Hi all,
This is what I received from the Commission.
They say: CE = Conformité Européenne
Amund
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: gerard.depessem...@cec.eu.int
[mailto:gerard.depessem...@cec.eu.int]
Sendt: 15. februar 2002 08:46
Til: am...@westin-emission.no
Emne: RE: The CE mark
Thank
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote (in
200202151739.jaa09...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com) about 'OEM', on Fri, 15 Feb
2002:
This doen't answer your question as to whether
shipping the product to your customer's distribution
center constitutes placing the product on the market.
Hi all,
I'm trying to model a common mode choke in Micro-sim. Has anyone tried this?
Failing that, any suggestion on how to model one in Spice, possibly using
magnetic models?
Thanks in advance.
Derek.
Deal All,
This trace of e-mail messages just shows that a very careful read of a not
very well written series of Bellcore standards is absolutely required to
understand the whole. I apologize if I, in my hurry to respond, led anyone
astray regarding UL1950/60950 safety testing. In our case
Please disregard the message as it was sent in error
-Original Message-
From: WOODS, RICHARD
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:45 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: Compliance Engineering Status Report
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society
A request from your list administrators...
Except... I (and other classic Compuserve users) won't see these messages
at all, unless and until they appear in someone else's REPLY in a form
Compuserve can send. It LOOKS great - but please don't send HTML to the
list.
Cortland is
Richard,
The following excerpt from the EU Commission's so-called 'blue guide' may be
helpful...the two sections between asterix bars seem to address your
question.
[note - I did not correct paragraph breaks and hypenations from my
cut-paste]
From Section 2.3.1...'placing on the market'
I should have consulted the Commission's document on the new approach. It
clearly says that an item is placed on the market when it moves from
manufacturing to distribution. Thanks to those who replied.
-Original Message-
From: WOODS, RICHARD
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002
Except... I (and other classic Compuserve users) won't see these messages
at all, unless and until they appear in someone else's REPLY in a form
Compuserve can send. It LOOKS great - but please don't send HTML to the
list.
Cortland
---
This message is
I think Ed's write-up below is an excellent overview of measurement
methodology. I would like to add two items. One is that when a transducer
measures something other than power in a 50 Ohm circuit, then the transducer
factor has units of its own, such as dB per meter for an antenna factor, or
Agreed. My point was that for those who believe there is a
justification for not obtaining NRTL certs, your best bet is to get the
mark on your product as this could likely create an obstacle when you try
to make a sale.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver
Hi Richard:
We may soon be privately labeling our products for a particular customer,
and I have a question concerning the EU Declaration of Conformity. We will
be shipping products to our customer's distribution center, and they will be
responsible for sales to their customers.
We may soon be privately labeling our products for a particular customer,
and I have a question concerning the EU Declaration of Conformity. We will
be shipping products to our customer's distribution center, and they will be
responsible for sales to their customers. By shipping the product to
Gunter:
Your assessment is essentially correct, but I think it would sound clearer
if you reasoned in the other direction.
You start with an analyzer (which has a traceable calibration). The analyzer
reads power at its input terminal. Since the input terminal typically has a
50 Ohm impedance,
Hello All,
I thought I would chime in after the last response.
It is a common mis-conception that NEBS does not apply to CPE. This is
incorrect and GR-1089 and GR-63 explicitly support this position.
GR-1089-CORE in Appendix B, table B-1 describes Type 1, 2, 3, and 4 equipment
and which
Joe -
Your statement is not in all cases.
Please refer to GR1089, 4.5.3, R4-3, -4, -5, 4.6.1, and
CR4-29
Although not a requirement, refer also to 4.5.13, Item 10,
related to R4-18.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
We had a discussion on this forum back a month or so ago on let-go
current (the maximum current at which you can let go of an energized
wire). I mentioned a magazine article that I found some years ago,
which discussed some experiments that were run on young men to determine
the let-go current
Your state that NEBS requires UL1950 safety testing. This may be true
for CPE but not equipment sitting at the CO. Please correct if I am
mistaken.
There's been a long wrangle but, yes, NEBS does now follow 60950. Some
accommodations appear to have been necessary, as it's evident that
Wow!
This morning is the first time I've ever received postings from this
listserver
that were NOT in 10 pitch Courier font style, which is dull I
should know,
as my site has dealt with fonts for over forty years, beginning with the
IBM
typewriters, and now in printers.
Today I saw
According to GR-1089, if the unit is AC powered it must be listed through
an NRTL. If the unit is DC powered there is no requirement for listing as
long as the unit is in the space defined as a CO. CPE equipment does not
fall under the guidance of NEBS. RT equipment, depending on the customer
I wasn't able to see the formatted original message, but by looking over
shoulders in others' replies I could read it. Another advantage of Classic
Compuserve; I can only get ASCII text. Of course this eliminates most
viruses. (grin)
The Telcordia document called Network Equipment Building
Peter,
NRTL Listing is not a requirement for CO equipment per GR-1089 although
every one of our customers (CO's) requires it. You'd meet the requirements
of the standards but you'd have a tough time selling it.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian
List
About disturbance power (frequency range 30MHz to 300MHz) from EN55014-1
...
Let me check with you if my measurement procedure is right:
1) The absorbing clamp (I use a RS MDS-21) has 17dB of attenuation.
But this is not 17dB for the whole frequency range.
It has a correction dependent of
I belive the detail working should be...
Starting with P_W= I^2 x R
Where P_W is the units of P is in Watts and P_pW is P in units of pW
ThenP_pW = I^2 x R x 10^(+12)
and P_pW = {I_uA x 10^-6}^2 x R x 10^(+12)
= I_uA^2 x R
Hence P_dBpW = 20 log I_uA + 10 log 50 for R=50
Tania,
Your state that NEBS requires UL1950 safety testing. This may be true for
CPE but not equipment sitting at the CO. Please correct if I am mistaken.
This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use,
Michelle,
I am providing you with a generic test matrix of several years back of an
actual product that underwent NEBS compliance testing. I have stripped out any
product references. Please note that test duration and cost will differ
depending upon your particular product, and does not
Dear Brian,
We are an independent laboratory. We are accredited by the German Government
as a test laboratory and as a certification body and issue based on this our
own GS-mark. We are a (much smaller) competitor of TÜV.
Don´t hesitate to contact me direct in case of additional questions.
-Original Message-
From: lance.wal...@nemkona.com [mailto:lance.wal...@nemkona.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 5:02 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: dBuA to dBpW conversion
Hi all,
I was wondering what is the easiest way (if there is an easy
way) to convert
dBuA
Hi all,
I was wondering what is the easiest way (if there is an easy way) to convert
dBuA to dBpW.
Thanks in advance
-Lance
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site
Hi,
I'm looking at the Verizon NEBS requirements, which along with GR-63 and
GR-1089 call out the design guidelines in GR-78. Does GR-78 compliance have
to be assessed independently for Verizon compliance, or is manufacturer's
declaration on the NEBS checklist sufficient (section 2.8.1 would
30 matches
Mail list logo
