Amendment level for IEC / EN 60335-2-76

Hi All! What is the current mandatory amendment level for IEC / EN 60335-2-76. I am under the impression that France were "fast-tracking" the addition of Amendment A11 which has restriction on the output energy level of an energiser ? Thanks! George - --

Status of MEPS

Hi All! Who can help regarding the status of MEPS – minimum energy performance standards or similar for North America / Europe? What are the implementation dates, and for which standards? George - This message is from the IEEE Prod

Re: FW: EN60950-1:2001 Clause 6.2.2.2 , Test 6.2.1 c and FCC Part 68 4.3

On 11/20/2006, I wrote: 1000 volt impulse test of 6.2.2.2 When I meant to say "1000 volt electric strength test of 6.2.2.2." Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com

EMC & R&TTE requirements of Macau in China.

Dear All, Is anyone know about the EMC & R&TTE requirements of Macau in China? Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel. _ Do You Yahoo!? 捇誥轎煤G蚘眊ㄜ笢弊郔轎煤滅馮毀嶼僵閉湮蚘眊 - This message is fro

Re: 3rd Party Test Labs for UL

Hi Colin, I'd like to talk more with you in case we can help. Cheers, Derek Walton L F Research CNewton wrote on 11/20/2006, 3:13 PM: Group, Are there any 3rd party test labs that may offer preferred pricing and lead times for UL submittals/testing? An extreme increase in prices seems t

Re: FW: EN60950-1:2001 Clause 6.2.2.2 , Test 6.2.1 c and FCC Part 68 4.3

On 11/20/2006, Kevin Harris wrote: Could SPARK GAPS (designed as a part of the pcb layout), be removed during the Steady-state test? Hi Kevin: I think that within the context of clause 6.2.2 of EN 60950-1, you could define a spark gap in your board layout as a "surge suppressor" and test it

3rd Party Test Labs for UL

Group, Are there any 3rd party test labs that may offer preferred pricing and lead times for UL submittals/testing? An extreme increase in prices seems to be the latest trend from Northbrook and I want to explore all options before I change over to another NRTL. Carl _

RE: FCC Part 15 exemptions

Let me clarify and detail the question a little more. "Can the military claim an exemption and purchase/deploy legacy U-NII2 band (5.25-5.35 GHz) wireless equipment which does not support DFS2 when the FCC requires that all UNII2 band equipment support DFS2 effective July 20, 2007." Regards K

FW: EN60950-1:2001 Clause 6.2.2.2 , Test 6.2.1 c and FCC Part 68 4.3

Posted for a colleague Kevin Harris Dear Colleagues, Within the subject Clause it is specified that: "...for 6.2.1 c it is permitted to remove surge suppressors, provided that..." My questions are: 1. Could SPARK GAPS (designed as a part of the pcb layout), be removed during the Steady-stat

RE: FCC Part 15 exemptions

Since the FCC range of frequencies is limited to 9 kHz-275 GHz, there is lots of frequencies outside of that. There are a number of military bands within that range also. The table mentioned is coordinated internationally to reduce interference. 2.102 Assignment of frequencies. top (a) Exce

RE: FCC Part 15 exemptions

It is my understanding that if the intentional radiator uses the frequencies controlled by the FCC under part 15 then it will need to be certified, regardless of who uses it. If it uses only military frequencies or frequencies not controlled by the FCC then the FCC has no say as that would fall un

RE: FCC Part 15 exemptions

From: Kevin Keegan [mailto:kkee...@sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:45 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: FCC Part 15 exemptions Colleagues: Does anyone know if equipment (intentional radiator) installed for military use in the United States is exempt from FCC part 15? Any infor

Re: FCC Part 15 exemptions

There may be a clue in CFR 47, part 2, subpart B, 2.106 An unofficial place to start looking is: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr &tpl=%2Findex.tpl Kevin Keegan wrote: Colleagues: Does anyone know if equ

RE: FCC Part 15 exemptions

Kevin, There are products that are designed for the military that can't be openly tested at a commercial lab. If tested to commercial stds, the results can't be shared nor published. There may be an alternative std, Mil Std 461E that maybe applicable. Fred From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc

FCC Part 15 exemptions

Colleagues: Does anyone know if equipment (intentional radiator) installed for military use in the United States is exempt from FCC part 15? Any information is appreciated. Thanks. Kevin Kevin Keegan Senior Associate KES & Associates 1 Stonecroft Terrace Kanata, Ontario Canada K2K 2V1 Tel: 6

RE: NI LabVIEW for EMC

John, How do you demonstrate to an auditor that your Test Engineer is 99% reliable? If it is at all possible to create a automated test software method that is 99% reliable, it would only be practical if it can do the job in a reasonable amount of time. 8-16 hours is totally impractical. In my

RE: Will UL506 be replaced by UL5085?

I have not heard about any UL intent to withdraw 506. UL transformer safety standards, as either an end-use product or as a component, are problematic, and have resulted in many "interesting" discussions between myself and the good people of UL. There are too many UL transformer standards, and they

Compliance Engineer opening in Victor (Rochester) NY

Listees: I am passing this opening notice on for Jerry Caplan, one of our Rochester EMC Chapter members. I have no connection with Redcom Laboratories except for having known the founder, Klaus, for many years. For hams out there, he is DL7KX. Please respond, if interested to: Jerome S. Capla

Will UL506 be replaced by UL5085?

All I have heard that UL506 will be replaced by UL5085. Does anyone have any information on these changes? I think there's a paper on the IEEE website but it's in the "subscription only" area. Thanks Ian Gordon *** The inform

RE: WEEE question

If it is sold separate then it is not weee - cables are not within the scope. It is only when it is sold as part of equipment that is in scope it is considered potential weee. Regards, Chris From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Bacher Sent: 20 November 2006 13:2

RE: WEEE question

Kim, in one of the sessions at the 2006 IEEE Product Engineering Safety and Compliance Symposium, it was stated that if it is sold with the product the label is not needed, however if the cable is sold in the aftermarket the label is needed on the cable. Jim From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-

Re: EN 61000-3-12

In message , dated Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Kim Boll Jensen writes >In the harmonized list under EMC directive, EN 61000-3-12 have a dow >date of 1/2 2008. In the "Reference of the superseded standard" there >is written "Relevant generic standard" but as fare as I know there have >not been any requir

RE: NI LabVIEW for EMC

Hi I'd like some advice on this please. We have been looking at using some kind of automation for our SAC (ww accredited) for a number of years. First of we looked at a test receiver manufacturers software and found it quite flexible but highly flaky and difficult to program. Wasted time an

EN 61000-3-12

Hi all In the harmonized list under EMC directive, EN 61000-3-12 have a dow date of 1/2 2008. In the "Reference of the superseded standard" there is written "Relevant generic standard" but as fare as I know there have not been any requirements before (harmonics of > 16A < 75 A), so is it correct t