@transition.com> To: "ieee pstc list" <emc-p...@ieee.org> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:35 PM Subject: RE: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > Has anyone seen problems with ethernet and conducted emissions? I have a > home office with 4 PCs networked with ethernet running over UTP and I > haven't seen much of a problem. > Granted, the longest cable run I have is to a file server in the basement > (about 10 meters) but both my AM radio and my shortwave set seem to work > just fine. The only thing I remember picking up is 20MHz on the shortwave > set. (Most 10Mbit ethernet devices use a 20MHz clock.) At work we have both > 10 and 100Mbit ethernet (150-200 nodes) and the AM reception is really bad > but I attribute that to the building (big steel and brick box) more than > noise as reception improves as you get closer to a window. I haven't tried > the shortwave at work being that shortwave reception is usually bad during > the day anyway. > > As far as telephone lines are concerned my ears don't pick up much noise > above 19kHz. I would think anything else would be covered by immunity > standards. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:72146....@compuserve.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:01 AM > To: Paolo Roncone; ieee pstc list > Subject: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > > > > Paolo Roncone wrote: > > >>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. > > I disagree. > > The purpose of emissions standards is to prevent interference. Some are to > similar functions, some are to other media. There is no interface for > interference at which point the manufacturer may say: "Interference when > you use this isn't our problem." We may say: "Use shielded cable," or "Put > a ferrite on your cable," but we can't evade the physical fact that it is > our own equipment which is the source of interference, and the cable is its > antenna. > > It does not matter that we do not own the cable; if you plug it in and > there is interference, it is up to the people who made the equipment to > see the interference reduced. There is no transfer of ownership for radio > waves. > > Granted, to call a LAN cable telecommunications is a clumsy construction of > the regulation. But those who grasp at that straw to save a few currency > units will find themselves later regretting that they have done so. If you > are beaten and robbed for a display of wealth, it is no use protesting that > the money was counterfeit. > > Cortland Richmond > (I speak for myself alone and not for my employer) > > > ====================== Original Message Follows ==================== > > >> Date: 07-Sep-00 07:48:16 MsgID: 1072-46656 ToID: 72146,373 > From: Paolo Roncone >INTERNET:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it > Subj: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: Std Receipt: No Parts: 1 > > From: Paolo Roncone <paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it> > Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports > Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:45:03 +0200 > Reply-To: Paolo Roncone <paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it> > > > > 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" <chris_al...@eur.3com.com> > > To: "Pryor McGinnis" <c...@prodigy.net> > cc: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, > gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com, "John Moore" > <john_mo...@eur.3com.com> (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" <c...@prodigy.net> on 05/09/2000 20:54:51 > > Please respond to "Pryor McGinnis" <c...@prodigy.net> > > Sent by: "Pryor McGinnis" <c...@prodigy.net> > > > 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: <david_ster...@ademco.com> > To: <emc-p...@ieee.org>; <gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com> > 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" <SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com> 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 <ghery.pet...@intel.com> > > To: <david_ster...@ademco.com>; <emc-p...@ieee.org>; <c...@prodigy.net> > > 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" <SMTP:c...@prodigy.net> 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: ri...@ieee.org > > > > > **Primary Recipient: > "'eric.lif...@ni.com'" INTERNET:eric.lif...@ni.com > > ====================== End of Original Message ===================== > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > > ------------------------------------------- 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
