Re: General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something

2002-04-29 Thread John Woodgate
I read in !emc-pstc that Robert Wilson robert_wil...@tirsys.com wrote (in 3FF57405336C9B4C976A1819F860A2560F698B@xng_tirsys.TIRSYS.COM) about 'General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something', on Mon, 29 Apr 2002: With regards to the need to subject something running from a 9V battery

Re: Anti-static Insulating Tape ???

2002-04-29 Thread Rich Nute
Hi Doug: Thanks for sharing your findings on insulating tape and anti-static tape. All insulators have the property of insulation resistance. Modern insulations have insulation resistances in the gigaohm and teraohm ranges. I would guess that anti-static insulators have a relatively low

RE: General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something

2002-04-29 Thread Robert Wilson
With regards to the need to subject something running from a 9V battery to a battery (pun not intended) of safety approvals, to me this shows how some aspects of regulatory control are just a solution searching desperately for a problem. There are times when it seems to me that the entire

Re: EMC and Class 2 equipment

2002-04-29 Thread Rich Nute
Hi John: Now we have sub-classes Y1 to Y4. Y capacitors can be used in locations where neither side is grounded, but in the OP's context, grounding is involved. What are the definitions of the various Y capacitors in the most edition of IEC 384? OP? A Y-cap can be used

Anti-static Insulating Tape ???

2002-04-29 Thread POWELL, DOUG
Greetings all, Last week I had an interesting experience I thought was worth sharing with the discussion group. It's all about anti-static insulating tape, which sounds oxymoronic to me. Currently, in my company, we use several styles of tape for safety insulation, both in design of

RE: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field

2002-04-29 Thread Ned Devine
Hi, I can help much, but, for this paragraph, the rationale at the back of the standard states that Annex AAA of the Collateral Standard IEC 60601-1-2 states that the limits and methodology are under consideration by technical committee 77. This Particular Standard, however, refers for the time

RE: General Product Safety Directive - sorry missed something

2002-04-29 Thread Gregg Kervill
-Let's take an example of a non-rechargable 9V battery operated -ITE product(sic) Consider the liability and your defense - it you review to the ITE standard then you have performed due diligence - if you do not review to the ITE standard then you have not! If you assume that the product

RE: Inquiry on standard specifying potential ESD hazard reduced t o a level BELOW 200V

2002-04-29 Thread David_Sterner
Paul, ANSI/EIA-625-1994 Requirements for Handling Electrostatic-Discharge-Sensitive (ESDS) Devices specifies that antistatic packaging shall not triboelectric charge to greater than +/-200V; and workstation equipment 'shall not generate +/-200V within twelve (12) inches of unprotected ESDS