Re: [PSES] RF exposure minimum exclusion distance

:50 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] RF exposure minimum exclusion distance Good morning, all We have a router that is installed in industrial environment in a production line where normally there are not workers close only for maintenance According to EU EMF exposure for workers, is

[PSES] RF exposure minimum exclusion distance

Good morning, all We have a router that is installed in industrial environment in a production line where normally there are not workers close only for maintenance According to EU EMF exposure for workers, is there any distance limit that we don't need to do an assessment like EN 62311? I mean, i

[PSES] Changes to the FCC Rules for RF Exposure!

regards, John McBain, PSES SCV Chapter Secretary *Changes to the FCC Rules for RF Exposure! by Vina Kerai* *April 13 @ 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm (PDT)* *Presentation: **Understanding the new FCC RF Exposure Rules* The FCC has published its latest revisions to the radio frequency exposure evaluation

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427 503/452-1201 IEEE Life Fellow p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> *From:*John Woodgate *Sent:* Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:25 PM *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 1

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

503/452-1201 IEEE Life Fellow <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org From: John Woodgate Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:25 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID The W

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

l Affairs. Retrieved 2013-04-10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Non-Ionizing_Radiation_Protection *** Gary Stuyvenberg Sr. EMC Engineer Thompson Consulting On Wed, 4/4/18, John Woodgate wrote: Subject: Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES]

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Non-Ionizing_Radiation_Protection *** Gary Stuyvenberg Sr. EMC Engineer Thompson Consulting On Wed, 4/4/18, John Woodgate wrote: Subject: Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RF

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

As is usual with these things, about 20% of the words are justified, the rest are not, or vice versa. For example, in the first citation, the first 7 words are not justified by any peer-reviewed research reports, the rest are largely true. In the second citation, the first 14 words are asserted

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

Re: Exposure Limits Thought I would post this to the group as it has been the subject of debate for many years. I found it Interesting as it gets into the mechanisms at work and symptoms while underscoring the importance of our work. Gary Stuyvenberg Sr. EMC Engineer Thompson Consulting THE

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

So it sounds similar to the MD with respect to the LVD requirements and you don’t declare to the LVD. From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:09 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID Yes, well, it's typical obscurantist wording. The LVD DOES apply, but without its low-voltage limit. That is what Article 3 1 (a) says, quite explicitly. John Woodgat

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID Yes, I cited the wrong Directive. Wrong citations are quite common, due to the Commission and the SMBs citing the largely meaningless '/nn' numbers instead of the titles of the Directives.

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

tps://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 From: John Woodgate Sent: 04 April 2018 16:44 To: Charlie Blackham ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized R

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

te *Sent:* 04 April 2018 16:05 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID Yes, I cited the wrong Directive. Wrong citations are quite common, due to the Commission and the SMBs citing the largely meaningless 'y

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

L=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 *From:*John Woodgate *Sent:* 04 April 2018 16:05 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID Yes, I cited the wrong Directive. Wron

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

.com%2f> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 From: John Woodgate Sent: 04 April 2018 16:05 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID Yes, I cited the wrong Directive. Wrong citations are quite common,

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

As LVD (2014/35) is not applicable for Radio devices and so RFID, this standard is set up to be harmonized under the RED. Be it as an Electrical Safety Standard under the RED. Look at the provided link. Gert Gremmen On 4-4-2018 15:37, John Woodgate wrote: SECOND RESPONSE I should have me

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

think the physical agents Directive is concerned with the workplace, not with products. For assessment of RF Exposure risk/safety from products, the RED is indeed the correct Directive and it would be covered in Article 3.1a. Thanks, Michael. Michael Derby Senior Regulatory Engineer Dir

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 05:38:41 -0700, Grace Lin wrote: > Is there any harmonized standards applicable to 13.56 MHz RFID devices? > > The following four standards are listed in the latest published list > standards (March 9, 2018). It seems there is no one applicable to a 13.56 > MHz RFID device.

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

John, I think the physical agents Directive is concerned with the workplace, not with products. For assessment of RF Exposure risk/safety from products, the RED is indeed the correct Directive and it would be covered in Article 3.1a. Thanks, Michael. Michael Derby

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

SECOND RESPONSE I should have mentioned that exposure standards have nothing to do with RED but are relevant to a different Directive: DIRECTIVE 2013/35/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of wor

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

Sent: 04 April 2018 13:39 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID Dear Members, Is there any harmonized standards applicable to 13.56 MHz RFID devices? The following four standards are listed in the latest published list

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

The published lists are often very much out-of-date, and some have been found with serious mistakes.  The original standard for RFID is EN 50364, and others relevant are EN 62369-1 and EN 62479. The latter two are versions of the corresponding IEC standards. Another IEC standard is IEC 62331.

[PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

Dear Members, Is there any harmonized standards applicable to 13.56 MHz RFID devices? The following four standards are listed in the latest published list standards (March 9, 2018). It seems there is no one applicable to a 13.56 MHz RFID device. EN 50360:2017 Product standard to demonstrate th

RE: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

[mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:43 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Would anyone know of a test lab that could perform E-field radiated susceptibility testing, in the 1.5 MHz to 30 MHz region, at a level of 560 V/M CW? The test

Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

On a platform large enough to house 2 two meter high cabinets, the hf electric field is almost surely vertical. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 > From: "ola...@juno.com" > Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:39:22 GMT > To: > Subject: Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure > >

Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

Any particular reason that the parallel plate arrangement can't be tipped on its side so that the unit is tested across a short dimension? That would do wonders for achieving the requisite field strength. You'd want to put the UUT on a dielectric pedestal to keep the floor from causing excessive

Re: High Power RF Exposure

Pat, Yes, that's the sort of thing - although Ed's point about the basic calculations is also true. You would only get a high enough field by reducing the height, but you would then have to deal with the change in the characteristic impedance of the line. Luke >>> On 08/01/2010 at 17:03, in m

Re: High Power RF Exposure

From: Luke Turnbull List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:40:39 + To: Edward Price , Subject: Re: High Power RF Exposure Ed, I believe that some auto companies have

Re: High Power RF Exposure

Luke - is this what you're thinking about? Ed - if this looks worthwhile, maybe you could query TDK about who has purchased these striplines. Pat Lawler EMC Engineer SL Power Electronics Corp. "Luke Turnbull" wrote on 01/08/2010 01:40:39

Re: High Power RF Exposure

Ed, I believe that some auto companies have large overhead structures to do radiated immunity (on cars) at low frequency - I guess like a parallel plate arrangement. I also believe that they run up to 10 kW for RF amplification. Probably a bit of a trip up to Detroit though. If you're interes

Re: High Power RF Exposure

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: 1/7/2010 10:01:16 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Yes but I was thinking there are two transformers; one steps up and the other back down to 50 Ohms, so you could use the two in parallel and put up to 4 kW into it, and if the

Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

-5261 From: "Gray, David" List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:20:55 -0500 To: Ken Javor , Conversation: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Subject: RE: [

RE: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

Subject: Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Actually up to about 15 MHz you could use a parallel plate just slightly taller than the test sample, and drive it with about 4 kW, into around 400 Ohms. That isn’t a TEM cell, but it will get the field intensity you need and get some current flowing

Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

In message , dated Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Ken Javor writes: >If you could get some step up transformers of the transmission line >type, like in the old IFI EFG billboard antenna, and use those to step >up the potential from 50 Ohms to something that matches the parallel >plate, you might get by wit

Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

IEEE.ORG" Conversation: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Subject: Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Disagree. While a small black box with excellent shielding can be largely covered by cable injection (CS114, RTCA/DO-160 Sec. 20 CS, 61000-4-6), this is not true for items with poor shielding, esp

Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

In message <64f94c18f6d40243bcf3fc0a8a4bda792ebab89...@mshq11.thoratec.com>, dated Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Bryce Stammerjohan writes: >Any reason why you need radiated susceptibility at such low >frequencies, when other products/standards assume that there is little >or no coupling of relatively sma

Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

johan Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:23:43 -0800 To: "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" Conversation: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Subject: re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Ed, Yikes! First thoughts: near-field effects

Re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:23:43 -0800 To: "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" Conversation: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Subject: re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Ed, Yikes! First thoughts: near-field effects in even a 10 m chamber, especially at the low e

re: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure

oratec.com From: Price, Edward [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:43 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] High Power RF Exposure Would anyone know of a test lab that could perform E-field radiated susceptibility testing, in the 1.5 MHz

High Power RF Exposure

Would anyone know of a test lab that could perform E-field radiated susceptibility testing, in the 1.5 MHz to 30 MHz region, at a level of 560 V/M CW? The test specimen is 2 meters tall, so it probably will not fit in a TEM cell. Illuminating antenna distance can be less than one meter. I prefe

RE: FCC question RF exposure question

There are two rf exposure conditions provided in the FCC rules that must be addressed at the time of certification. One is for portable configurations for devices that are used within 20cm of the body, and the other is mobile configurations for devices that are used more than 20cm from the body

Re: FCC question RF exposure question

Anders, that refers to the RF exposure to human beings. "Mobile" means that the antenna needs to be or will be more that 20 cm away from humans. "Portable" means that the antenna will be within 20 cm of the body. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208

FCC question RF exposure question

Hi group, What means with the expression in a FCC grant: "mobile-only exposure conditions"? Regards Anders - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived an

Mexico v FCC RF Exposure Evaluations

Dear Group As an extension to the question of Mexico accepting FCC test data, does anyone have any info regarding their acceptance of RF exposure data and their regulations in general. The device is a transportable RF transmitter of power less than 2 watts. Many thanks John McAuley Compliance

Re: RF Exposure

Ed, "SARTest Ltd is a new company offering equipment and services for testing whether mobile telephony equipment meets the various new standards set for the protection of human health." http://sartest.com/ Regards, Glen At 11:53 AM 3/17/98 -0800, you wrote: > >Looking for a supplier of mannequ

Re: RF Exposure

> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 12:25:25 -0800 > From: ed.pr...@cubic.com > Subject: Re: RF Exposure > To:"Kathy (Kate) M. MacLean" , >emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, m...@global.california.com, >t...@world.s

Re: RF Exposure

--- On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:00:51 -500 "Kathy (Kate) M. MacLean" wrote: > Robert - > Saline only has been proposed (is not common) as a simulation for > body tissue (muscle), for which the SAR exposure limit is 4 W/kg. > For brain and organs, the limits are more strict, at 1.6 W/kg. The

Re: RF Exposure

--- On Wed, 18 Mar 98 08:29:11 -0700 ron_pick...@hypercom.com wrote: > > Ed, > > Why don't you try your local department store. They have get them from > somewhere. > > On the other hand, anyone know how to contact the Crash Test Dummy > University for rece

Re: RF Exposure

for more information. Regards, Kate APREL Laboratories (.sig at end of post) > From: m...@global.california.com > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:48:04 -0800 (PST) > To:ed.pr...@cubic.com > Cc:emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re: RF Expos

Re: RF Exposure

> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 11:53:56 -0800 > From: ed.pr...@cubic.com > Subject: RF Exposure > To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Reply-to: ed.pr...@cubic.com > > Looking for a supplier of mannequins (head, upper torso, whole > body?) to

Re: RF Exposure

Pickard __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RF Exposure Author: at INTERNET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/17/98 11:53 AM Looking for a supplier of mannequins (head, upper torso, whole body?) to simulat and measure the absorption of RF ene

Re: RF Exposure

As a first pass, try balloons with mild saline solution. The skin effect at those frequencies is shallow so bags o' water are close approximations. - Robert - On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 ed.pr...@cubic.com wrote: > > Looking for a supplier of mannequins (head, u

RF Exposure

Looking for a supplier of mannequins (head, upper torso, whole body?) to simulate and measure the absorption of RF energy from very close emitters (cell phones, man-pack radios, telemetry). Anyone have any leads for anything from raw materials to complete dummies? -- Ed