Many years ago, we used the EMC grill, top and bottom of chassis, coated with
an intumescent material that swelled with heat above a certain temperature to
shut off the air flow and starve the fire. Max ventilation was essential to
normal operation, thus the coating for a fire condition, also
Oh yes, I remember doing safety consulting with a company on a telecom product
but they wanted to handle all of the telecom GR issues themselves. One morning
the technician hauled me into a small conference room and showed me a video of
the burn test which was started by putting a burner into
Just a small addendum: while indeed GR-1089 has all kind of immunity
requirements, it is GR-63 that has the non-electrical requirements, one of
which is the flame spread testing.
Having witnessed a few of those passing or failing tests, the various RBOCs had
their own spin on those
When I went to work at DSC/Alcatel USA in 1997, we had to meet GR-1089.
Telcordia had/has a lot of immunity and ruggedness requirements. Yes,
we did flammability tests. I've been in the Hinsdale Central Office
too (I was looking at an EMI complaint at one of their subscribers) ad
got the
Some years ago, in another century, I was hired to work in the EMC labs
at Tandy Corporation, in Fort Worth Texas. When I showed up, they
realized they hadn't actually budgeted funds to pay me – but they did
have money for consultants, and so they had me build, from the piled-up
panels, a
Hi Charlie,
The last presentation from ETSI that I recall on the topic, stated that we
should be looking at EN 301 489-1 V2.x.x and newer. We should not be
considering the old EN 301 489-1 V1.9.2 because that is simply not
sufficient for the RED.
Thanks,
Michael.
From: Charlie
Gert
EN 301 489-1 V1.9.2 was published in 2011 and is quite old now
As you know, EN 301 489-1 V2.1.1 was published by ETSI in February 2017 and the
latest draft, V2.2.0 was issued by ETSI in March 2019 - both contain radiated
immunity requirements to 6 GHz, which are more extensive than those
Hi Charlie
That version of the standard 301-489-1 V2.2.1 has not yet been approved,
yet published, so be careful
For now keep relying on V1.9.2 , that does not mention your text on
industrial environment, and that has not yet been cited under the RED
either.
Gert Gremmen
On 17-9-2019
You can use Class A for industrial locations under EN 301 489-1:
8.2.3 Limits
The ancillary equipment shall meet the class B limits given in CENELEC EN 55032
[1], annex A tables A.4 and A.5.
Alternatively, for ancillary equipment intended to be used exclusively in an
industrial environment or
Note that for intentional transmitters the EMCD en LVD are not
applicable (but the RED is!). And so are the standards listed for them.
Probably as this is a transceiver with ancillary equipment (though
heavily integrated?) the combi EN 301489-17/EN 301 489-1 will be
applicable.
The latter
Hello Richard,
Thank you for sharing this interesting article. I remember from the Grenfell
Tower fire discussion on this list, that Adam Dixon shared this UK data source
for incidents:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/fire-statistics-data-tables
This also includes
Not exactly. The question was strictly about 'Class', which of course
can mean different things in different standards, but my answer is, I
think, correct for Europe. Intentional radiation is excluded from the
CISPR standards and is covered by the ETSI standards cited by Charlie
Blackham.
12 matches
Mail list logo
