Hi all
We have a new design, a Alarm system, which contains a GSM module. The GSM
module has got R&TTE approval.
I would like to see if we need to get the R&TTE approval of this Alarm
system, or we only need to get the CE approval.
Thanks
KC Chan
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society
Hi Bob,
I did run into problems with certain USB devices before, and the best way of
isolating the problem was to cover the whole PC with Al foil to make sure
that there is no radiation from the PC. There is issue with air-circulation
of PC, but as long as each scan doesn't take more than 30 min
In a message dated 11/11/2003 5:48:57 PM Central Standard Time,
drcuthb...@micron.com writes:
I do have a custom shielded test fixture that will allow the DIMM to be tested
alone. Any desired READ or WRITE pattern can be used. The stimulus equipment
resides in a shielded rack directly beneath the
Doug,
Guidelines, whether relating to the LVD, EMC Directive or whatever do not have
the same 'weight of law' as the requirements of the directives themselves.
Strictly speaking, Directives are not themselves law. They are first and
foremost instructions to individual Member States (think count
From: David Sproul [mailto:david.spr...@alexanderlynn.co.uk]
Sent: 11 November 2003 22:35
To: John Allen
Subject: RE: More CE mark issues...
Hi John,
Yes you are absolutely correct. The LVD doesn't have any exemptions for
military equipment. I was still thinking EMC directive when I respond
I do have a custom shielded test fixture that will allow the DIMM to be tested
alone. Any desired READ or WRITE pattern can be used. The stimulus equipment
resides in a shielded rack directly beneath the DIMM. The DIMM is mounted
vertically and is free to radiate into the hemisphere above the rack.
I read in !emc-pstc that Doug Massey wrote (in
<001d01c3a88e$0a227a80$1d01000a@Doug>) about 'opinions, please' on Tue,
11 Nov 2003:
>It is hard to argue with the Guidelines! (although, do the EMC
>Guidelines have the same weight of law as the EMC Directive?)
No, that is stated clearly in them.
Does anyone have any experience with using a third party reviewer for FDA 510K
submissions? I'm curious to see if the third party makes the process go any
smoother.
Patty
Patricia Knudsen
Sr. Certification Engineer
Alaris Medical Systems
Ph: (858) 458-7280
Fax: (858) 458-7095
pknud
Derek,
Do you have a suggestion as to how the test should be performed?
-doug
Douglas E. Powell
Corporate Compliance Dept.
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA
From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:56 AM
To: john.ra
Hi,
A headhunter contacted me about this position. If interested, please
contact Stratos at sdal...@prausa.com
Ned Devine
Entela Inc
Are you an EMC engineer looking for a company that will truly appreciate
your
skills? Do you want to work on next generation products you'll see on
the road
It is hard to argue with the Guidelines! (although, do the EMC
Guidelines have the same weight of law as the EMC Directive?)
Glad I buy my DIMM modules here in the states, before all the overhead
of EMC testing, and ' instructions accompanying the component that
clearly indicate these requirement
In a message dated 11/11/2003 12:05:00 PM Central Standard Time,
rehel...@mmm.com writes:
Is anyone (besides us) having any problems passing European Class B
radiated emissions on devices that use USB2 communications? Does anyone
know of a quiet USB2 laptop or PC? Any tips on isolating the noise
I read in !emc-pstc that lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in <112.2b04c6d2.2ce2
6...@aol.com>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Tue, 11 Nov 2003:
>EMC does not have a defined frequency range.
>
Well, there is a general upper bound of 400 GHz, but it's just
conventional. When terahertz technology be
I read in !emc-pstc that David Sproul
wrote (in ) about 'More CE mark issues...' on Tue, 11 Nov 2003:
>As you will be aware, a recent string in this group has been discussing
>when to CE mark and when not. I will dare to suggest that since without
>the ATE your IA is an expensive paperweight,
Is anyone (besides us) having any problems passing European Class B
radiated emissions on devices that use USB2 communications? Does anyone
know of a quiet USB2 laptop or PC? Any tips on isolating the noise to the
PC or to the device? Emissions occur only when the devices are
communicating with ea
In a message dated 11/10/2003 2:34:28 PM Central Standard Time,
ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com writes:
Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard!
Why would it not be.
In 25 years of working in EMC, I've seen EMC issues from DC to daylight...
Just because PC's are clocki
In a message dated 11/11/2003 9:36:21 AM Central Standard Time,
john.radom...@modicon.com writes:
The EMC guidelines read: "... If the component is intended to be placed on
the market as a single commercial unit for distribution and/or final use
this function has to be available WITHOUT further
David S
Unfortunately I have to correct you with respect to the LVD - it currently
does not have an exemption for military equipment and neither does most
(including UK) national implementing legislation.
In the UK, the need for military equipment to comply with "civilian
legislation" is reinfor
I read in !emc-pstc that Colgan Christopher [Soundcraft UK] wrote (in <8B639EA607AFD311901D00062938706307102
782@SCFTUKX1>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on Tue, 11 Nov 2003:
>I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required
>for a mains powered product to comply with the EMC D
I read in !emc-pstc that Coleman, David
wrote (in <7103C9D213EBD111971400104B496814EA3D53@ntexch-
f.racalinst.co.uk>) about 'More CE mark issues...' on Tue, 11 Nov 2003:
>From an EMC point of view, as they are passive and a
>component of a larger system (the ATE), the EMC directive need not
>ap
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<20030043.qaa01...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on
Mon, 10 Nov 2003:
>The standard was written and promulgated to the IEC by a European
>committee
No, it was developed in IEC SC77A/WG1, which had experts from all over
the worl
Hello Amund,
I may be a little late, but have a look at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/automotive/directives/vehicles/index.ht
m, directive text.
If you want the directive with figures, I can send it to you ofline in
Graphical PDF format - 2.8 MB.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/auto
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200311102309.paa01...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'EN 61000-3-2:2000' on
Mon, 10 Nov 2003:
>
>
>
>Hi John:
>
>
>> >Some have questioned whether 61000-3-2 is even an EMC standard!
>>
>> If not, what do you think it is?
>
>I fall into the group t
In a message dated 11/11/2003 3:51:21 AM Central Standard Time,
david.cole...@racalinst.co.uk writes:
My company designs and manufactures ATE systems and components for the
Military, Aerospace and Functional test markets. Often what we are supplying
is just an interface adapter (IA) that sits betw
> Well, playing the devils advocate here. If RAM is an apparatus if you can
install it on into a socket, but not an apparatus if I buy the RAM as a
surface mount, or through hole device?
Well, the devil is in details, I guess.
The EMC guidelines read: "... If the component is intended to be p
David,
Thanks for your reply.
The safety of our product and the lengths we go to ensure that safety, is
not the issue here. The question I am seeking clarification on is purely
whether we should be CE marking the IA or not. It revolves round the status
of the IA as a component of a larger ATE, t
Hi David,
I can only answer with my own opinion which will probably be both backed up
and refuted by others who may respond.
First of all, military equipment does not have to be CE marked, unless that
has been changed very recently. However if the equipment has to go to
Germany, they apparently i
EN 61000-3-2 is not a basic standard. It is a product family standard (says
so right in the standard plus it is listed in the OJ, basic standards do
not show up in the OJ).
Chris has a point, since 61000-3-2 is a stand-alone product family standard
(all equipment 16A and under), it is not necess
EN 61000-3-2 is not a generic standard. It is a product family standard
(says so right in the standard plus it is listed in the OJ, generic
standards do not show up in the OJ).
Chris has a point, since 61000-3-2 is a stand-alone product family standard
(all equipment 16A and under), it is not ne
Dave,
Firstly you need to decide what EU directives apply. This may sound a little
obvious, but the LVD (for example) excludes equipment from its scope if these
are covered by other regulatory provisions. Such considerations could apply
to your military and aerospace products. The same would als
Chris,
EN55103-1 is a product family standard, which takes precedence over generic
standards, and must therefore make reference to all Basic Standards that are
applicable to equipment within its scope. You will also find that
EN61000-3-2 is called up by the generic standards such as EN61000-6-3.
I wasn't suggesting that audio equipment should be exempt. What I was
trying to say was if we need to test to EN61000-3-2 anyway, why does a
product specific standard bother to call it up? It seems unnecessary
duplication - to me anyway.
Regards
Chris
From: Neil Helsby [mailto:nei...@solid
>> Original Message <<
On 11/11/2003, 10:14:18, "Colgan Christopher [Soundcraft UK]"
wrote regarding RE: EN 61000-3-2:2000:
> I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required
for a
> mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directiv
I think we are in agreement that conformity to EN61000-3-2 is required for a
mains powered product to comply with the EMC Directive (using the standards
route).
What puzzles me is, why does EN55103-1 (pro audio emissions) call up
EN61000-3-2? Surely there is no need for the standard to do this?
My company designs and manufactures ATE systems and components for the
Military, Aerospace and Functional test markets. Often what we are supplying
is just an interface adapter (IA) that sits between another suppliers ATE
and the customers unit under test (UUT).
An IA consists of a metal box mou
To all interested parties:
The officers of the RMCEMC are pleased to offer a special
meeting to end our season of technical presentations.
The meeting has three important features:
1)We are happy to offer Dr. Eric Bogatin who will analyse and
discuss a significant issue of EMC.
2)We will also
36 matches
Mail list logo
