In message <55f9cfdf.3090...@oracle.com>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Monrad
Monsen writes:
I note that even while some in the standards community are adding cost
in their efforts to systematically remove variation in measurements, no
one is then passing on the benefits of this improved measureme
2015 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Hi Gert & John,
Gert gave some interesting examples of radiated immunity failures (analogue
measurement systems like thermocouples), but none of them apply to computers
(the products I usually work
Hi Gert & John,
Gert gave some interesting examples of radiated immunity failures
(analogue measurement systems like thermocouples), but none of them
apply to computers (the products I usually work on). Also, Gert
mentioned some power supply design mistakes that have caused EFT
failures in the
In message <55f9a5fd.7...@iglou.com>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, John
Barnes writes:
I was told that governments regulate EMC because the product that fails
is not the product/equipment that causes the problem-- thus the wrong
party gets the blame, and the culprit gets off scot-free.
Yes: in f
John et al,
I closed dBi Corporation in September 2013 and retired. So I haven't
bothered keeping up with all of the niggling details of electromagnetic
compatibility (EMC), electromagnetic interference (EMI), and
electrostatic discharge (ESD) standards as they have evolved since then.
But from e
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:32 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Ted I was thinking about this on the drive in this morning - not from a power
grid build
On 9/15/2015 2:26 PM, Brian O'Connell wrote:
expect ... higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the cost becomes
the key driver.
Quality suffers unless it is built into design; squeezing out quality
for the sake of higher profits leads to delays and overruns
that would not occur if
In message <55f8a060.4060...@oracle.com>, dated Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Monrad
Monsen writes:
. We have to be careful about how much EMC testing is mandated.
Today, the standards committees are going beyond the original intent
(reduce interference by mandating emissions limits) and now are trying
In message
ok.com>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Ted Eckert
writes:
As such, I am taking the lack of visible complaints for a possible lack
of the problem of interference.
The *only* justification for emission limits and immunity requirements
is complaints of interference.
A major reason for
eputation ?
Gert Gremmen
From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday 16 September 2015 00:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Interesting discussion regarding pros & cons on government regulations.
Th
ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Interesting discussion regarding pros & cons on government regulations.
The companies I have worked for took it seriously that they wanted their
products to be reliable to maintain a good name with customers. We did ESD,
voltage di
second variant
approved for NA.
*From:* dward
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:37 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
As a US citizen my premise on any governm
approved variant and a second variant approved
for NA.
From: dward
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Ravinder
W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier
post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what
you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about
: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries
self-enforcing any kind of regulations. When Wall Street analysts expect
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering
W.London, UK
-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com]
Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries
self
, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without
justification - poor pr
In message
<615de2313b58495c8b21dea995bda...@s-ais-exch01-13.esterline.net>, dated
Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Gary McInturff writes:
Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does.
A business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit
without justification - p
thorny question.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 20
In message
<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com>, dated
Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley writes:
Where does it give the definition of a 'screened port' for use with EMC
standards?
In EN 555103-2 itself.
For example, would a coax bnc type cable meet this requireme
"hidden
barrier to trade" which does not break the WTO rules and helps knowledgeable
US manufacturers in their own backyards!
John Allen
W.London, UK
From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: 15 September 2015 03:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF
>Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are
>screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my
>understanding totally wrong? (probably the case!)
Not all products have a metal case. Not all ports meet the definition of
'screened port'. Not all cables have b
In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep
2015, Ed Price writes:
True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of
1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important
anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certa
he FCC and FAA
share requirements for radio tower marking, lighting and location.
Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF
regardless of the levels!
Rodney Davis
From: Ed Price
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Dennis:
The rationale that you don't need consumer electronics w
discussion of the minute
I suppose.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
In message
, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis
In message
ok.com>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis
writes:
Hi guys, in simple English.. the FCC does state in section
15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible
for reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.
Who is 'you', and how does anyone kn
...@mitel.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Hi guys, in simple English.. the FCC does state in section 15.17
Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for reducing the
susceptibility
e-mail
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you.
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Seconded!
Anyway
!
Rodney Davis
From: Ed Price
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Dennis:
The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of
immunity works only
free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
In message <002801d0ef00$de0b
: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Dennis:
The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of
the population
defect. Thank you.
From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Dennis:
The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of
immunity works only
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Dennis:
The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of
the
In message <002801d0ef00$de0b37e0$9a21a7a0$@pctestlab.com>, dated Mon,
14 Sep 2015, dward writes:
I for one would never want the US to get into this arena. Too much
regulation in the US as it is. Don’t need more and don’t want
more. I’ll decide what is best for me, not the government.
But
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
I for one would never want the US to get into this arena. Too much
defect. Thank you.
From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
John:
Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity
requirement. The only
* 13 September 2015 08:51
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
“Lazyboy”
You may not have, and, as a licenced Amateur, I am sure you would not
because you know that you should not, and that there are better and
more challenging ways to tal
.
John Allen
W.London, UK
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 September 2015 23:13
To: John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Well, I never hooked up a 1 kW linear amp to my 5 W CB radio to talk to South
W.London, UK
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 September 2015 23:13
To: John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Well, I never hooked up a 1 kW linear amp to my 5 W CB radio to talk to South
America. And woke the
...@pctestlab.com]
*Sent:* 12 September 2015 20:00
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than
his or her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking
duck, nothing but
!)
John Allen
W.London, UK
From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: 12 September 2015 21:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
John:
Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity
requirement. The only help a
[mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
In message <
<mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>
FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.ce
In message ,
dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, dward writes:
I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than
his or her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking
duck, nothing but respective number licensed to him or her.
It is, or used to be, a licence offen
[mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 12:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
FWIW, 27MHz sounds more like a CB station rather than an “real” Amateur station
which (IIRC) would be using the 28MHz band – and CB
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: 12 September 2015 20:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than his or
her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no
ot;ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
Date: 9/12/2015 11:25 AM (GMT-08:00) To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test
Question
A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).
In message ,
dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
writes:
A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).
It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited
by some produc
september 2015 20:09
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
Gert:
Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amate
In message ,
dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
writes:
This is an example of economic drive "fast cheap & pragmatic testing"
and this exemption clause
is a recipe for problems in the field.
It hasn't proved to be, over the long life of this provision,
quot;preached" : "blue angel calling red devil "
Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing bv
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Verzonden: vrijdag 11 september 2015 16:48
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] RF Co
In message
<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com>, dated
Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley writes:
Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are
screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my
understanding totally wrong? (probabl
Hi,
I am trying to understand whether a test is required or not.
In EN 55103-2, RF Common Mode Immunity on Signal & Control cables has a caveat
that 'screened-cable ports as defined in the standard are deemed to comply with
the requirements for this phenomenon without testing'
The definition o
53 matches
Mail list logo
