Ian,
If the equipment is within the scope of the RTTED then this is the
notification procedure:-
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/rtte/faq.htm#notification
Regards
Allen
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Gordon,Ian
Sent: 19 June 2006 10:52
To: 'IEEE EMC SAFETY
Please be advised that the emission limit figures you quote in your
referenced e-mail are _not_ for ClassA Grp2 equipment, but for ClassA, Grp1
equipment. CISPR 11 also specifies 10m distance for this 40dB level.
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC
Hello Bruce and EMC-ESPC Group,
The latest draft on next edition of (EN/) IEC 61800-3 is using the CISPR 11
Class A group 2 limits for power drive systems to be used in Second
environment = Industrial use.
The radiated emission limits are 40 dB from 30 - 230 MHz and 50 dB from 230 -
1000 MHz
: re: EN55011 Group 1 and Group 2
Brian,
Here is my two cents worth:
RF energy generated by Group 1 is intentionally only for internal function.
And Group 2 intentionally generates RF for their working objects.
Thus an electronic microscope (which is not a smaller bench type test
equipment
Brian,
Here is my two cents worth:
RF energy generated by Group 1 is intentionally only for internal function.
And Group 2 intentionally generates RF for their working objects.
Thus an electronic microscope (which is not a smaller bench type test
equipment -- see your Email) falls under
Brian,
I was waiting to see if someone more experienced in EN 55011 answered, but
seeing none yet, here's my comment.
If your equipment falls under the scope of EN 55011 industrial, scientific and
medical (ISM) radio-frequency equipment then why not use this standard directly
as the harmonised
,
Eric Lifsey
National Instruments
Please respond to Matejic, Mirko mmate...@foxboro.com
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC)
Subject: RE: EN55011:1998, Antenna Distance...
[...] snip
The first paragraph of Clause 7.1.3 is modified as follows:
The separation between
Eric,
FYI, phrase or any other reason, delayed document approval and it
missed deadline for CISPR 11:1997-12 Third Edition. In my opinion delay
was well justified.
3 meter semi-anechoic chamber is acceptable if it complies with CISPR
Publications 11:1997-12 and 16-1:1993-08. In anticipation of
Please respond to b...@namg.us.anritsu.com
To: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC
cc:
Subject: Re: EN55011:1998, Antenna Distance...
Eric,
Sorry, I am still not clear what's wrong with your previous note, and what
correction should be made.
I do think you made important points on problems in EN55011 and good
Subject:Re: EN55011:1998, Antenna Distance...
Hi Eric,
You made very good points about the problems in both new
and current
EN55011. Especially the 30 meter issue that you brought
up last June. The
problem is how
Correction to my earlier post.
Now that I have a good copy of the 1998 edition (previously I had a poor fax) I
can
relate a little good news.
My references to Annex E F, where a long list of protected frequencies
appear, are
*informative*, not normative. However, Table 6 is indeed part of
Hi Eric,
You made very good points about the problems in both new and current
EN55011. Especially the 30 meter issue that you brought up last June. The
problem is how to establish an effective communication channel to TC110 of
CENELEC. Can our colleagues in Europe help?
Best Regards,
Barry Ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
