the
electronics, and this at rf. Does anyone really see this as a remotely
possible mechanism? I don't.
--
>From: "Robert Macy"
>To: "Pettit, Ghery" , "'James Collum'"
,
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Thu, Jan 3, 20
"Ken Javor" wrote:
>
> Curiosity. How long must airbags work?
As long as you have the car, supposedly. Same with seat belts.
They're all safety features. Interestingly, if you have a cracked
or broken windshield, a cop *can* write you up for the car
being unsafe. I've never heard of it
to:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 12:21 PM
To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Cc: cherryclo...@aol.com; m...@california.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
Hi Ken:
> Trial lawyers and their clients have an obvious interest in portrayin
"Rich Nute" wrote:
>
> EMC? Ha!
You raise a good point since the FCC legally can but
hasn't implemented an American version of immunity
standards. The words "must accept" on the FCC labels
of your effected devices are evident of it. Maybe some
day we will have do immunity testing.
- Do
Re: EMC-related safety issues
I do not disagree but what about the use of mobile phones in emergencies -
should the FCC require all advertisements to carry a warning that mobile
phones cannot be relied upon for emergencies?
I think that would be a great idea as it might even focus the minds of
ordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of James, Chris
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:06 AM
To: 'Ken Javor'; 'acar...@uk.xyratex.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
So why ain't the US government chasing the knife manufacturer of the
k
EMI
control. No rubbish!
--
>From: John Woodgate
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 2:20 PM
>
> I do not find that. In most US hotels I've stayed in, the bedroom radios
> are cheapo-squared but
>-Original Message-
>From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:55 AM
>To: Cortland Richmond; Andrew Carson
>Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>
>
>
>Curiosity. How long mu
02 1:59 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD5@flbocexu05>) about 'EMC-related safety issues',
on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
> more severe immunity req
onsultants
619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112
-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery
To: 'James Collum' ;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Date: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
I still have a hard tim
ex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
Hi John:
> >I've replaced the incandescent lamp on my bedside
> >table with a new energy-saving compact flourescent
> >lamp. With the lamp on, I cannot listen to even
> >the strongest AM radio station on m
Hi John:
> >I've replaced the incandescent lamp on my bedside
> >table with a new energy-saving compact flourescent
> >lamp. With the lamp on, I cannot listen to even
> >the strongest AM radio station on my clock radio
> >(on the same bedside table) due to the lamp
> >interf
I read in !emc-pstc that John Shinn wrote
(in <00c001c1948d$a53fb580$0b3d1...@hadco.comsanmina.com>) about 'EMC-
related safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>NO NO NO. Don't think about the plane. There will be more red tape
>than you want to think about, especially if it is bolted down (perma
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200201031919.laa11...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'EMC-related safety
issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>I've replaced the incandescent lamp on my bedside
>table with a new energy-saving compact flourescent
>lamp. With the lamp on, I cannot listen to eve
ANADA
L4K 4L2
Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378
Fax +1 905 760 3020
Email: harr...@dscltd.com
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 1:59 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issue
, as well.
Ghery Pettit
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:cortland.richm...@alcatel.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:41 AM
To: Ken Javor
Cc: Mike Hopkins; cherryclo...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I'm old enough
Hi Ken:
> Trial lawyers and their clients have an obvious interest in portraying
> consumers as helpless and child-like, and rich corporations as robber-barons
> preying on the poor and weak. But why does the rest of society jump on that
> bandwagon? Because profit and wealth, once
..@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 1:55 PM
>
> Today, we
> simply don't have processes by which we can
> test equipment for RF-induced bad experiences.
> So, we argue both sides without a conclusion.
--
es
it.
--
>From: Cortland Richmond
>To: Andrew Carson
>Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 12:22 PM
>
>
> As engineers, we should consider the safety
> implications of what we design, test or otherwise
> wo
Hi Ken:
> The Forrestal incident occurred during the Vietnam conflict, July 1967. It
> was pretty much as you describe except I would not say EMI was not
> controlled. All DOD services had EMI requirements at his time. In fact,
> 1967 was the year that MIL-STD-461 was adopted as a
day, January 03, 2002 8:12 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD5@flbocexu05>) about 'EMC-related safety issues',
on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>Ken, le
I read in !emc-pstc that Gary McInturff wrote (in <917063bab0ddb043af5faa73c7a835d40ac...@windlord.wwp.com
>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
> While I take your point - I'll challenge with the equally valid
> argument
>that says show me the data that they do cause
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD5@flbocexu05>) about 'EMC-related safety issues',
on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
> more severe immunity requirements apply. Those requirements are either
>specified in EN 50130-4
According to the BSI we
success at the expense of others, and the degree of his success is the
degree of destruction visited on society.
--
From: cherryclo...@aol.com
To: m...@california.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, Jan 3
Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
cc: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
Hi George:
> The key word in EMC is "compatibility". This implies that electrical and
> electronic equipment are
Of John Woodgate
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 8:17 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in ) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>Over the course of this correspon
home would be useless. Reason has to prevail.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:20 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
I understand
Hi George:
> The key word in EMC is "compatibility". This implies that electrical and
> electronic
> equipment are (ideally) designed so that each can operate normally in the
> presence
> of another. This requires limiting both the emissions and sensitivity of
> such
> devices.
t: Re: EMC-related safety issues
*
A routine flight over Dallas-Fort Worth was disrupted when one of the
compasses suddenly shifted 10 degrees to the right. The pilot asked if any
passenger was operating an electronic device, and finding that a laptop
computer had just been turn
The Forrestal incident occurred during the Vietnam conflict, July 1967. It
was pretty much as you describe except I would not say EMI was not
controlled. All DOD services had EMI requirements at his time. In fact,
1967 was the year that MIL-STD-461 was adopted as a Tri-Service requirement
super
position
information. That is what happened to that storied DC-10.
--
>From: Cortland Richmond
>To: Ken Javor
>Cc: Mike Hopkins , cherryclo...@aol.com,
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 11:40 AM
>
> I'm ol
>
> *
> A routine flight over Dallas-Fort Worth was disrupted when one of the
> compasses suddenly shifted 10 degrees to the right. The pilot asked
> if any passenger was operating an electronic device, and finding that
> a laptop computer had just been turned on requested that it be tu
As engineers, we should consider the safety
implications of what we design, test or otherwise
work on. EMI is part of that. What is considered a
safety risk depends a great deal on corporate
policy, the legal, political and popular climate in
one's state of residence, and the kind of equipment
und
ay, January 02, 2002 7:35 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I read in !emc-pstc that Gary McInturff wrote (in <917063bab0ddb043af5faa73c7a835d40ac...@windlord.wwp.com
>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Wed, 2 Jan 2002:
> Came
I'm old enough, Ken, to remember ADF approaches! But
laptop switchers often operate inband to frequencies
used by aviation non-directional beacons. This makes
them more of a threat than the harmonics from
lower-frequency ones. It is also, of course,
possible for the laptop's other emissions to
int
Let's be real careful here and give credit where credit is due.
The Pinto incident was in many ways not a safety issue with
regard to safety testing and the safety engineers at Ford.
The Ford Pinto fiasco was clearly a management issue.
Tests were done to the 20 mph rear impact standard early in
camera for baby monitoring.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:34 AM
To: richwo...@tycoint.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC
To: "'Ken Javor'" , "'acar...@uk.xyratex.com'"
, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 11:05 AM
So why ain't the US government chasing the knife manufacturer of
that
come with it, within reason, else where will it end?
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: 03 January 2002 17:00
To: James, Chris; 'acar...@uk.xyratex.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I agr
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in ) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>Over the course of this correspondence (and in earlier postings to
> emc-pstc)
>you have cast doubt on the IEE's guide to EMC and Functional Safety
> without
>being in
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD5@flbocexu05>) about 'EMC-related safety issues',
on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>Ken, let me address the specific case you mentioned - the RF camera used
> for
>baby surveillance. In that particular app
atex.com'" ,
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 8:25 AM
Ken,
I don't think anyone could disagree with your sentiments. The problem is
attributing the level of liability between user and ma
n opinions
Gary
-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 5:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
Ken, let me address the specific case you mentioned - the RF camera used for
baby s
m: Ken Javor[mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 02,2002 2:22 PM
>To: cherryclo...@aol.com;emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safetyissues
>
>To say that Industrystandards don't go far enough, that it is
&g
e
new device is not considered a tool but a crutch from the get-go. This is
an anti-business environment that even the old behind the Iron Curtain
Communists could not have imagined.
--
From: richwo...@tycoint.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
List
--- Begin Message ---
Dear John
Maybe I should have been more explicit.
Over the course of this correspondence (and in earlier postings to emc-pstc)
you have cast doubt on the IEE's guide to EMC and Functional Safety without
being in any way specific.
Now you are saying that you haven't read i
--- Begin Message ---
All I know about the issue of the laptop interfering with the compass is from
the IEE's Guide to EMC and Functional Safety, copied below:
*
A routine flight over Dallas-Fort Worth was disrupted when one of the
compasses suddenly shifted 10 degrees to the right. Th
I read in !emc-pstc that Andrew Carson wrote
(in <3c345485.b0f29...@uk.xyratex.com>) about 'EMC-related safety
issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>I get the idea that we a missing the whole point of this
>discussion.
>
I think that you are missing the point. The major concern among
responsibl
hat bedroom. Is
> the manufacturer of that video system responsible for any ill that then
> befalls my friend's twins? I think not. But this safety guide says yes,
> and places the manufacturer at risk.
>
> --
> From: cherryclo...@aol.com
> To: emc-p...@major
t;> HREF="mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com";>ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>;
>> mailto:cherryclo...@aol.com";>cherryclo...@aol.com <> HREF="mailto:cherryclo...@aol.com";>
>> cherryclo...@aol.com>; > HREF="mailto:emc-p...@majordom
Chris James
Engineering Services Manager
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (UK)
-Original Message-
From: acar...@uk.xyratex.com [mailto:acar...@uk.xyratex.com]
Sent: 03 January 2002 12:54
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC
ional
-Original Message-
From: Mike Hopkins [mailto:mhopk...@thermokeytek.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 5:58 PM
To: 'Cortland Richmond'; cherryclo...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
As already stated, the incident of the DC-1
: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:22 PM
To: cherryclo...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I have read a part of the IEE guide mentioned below. What I have read on a
paragraph by paragraph basis is fine, but
a bit of magnetic field to respond
> and is completely insensitive to electric fields altogether. Further,
> no one would use ADF to line up an approach on a runway.
>
> --
> From: Cortland Richmond
> To: Mike Hopkins
> Cc: cherryclo...@aol.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
&
...@aol.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002, 5:26 PM
If they meant "radio compass," that is a different can of monkeys. The
radio compass was traditionally the indicator for the ADF set , point
n Jose, CA 95112
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff
To: Ken Javor ; cherryclo...@aol.com
; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
Did the camera have "proximal cause&quo
I read in !emc-pstc that Gary McInturff wrote (in <917063bab0ddb043af5faa73c7a835d40ac...@windlord.wwp.com
>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Wed, 2 Jan 2002:
> Cameras don't cause disease likes SIDS.
Please post your proof! That is the attitude of some (too many) safety
experts these
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <125.99b6ace.296
48...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Wed, 2 Jan 2002:
>I understand that under European Product Liability law (and I suspect in
> US
>product liability law too) evidence of a historical lack of safe
I read in !emc-pstc that Mike Hopkins wrote
(in <49CD487E8BA9D31181190060081C6B8F3BEC1D@COMSERVER>) about 'EMC-
related safety issues', on Wed, 2 Jan 2002:
>As already stated, the incident of the DC-10 has for years been used as an
>example of personal electronics (laptops) interfering w
It's no different this side of the Pond.
--
>From: John Woodgate
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002, 3:19 PM
>
>
> I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
> (in <20020102192217.PBJZ2
If they meant "radio compass," that is a different can of monkeys.
The radio compass was traditionally the indicator for the ADF set , pointing
to the ground station, and was usually mounted so as to revolve in front
of a scale which rotated with the aircraft's' magnetic heading. A noisy
switch
KeyTek
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:cortland.richm...@alcatel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:56 PM
To: cherryclo...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
It is perhaps less than useful to depend on a third or four
ry
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:22 AM
To: cherryclo...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I have read a part of the IEE guide mentioned below. What I have read on a
paragraph b
January 02, 2002 11:22 AM
To: cherryclo...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I have read a part of the IEE guide mentioned below. What I have read on a
paragraph by paragraph basis is fine, but I find the overall philosophy deeply
troubling
It appears that a lot depends on what we mean by the
word "safety." If this means the elimination of
as-yet-unknown risks, why, nothing can be shown to
be safe. If we mean the prevention of hazards that
are reasonably predictable, we do that already. Or
should! The existence of standards which re
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
(in <20020102192217.PBJZ20715.femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27]
>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Wed, 2 Jan 2002:
>What I have read on a paragraph by paragraph basis is fine, but I
>find the overall philosophy deeply troubling.
I read in !emc-pstc that Cortland Richmond wrote (in <3c3365ca.d3acb...@alcatel.com>) about 'EMC-related safety
issues', on Wed, 2 Jan 2002:
>The citation for the referenced incident was Compliance
>Engineering (CE magazine), the European edition, for
>November/December 1996.
It
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in
<63.44c9e61.29648...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on
Wed, 2 Jan 2002:
>Once again, John, you seem to be trying to give a negative impression
> about
>the IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety (which you now admit
Personally, I could list a ton of stuff that would instill
fear and loathing amongst the fainest of EMC hearts.
Sitting in a jet airliner at the end of the runway readying
for take-off and watching the cabin lights dim slightly in
sync with the sweep of the main radar dish just a couple
of h
only the field intensities associated with intentional rf transmissions
that are capable of stimulating electronics operating at higher levels
than radio receivers.
--
From: cherryclo...@aol.com
To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com,
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related
safety
y and I remain ever vigilant in disputing such assertions
> whenever they arise. If I have given offense, I apologize.
>
> I end by quoting Ing. Gert Gremmen, in a related posting, "Limits
> for emission are essentially to protect (radio)receivers... I have never
> met an
edroom. Is
the manufacturer of that video system responsible for any ill that then
befalls my friend's twins? I think not. But this safety guide says yes,
and places the manufacturer at risk.
--
From: cherryclo...@aol.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety i
any frequency within
> 60 dB above the limits in f.a. CISPR22 that was not a (frequency selective)
> receiver."
>
> That is precisely correct.
>
> Ken Javor
>
> --
> From: cherryclo...@aol.com
> To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, emc-p...@majordomo.
Once again, John, you seem to be trying to give a negative impression about
the IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety (which you now admit you haven't
read) instead of simply saying what it is that you think is wrong with it.
Of course I am passionate about the IEE guide - my colleagues and I
.
Ken Javor
--
From: cherryclo...@aol.com
To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002, 8:45 AM
I won't get into whether you were intending to impugn my truthfulness
eaction to anything except a radio
> receiver. It is only the field intensities associated with intentional rf
> transmissions that are capable of stimulating electronics operating at
> higher levels than radio receivers.
>
> --
> From: cherryclo...@aol.com
> To: ke
he DC-10, the pilot seized control from the auto-pilot and
redirected the aircraft towards its former heading. Since this was on final
approach, it was a fairly narrow escape.
--
>From: John Woodgate
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
(in <20020101193617.STGC6581.femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27]>)
about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Tue, 1 Jan 2002:
> The
>standard navigational aids: ILS, TACAN and VOR all have simple modulation
>schemes. ILS receivers have sensitivities on
ary 01, 2002 8:36 PM
>>To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>>
>>
>>
>>If the length of discussion is proportional to the degree of controversy
>>surrounding a subject, then the entire theory of electromag
N is
-80 dBm, glide slope -60 dBm and marker beacon -50 dBm.
> --
--
>From: John Woodgate
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Tue, Jan 1, 2002, 2:17 AM
>
>
> I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
> (in <2002010106
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
(in <20020101060002.GSJY27550.femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27]>
) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Mon, 31 Dec 2001:
>KJJ response to JW: The aircraft receivers in question are just that, radio
>receivers, and as such are the sensitive victi
Re this exchange:
KJJ response to Keith Armstrong: In a court of law one must swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
JW: Indeed, but it is, of course, fatuous. One cannot tell if one even KNOWS
the whole truth about anything, let alone whether one will be allowed by
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
(in <20011231204639.HFSF617.femail38.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27]>)
about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Mon, 31 Dec 2001:
>In a court of law one must swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
>nothing but the truth.
Indeed, but it is, of co
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <17c.18c06c2.296
20...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Mon, 31 Dec 2001:
>Quite a number of EMC and Safety experts took part in creating the IEE's
>Guide on EMC and Functional Safety, including a lawyer who specialis
levels than radio receivers.
--
From: cherryclo...@aol.com
To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Mon, Dec 31, 2001, 12:45 PM
Dear Ken
Any electromagnetic emissions, whether conducted
Dear Ken
Any electromagnetic emissions, whether conducted or radiated, including
spurious emissions (however you wish to define the word 'spurious') can be
demodulated by the non-linear processes in semiconductors, vacuum tubes, and
the like. So the spread of possible problems goes beyond merely
Dear John
Quite a number of EMC and Safety experts took part in creating the IEE's
Guide on EMC and Functional Safety, including a lawyer who specialises in
high-tech issues. You will find their names listed at the end of the 'core'
of the guide (downloadable from www.iee.org.uk/Policy/Areas/Ele
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <123.96b6ec6.296
1b...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Mon, 31 Dec 2001:
>(A key member of the IEC 61000-1-2 committee is a very senior safety
> expert
>and also a key member of the IEE Working Group that created thi
All of this message is very interesting and I have no problem with it at
all. That doesn't change the fact that, as I and others stated earlier,
there is no intrinsic safety issue with a spurious emission. Spurious
emissions only affect the ability to receive a radio signal. That was and
is the
101 - 189 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
