Pardon my naivety, but how does '100 Mbit' relate to
frequencies of 30 and 60 kHz? Is this 100 Mbit per week?
(;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
snip
First, a little background on auto negotiation. The IEEE
802.3u 100BaseTX auto
[ Neven wrote ]
You are seing a spectrum of MLT3 signal, which is 100
Mbit coding.
[ John wrote ]
Pardon my naivety, but how does '100 Mbit' relate to frequencies
of 30 and 60 kHz? Is this 100 Mbit per week? (;-)
Could be plenty. I'd guess is something to do with either jitter and/or
I read in !emc-pstc that neve...@attbi.com wrote (in 20021010021029.WVI
M20316.sccrmhc03.attbi.com@rwcrwbc56) about 'Ethernet Radiated
Emissions' on Thu, 10 Oct 2002:
You are seing a spectrum of MLT3 signal, which is 100
Mbit coding.
Pardon my naivety, but how does '100 Mbit' relate
: Andy White (EWU) [mailto:andy.wh...@ewu.ericsson.se]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:39 PM
To: Rick Linford
Subject: RE: Ethernet Radiated Emissions
Hi Rick,
Is the problem only when you link more than 2 cables together? What is the
length of link cabling when adding cables? I
]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:39 PM
To: Rick Linford
Subject: RE: Ethernet Radiated Emissions
Hi Rick,
Is the problem only when you link more than 2 cables together? What is the
length of link cabling when adding cables? I susepect that the BB noise is
directly associated
I read in !emc-pstc that rlinf...@sonicwall.com wrote (in D5FCAC81D18F0
d4e8e7df3734de064f2375...@usexch3.us.sonicwall.com) about 'Ethernet
Radiated Emissions' on Wed, 9 Oct 2002:
With all cables attached and not linked there is no broadband. Reducing the
resolution shows peaks every 60 kHz
Having worked on Ethernet (100 MB UTP) EMC for a few years, I now find myself
lacking understanding of Ethernet communications and how this may be affecting
radiated emissions.
What is seen on the OATs is broadband noise between 50 and 150 MHz. With two
cables connected and linked, broadband
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Central Office Wiring - Conducted Emissions
Does a CO wire up to a redundant cabinet with 2 wires, so jumpered at the
cabinet, or 4 wires (any theory on percentages)??? And if it is 4 wires, do
the two Feeds go to two completely seperate sources
think we are finding that the test setup does not necessarily yeild the same
results. We tested with Cabinet having the feeds jumpered and then go through
one set of LISNs and to one DC source and are getting different results from
having emissions measured on FEED A and a different DC source
there cabinet for Conducted Emissions??? We were
testing with the
cabinet jumpered and going throught the LISNs to one Source. We had a passing
system with mods, and so we tried to only connect the LISN to one feed and
power the other feed with a seperate DC source,
then we got failing results
I read in !emc-pstc that John Barnes jrbar...@iglou.com wrote (in
3d74d7d8.3...@iglou.com) about 'SMPS EMC Emissions' on Tue, 3 Sep
2002:
I've updated the statement to meet the current international standards
for information technology equipment (ITE),
Specifically, that EN 61000-3-2 **Class D
never be
close to marginally compliant in radiated emission from its power cord and
asking for margin is in such cases (I would say) a smart thing to do. How
much depends on vendor process variability.
My own experience has been that radiated emissions above 30 MHz
attributable to SMPS were readily
Alex,
When I was developing power supplies at my previous employer, I'd
include a statement like this in our Request For Quotation (RFQ):
The power supply must meet the following limits with 6dB margin
when supplying power to an 10-ohm resistive load:
* FCC Class B (USA).
* CISPR 22-B
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALERT:
My employer makes SMPS.
For both conducted emissions, an unit with PFC typically makes life easier.
For reduced radiated emissions, avoid the open U chassis units. Please
note that as customers demand greater efficiencies and reduced sizes, you
will see much
Forum addendum
I think I need to make it clearer that my main concern was for radiated
emissions
ps
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your reply
Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer
Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321
email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com
-Original Message
...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: SMPS EMC Emissions
Hi Group,
First of all thank you to those who replied to my previous email. I
have not
had time to reply personally...yet.
I have noticed that the broadband noise of some SMPS are already
near to the
limits of EN55022 Class B (I tested
scope for emissions at these broadband frequencies,
especialy when my product is taking peak load e.g. printing.
The power supply manufacturer rightly claims that his product does meet
EN55022 Class B.
Do you think it is reasonable to specify in my power supply specification
that the manufacturers
Ed Price wrote:
BTW, audio provides a dramatic lab effect and should always be used
during executive
tours of your lab.
Back in '91 or so, at a large electronics retailer's RD operation, I was
doing a prescan of an EUT with a CD-player/CD-ROM drive in it. Testing
with a bunch of corporate
load across it, is sufficiently
sensitive to find leaks, and ignore ambients and lower-level emissions.
Even a scope probe works for this, but the tip needs to be insulated so you
don't mess up results by scraping it across metal. For H-fields, you can
wind a one-turn shielded loop by turning a coax
-Original Message-
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:06 PM
To: Bill Morse; 'Cortland Richmond'; ieee pstc list
Subject: RE: Emissions quick test
The technique of temperature variation is that
sensible, that heating up the *enclosure
I just might have to try it and add it to the repertoire of troubleshooting
techniques.
-Original Message-
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:06 PM
To: Bill Morse; 'Cortland Richmond'; ieee pstc list
Subject:RE: Emissions
need a BFO equipped (measuring) receiver.
A spectrum analyser is of no use here (grin).
This really is the fastest way of finding out the real
source of a interfering spectral line.
Note also that the difference between data/adress lines
and R/W CE and Clcok emissions can easily be distinguished
]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:37 PM
To: Bill Morse; ieee pstc list
Subject:RE: Emissions quick test
Just a note about telling clocks apart... unless they're phase locked
(sometimes even then) a receiver with a BFO can let you distinguish from
among clocks only 100's of Hz apart
Just a note about telling clocks apart... unless they're phase locked
(sometimes even then) a receiver with a BFO can let you distinguish from
among clocks only 100's of Hz apart. Sometimes it can let you tell which
of several clocks is slower to lock as well, as you can hear the varying
tone
Joe Martin wrote:
Credence Technologies manufactures a probe with a built in low noise
amplifier
Ohmygosh, yes. How could I have forgotten THEM! An untuned probe, with
output to a scope or analyzer, too. Neat tool.
I spent a fun half hour or so talking to their very bright son last year
Every person working in the EMC field has their own techniques when dealing will
emissions issues. Mostly based on past experiences, product type, what tools
they have handy or can afford plus the political atmosphere where they work.
I am no exception, part of my list of tools include:
EMCO
Lisa,
If you are just interested in sniffing out emissions, Credence
Technologies manufactures a probe with a built in low noise amplifier. You
can use this probe without a spectrum analyzer to sniff out emissions.
However, unless you connect the probe to a spectrum analyzer, you can
: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com [mailto:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:35 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Emissions quick test
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a down- and- dirty , inexpensive method or equipment
for sniffing out emissions issues? I've used a Spectrum
Try Laplace www.laplace.co.uk
Cheers
Alan E Hutley
EMC Compliance Journal
www.compliance-club.com
- Original Message -
From: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:34 PM
Subject: Emissions quick test
Hi all,
Does anyone know
Subject: Emissions quick
test
mo.ieee.org
I have used a little portable transistor radio for system
sniffing of a system with low level freqs and with already
knowing the problem freqs.
Regards, Doug McKean
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee
-Original Message-
From: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com [mailto:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:35 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Emissions quick test
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a down- and- dirty , inexpensive method
or equipment
for sniffing out
...@mksinst.com at lisa_cef...@mksinst.com
wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a down- and- dirty , inexpensive method or equipment
for sniffing out emissions issues? I've used a Spectrum Analyzer in the
past with a series of different probes, but that tends to be costly. Also
[mailto:michael.sundst...@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 12:56 PM
To: robert.s...@flextronics.com; alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Emissions setup
The cable layout is required to be the 'worst case' attainable, isn't it?
Michael Sundstrom
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a down- and- dirty , inexpensive method or equipment
for sniffing out emissions issues? I've used a Spectrum Analyzer in the
past with a series of different probes, but that tends to be costly. Also,
Is there a universal probe kit out there?
Thank you in advance
]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:05 PM
To: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Emissions setup
Neil,
I would like to see the pictures of your audit board.
Without seeing the pictures I have the following comments.
1. I think this is a very good
where cables CAN
be infinite.
The procedure is now to find out in what combination
of left right cable lay out creates maximum emissions.
If you forget that, different phase steered cables may
compensate emissions. Think of the cables as being
current fed from a matrix of interference sources
Only one comment: If you take this peg board to an OATS how can they
maximize the cables?
-Original Message-
From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 10:00 AM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: Radiated Emissions setup
Hi
such as that described in Figure 10 be used.
Robert Seay
-Original Message-
From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 12:00 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject:Radiated Emissions setup
Hi Forum,
As we all know
Consider a Class 1 Laser Product. Once the protective cover is removed for
service, it is physically possible for the 12 mm probe to be inserted into
the beam where Class 2 levels are present; therefore, human exposure of a
finger is possible. However, it is not physically possible to directly
Thanks for the replies.
Basically what I'm reading is ...
1) Taiwan does NOT accept 3 meter testing of any sort.
They only accept 10 meter testing.
2) Anywhere else in world will accept 3 meter chamber
testing, *** BUT *** if the product is challenged in
any way AND a retest
: 01323 509824
-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com]
Sent: 09 August 2002 18:19
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Domestic 3 meter chamber emissions testing for the world ...
Importance: High
What's the bottom line with Class A emissions testing
What's the bottom line with Class A emissions testing in a 3 meter
chamber in the US for emissions approval anywhere in the world?
Does the FCC accept such testing for the US?
What about for European CE marking under the EMC Directive?
How about Taiwan?
How about Japan?
Been a while since
John,
I was looking at my copy of 61000-3-2 to find the references you all are
making. My copy does not have a paragraph 6.2.3.3 for example. Then I
realized you are referring to EN 61000-3-2 : 2000. What I have is IEC
61000-3-2 : 2000.
Can anyone tell me that there is that big a difference
Neil,
If the power supplies are intended for audio equipment, where the peak
power required for some types of music can be 10 times the average
power, I could buy the manufacturer's explanation. Otherwise their
explanation of how they pass EN 61000-3-2:2000 sounds bogus to me.
An EN
Neil I can't answer your question directly, but..the EMC rules have
provisions which allow exclusion of items which draw more than 1kW and or are
not for consumer applications. Your power supplies may fall inside these
exclusions and therefore may not need EMC evaluation. We have a
Hi,
We have been using pfc corrected power supplies where each harmonic has
met the requirements of EN61000-3-2 Class A limits. Investigating some
new ranges of power supplies, we find that some individual harmonic
currents exceed the limits. The manufacturers have quoted sections 3Z1,
3Z3,
'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Conductive Conformal Coatings for reducing PCB Emissions
Chris,
They way it was described to me...
The conformal coating would encase the board, creating a sort of shield.
Understandably, care is taken to prevent shorting of circuits.
Whoever designed
: Conductive Conformal Coatings for reducing PCB Emissions
Actually Chris there was a product that provided for
a solder mask then had a conductive film ontop of that.
The manufacturers could also tie this outer skin to the
grounds on the printed circuit boord finally making the
Faraday cage
: Chris Chileshe [SMTP:chris.chile...@ultronics.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:22 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Conductive Conformal Coatings for reducing PCB Emissions
Mat,
Can we assume you mean conductive spray coatings for plastic
caseworks? Wouldn't a conductive
To: chris.chile...@ultronics.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Conductive Conformal Coatings for reducing PCB Emissions
Actually Chris there was a product that provided for
a solder mask then had a conductive film ontop of that.
The manufacturers could also tie this outer skin to the
grounds
in emissions (20dB) - neglecting the effects of the ICs
I know that AMP used to market this but it did not seem to
achieve markey acceptance.
Charles Grasso
From: Chris Chileshe chris.chile...@ultronics.com
Reply-To: Chris Chileshe chris.chile...@ultronics.com
To: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p
Hello Listmembers:
A recent thread was discussing the effects of RF emission on plant life in a
rural environment. I finally managed to remember that the US Navy had become
embroiled in this same environmental question when they attempted to
construct a huge ELF antenna system in Michigan and
.
There would certainly be other options to consider if you can provide more
detail.
Best regards,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: May 27, 2002 10:54 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EMC Emissions vs EFT warning!
Hi
to create 2 product A builds depending on the option of usage, one with
CMC (Stand alone usgae) and one without a CMC (system usage).
I am sure I have had a similar problem in the past but at that time I did
not realise that the addition of the CMC (to resolve conducted radiated
emissions
Does anyone know of a CAD package which will provide a realistic simulation
of conducted emissions?
Thanks
Ian Gordon
_
This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus
...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av Chris Maxwell
Sendt: 23. april 2002 19:24
Til: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum
Emne: Signal Line Emissions with Respect to EN 61326-1
Hi all,
Recently, I have read quite a few threads regarding EN 55022 (European
Emissions Limits for ITE equipment) and its newer
Hi all,
Recently, I have read quite a few threads regarding EN 55022 (European
Emissions Limits for ITE equipment) and its newer requirements to
measure signal line conducted emissions along with the typical power
line conducted emissions.
This caused me to go back and look at EN 61326-1:1998
doesn't mention
anything about immunity, emissions, insulation breakdown and other safety tests,
etc.
Don Borowski
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, WA
--
This e-mail may contain SEL confidential information. The opinions expressed
Group:
is there any resource where I can find radiated emissions data of various
electronics equipments (handhelds, laptops etc.)? I have seen the web-sites,
where they compare various Handhelds, Laptops etc. however nothing on emi
emissions. I would apprecite any direction.
thank you
-Original Message-
From: Russell [mailto:r@totalise.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 1:41 AM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: EMC Emissions Safety Margins
What safety margin below the statutory limits for emc emissions should one aim
to achieve to ensure all product samples are likely
Russell,
At IBM and Lexmark, our EMC department was comfortable if one unit
showed at least a 3dB margin between the measured emissions and the
specified test limits. If we were a little closer than that, and unable
to improve the margin for whatever reason, they would have us test two
more
What safety margin below the statutory limits for emc emissions should one aim
to achieve to ensure all product samples are likely to pass when a single,
peraps two, samples only have been tested.
Are there any hard and fast rules?
Is being just below the limits considered good enough
Emissions Limit?
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net wrote (in
ncbbkfbmfdcdcgaccfbaaeimgmaa.jc...@shore.net) about 'Medical Device
Emissions Limit?', on Tue, 12 Feb 2002:
ESU = Electro Surgical Unit - also know as the Bovie knife
As opposed to Bowie. Or the German version thereof
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net wrote (in
ncbbkfbmfdcdcgaccfbaaeimgmaa.jc...@shore.net) about 'Medical Device
Emissions Limit?', on Tue, 12 Feb 2002:
ESU = Electro Surgical Unit - also know as the Bovie knife
As opposed to Bowie. Or the German version thereof.
and is used
...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:47 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Medical Device Emissions Limit?
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net wrote (in
ncbbkfbmfdcdcgaccfbageihgmaa.jc
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net wrote (in
ncbbkfbmfdcdcgaccfbageihgmaa.jc...@shore.net) about 'Medical Device
Emissions Limit?', on Mon, 11 Feb 2002:
you should also consider ESU testing even thought it is not
specifically mentioned (at this time) in standards you mentioned
and
your product fails to function.
Best regards,
Jim
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kevin Hight
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:16 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Medical Device Emissions
60601-1-2
(2001).
Question:
For Radiated Emissions, is this product a Class A or a Class B device?
Regards,
__
Kevin J. Hight - Principal Compliance Engineer
Colorado MEDtech, Inc.
6175 Longbow Drive, Boulder
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in
3f.61cee6f.29928...@aol.com) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN
61000-6-3', on Wed, 6 Feb 2002:
My intention was simply to remind people (if any reminding was needed)
that
achieving a presumption of conformity does not necessarily
...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
writes:
Subj:Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Date:05/02/02 22:57:37 GMT Standard Time
From:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate)
Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Reply-to: A HREF=mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk;j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk/A
(John Woodgate
I read in !emc-pstc that Charles Grasso chasgra...@hotmail.com wrote
(in f109fkprctci90gp8yj0...@hotmail.com) about 'ITE Class A vs B
Emissions', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002:
Has the CE+CE=CE idea been adopted?
Absolutely not in general, only for electrical switchboards, AIUI.
--
Regards, John
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in 17b.31edfe2.299
12...@aol.com) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 5
Feb 2002:
Where the electromagnetic environment or proximity to sensitive devices
(such as radio receivers) for the intended use of a product
Thanks to everyone that responded to my query. Here is my original question
and a synopsis of the replies.
Question:
We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits
of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow
the limits to be raised
I read in !emc-pstc that John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com wrote
(in 2a1845f4cde8d511b4400090279c703b938...@bctexc10.na.ilxi.net) about
'ITE Class A vs B Emissions', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002:
I believe the push to ensure Class B for other than
'heavy' industrial,
'Push' is not the appropriate
Isn't there a another gotcha?
I recall a connection between with the Class A
emissions being coupled to the Heavy Industrial
Immunity standard.
My old company shipped with Class A emissions and
024 as the immunity. We based our decision on our
installed base prior to the EU having acceptable
EM
Hi - I must ask:
Has the CE+CE=CE idea been adopted?
If so then the discussion on emissions levels is moot
as non-compliant products are being released on
the market place anyway.
From: CE-TEST cet...@cetest.nl
Reply-To: CE-TEST cet...@cetest.nl
To: am...@westin-emission.no, emc-p
metropolitan
areas in the U.S.
John Juhasz
Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY
- Original Message -
From: richwo...@tycoint.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
We currently design our products to comply with the Class B
Armstrong
www.cherryclough.com
In a message dated 01/02/02 21:16:44 GMT Standard Time,
jim.eich...@xantrex.com writes:
Subj:RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Date:01/02/02 21:16:44 GMT Standard Time
From:jim.eich...@xantrex.com (Jim Eichner)
Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin-emission.no wrote (in LFENJLPMMJB
mhpeibnilkejlccaa.am...@westin-emission.no) about 'SV: ITE Class A vs B
Emissions', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002:
But I also recall that may
test laboratories / notified body classifies class A as a heavy industrial
environment
I read in !emc-pstc that Enci e...@cinepower.com wrote (in 3.0.6.32.2
0020205082333.00aed...@mail.cinepower.com) about 'ITE Class A vs B
Emissions', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002:
I have often wondered exactly why there are two classes in EN55022. The
limits are pretty similar, does a 13dB difference
-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
am...@westin-emission.no
Sent: dinsdag 5 februari 2002 9:30
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: SV: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
From chapter 4.1 in CISPR 22:1997: Class B ITE is intended primarily
...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av
richwo...@tycoint.com
Sendt: 4. februar 2002 22:40
Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Emne: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits
of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow
I have often wondered exactly why there are two classes in EN55022. The
limits are pretty similar, does a 13dB difference in conducted emission QP
limits really make a difference above 5MHz? I know the 23dB difference
5MHz (conducted emissions) helps with products that have a SMPS, for
example
where small
signals are involved, and interference would be likely).
Mike Harris/Teccom
- Original Message -
From: richwo...@tycoint.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
We currently design our products to comply
We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits
of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow
the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business
use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com wrote (in
67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB601767784@BCMAIL1) about 'SV: Generic
emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Fri, 1 Feb 2002:
The New Approach guideline seems pretty clear: a standard is NOT considered
to provide a presumption
AM
To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
John
We will have to agree to disagree on the semantic issues
BUT I will not accept your putting words in my mouth on interpretations of
the current and draft EMC Directives.
For the record, I
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian Jones e...@brianjones.co.uk wrote (in
002001c1ab0b$47b63d00$9141c0c1@oemcomputer) about 'SV: Generic
emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Fri, 1 Feb 2002:
John
We will have to agree to disagree on the semantic issues
Let us hope that that does not give rise to any
John
We will have to agree to disagree on the semantic issues
BUT I will not accept your putting words in my mouth on interpretations of
the current and draft EMC Directives.
For the record, I deliberately used the word apply which is the wording of
the current Directive. Apply does not
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian Jones e...@brianjones.co.uk wrote (in
008a01c1aa69$1c259e80$8441c0c1@oemcomputer) about 'SV: Generic
emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Thu, 31 Jan 2002:
John and everyone
I do not wish to get into a semantics argument as to whether the Commission
has chosen the most
Brian Jones
EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory
- Original Message -
From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
snip
No, that is 'notified', not 'harmonized
Compliance with Directives
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/document/
chap04.pdf
It's only 4 pages.
Enci
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
I read in !emc-pstc that Patrick Lawler plaw...@west.net wrote (in
jk9g5ugvng02meh8ftttd7aebojbvfs...@4ax.com) about 'Is there an
immunity spec complement to the EN61000-3-3 flicker emissions spec?', on
Wed, 30 Jan 2002:
In a recent posting, someone commented on the possiblity of 'flicker
I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com wrote (in
67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB601767759@BCMAIL1) about 'SV: Generic
emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Wed, 30 Jan 2002:
If you are using the standards route to compliance, what determines which
standards you MUST use? Are we
emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Hi Folks
To answer Jim's point:
LVD Annex IV Internal Production Control states:
1) Internal production control is the procedure whereby the manufacturer or
his authorized representative established within the Community, who carries
out the obligations laid down
In a recent posting, someone commented on the possiblity of 'flicker' emissions
(controlled by EN61000-3-3) causing a disturbance in 'victim' equipment.
Would EN61000-4-11 (Voltage dips, short interruptions and voltage variations) be
an immunity spec complement to EN61000-3-3? Or is EN61000-4-14
Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F13D09@flbocexu05) about 'SV: Generic emissions -
EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002:
As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives
a
presumption of conformity - and most people would thus not stray far from
the standards route.
John Allen
Thales
Bracknell, UK
-Original Message-
From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com]
Sent: 29 January 2002 20:11
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F13D09@flbocexu05) about 'SV: Generic emissions -
EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002:
As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives
don't have a harmonized definition of what
901 - 1000 of 1244 matches
Mail list logo
