Thanks to all who responded!
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
Ken,
First, the disclaimer - I'm not an I-Safe expert but my company does
make some I-Safe products so I have some knowledge that I've absorbed
here. So take that into account when evaluating this advice...
I believe the important factor is energy, not voltage, for explosive
atmosphere use.
Although technically incorrect I thing the RJ45 name has become
generalized just as Kleenex and Xerox has. Those were trademarks
but other words have undergone similar generalizations.
Doug
Fred Townsend wrote:
History is replete with many examples of connector misnaming:
DB9 for DA9
We’re still seeing who can plate rhodium. It appears that gold is the low
cost alternative to rhodium not nearly as hard as rhodium but gold is only
$600 an ounce. Rhodium is $5000.
Dave Cuthbert
Linear Technology
_
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On
Thanks, Tom. It's interesting that the 2001 edition did not have that note.
I believe that it just means that the current edition of the referenced
standard was used, at the time the standard with Annex ZA was published,
rather than a previous edition.
As you are aware, the first paragraph in
Hi Dan,
Although I’ve never spec’d it in, I believe that “Palladium” or
“Palladium Nickel” plating has been an accepted alternative for years to
the 50uin of gold specified by Part 68 (now EIA/TIA-968 as Joe pointed out).
Trying to filter thru the cobwebs, I think I remember that the
Some connector vendors have functionally equivalent platings that have gone
through testing. The usually have exotic or trademarked names that escape me
at the moment (they are not overly memorable names).
Dan
_
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Joe
On 12/15/2006, Bill Owsley wrote:
Dredging thru the archives of my memory, I recall the 50 um of gold as a
minimum requirement for the RJ - Registered Jack spec from the old Bell labs
for reliability. It might now be enshined in an IPC spec, or still just a
telecom detail.
Hi Bill:
That
History is replete with many examples of connector misnaming:
DB9 for DA9
Centronics for Ampenol 'Blue Ribbon'
IBM Printer for DB25
and elsewhere on airplanes
black boxes for orange boxes
or even
hacker for criminal
phone or fone for voice radio
Fred Townsend
Joe Randolph wrote:
On
On 12/14/2006, Daniel Roman wrote:
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the misuse of the RJ-45
name when really what is meant is an 8-position modular jack. RJ-45
refers to a specific T1 wiring scheme using an 8 position modular jack
(8P4C). Similarly, we often see RJ-11 misused as
Thanks to a SRRC enigneer's help, your first question is confirmed. Please
find the interpretation below.- Grace
The current SRRC test standard reference,
无线电发射设备型号核准检测的检验依据（含参考标准）,
can be found at http://www.srrc.org.c
/DataStore/InfoData/20069/632926986528750.doc
usually a boost regulator, depending on the stack of LEDs
may go up to 12 to 18 volts
freq keep moving up, was around 1MHz now they're going
around 8 to 10MHz, but very localized near the IC
see Micrel's app notes
- Robert -
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:36:56 -0600
Ken Javor
In message c1ac11b8.4bf84%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dated Mon, 18
Dec 2006, Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes
I am evaluating a PDA-like device for EMI/explosive atmosphere usage.
The device has what appears to be an LCD type display, which means it
has back-lighting. While the
Ken,
I think that your expectations from an EMI point of view are quite realistic
and present no greater hazard or problem in the light of the explosive
atmosphere.
However, from the explosive atmosphere perspective, I would be very
surprised if you could get a device like this certified as
For those interested, I just received notice of the publication of IEC
TS 62441, Accidentally caused candle flame ignition for audio/video,
communication and information technology equipment
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail message and any attachments
Forum Members,
I am evaluating a PDA-like device for EMI/explosive atmosphere usage. The
device has what appears to be an LCD type display, which means it has
back-lighting. While the device runs off 4.2 Vdc batteries, which are deemed
a safe potential, I expect that the back-light potential is
16 matches
Mail list logo
