From: V. Gasse, Product Safety Authority.TEL 49-(0)7031-16-6796
IBM, Technical Relations Germany,..FAX 49-(0)7031-16-6916
Egon,
being a member of the mentioned TC74 workgroup I would like to
point out, that Amd.4 of IEC 950 still only allows polyimid or FEP
wires to be used in Scl. 2.9.4.4 together with the Annex U tests.
The proposed widening of the scope to 'equivalent material'
could not be implemented into this amendment, and will happen
in IEC 950 3rd edition.
However there is an optional path to qualify the wire according
to 2.9.4.2 (Thin film insulation) with an electric strength test.
There is a common modification for EN 60950 Amd.4 in process
that would allow the use of other materials under Scl. 2.9.4.4.
This Common Modification is currently out for vote in the
National Committees.
I can backup your observation about the proactive role of Furukawa.
They are instrumental in improving the current standard especially
the Annex U, which in it's present form gives manufacturers and
testhouses a hard time.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen/Best regards, V. Gasse
INTERNET: [email protected]
*** Forwarding note from I1467402--IBMMAIL 08/30/96 04:57 ***
=========================================================================
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 29 Aug 96 21:18:45 EDT
From: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2222¹CompuServe.COM>
To: IEEE <emc-pstc¹ieee.org>
Cc: Shigeo Yamaguchi </c=JP/a=NIFTY/p=SVC/s=QWL01633/¹X400.compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Magnet wire
On 29/8/96 Peter Tarver wrote:
>On the other side of the coin, Annex U only allows winding wire that is =
>spirally wrapped in polyimide film, which the subject wire is not. =
>Properly used, I'm confident that TEX-E will make it through most any UL =
>evaluation, particulalry for ITE, since that was my goal in doing the =
>work. The same probably applies to CSA (Egon?). However, you will =
>probably have more difficulty with the application elsewhere than in the =
>northern bits of North America.
There are several manufacturers of such extruded triple-insulated wire, many of
which, including Furukawa Electric, have received CSA certification and UL
recognition. Of course I can not recommend or endorse any particular
manufacturer, and I'm sure that they are all equally suitable for the
application. But purely by coincidence, I've also had occasion to meet with
Furukawa.
Both CSA and UL have accepted this kind of wire for use in ITE products.
Before
the inception of Annex U, this was accepted based on the requirements of thin
film insulation. Test were done to special productions of the subject wire
that
were made especially for CSA/UL, with only 2 layers of insulation (both inner
and both outer ones). There were no test failures.
Annex U has complicated things however, by specifying the specific materials
that can be used; namely polyimide. The subject wire uses polyamide. Not
being
a chemical or materials engineer, I really don't know what the difference is,
but needless to say, this is now no longer officially acceptable. Of course,
since it was accepted before, I'm sure CSA and UL will continue to accept it
for
the time being.
The same policy appears to apply to most European agencies, since they had also
accepted this wire in the past. However, there is one European agency that is
currently flatly refusing to accept this kind of wire. They are being strictly
correct in rejecting this, since it doesn't comply with the wording in IEC950.
This situation is not expected to change until the publication of Ammendment 4
By the way, it is my PRIVATE opinion that IEC950 should not specify specific
materials at the exclusion of enything else. I'm certainly not a materials
expert and neither are most agency product safety professionals, so I'd rather
see a test that can be performed. If Annex U is suitable for certain types of
wire, then it should apply to all types.
>At the time I was performing the evaluation on the subject winding wire, =
>the proposal for Annex U had been made, but was not yet voted on in TC74 =
>or in some similar state of being. It was my understanding then that =
>there was either one or a small core of magnet wire manufacturers in =
>Europe (German, meguesses) that pushed for Annex U. I urged Furukawa to =
>take the issue up with TC 74, but haven't heard or read anything on topic =
>since.
As it happens, I also urged them to lobby TC74. In fact we managed to get them
a one hour presentation at the TC-74 meeting in Copenhagen last September, and
again at the Paris meeting in April. To give credit where credit is due, UL
was
also instrumental in helping to secure these hearings (thanks Al and Lal|)
We also helped them prepare the technical arguments, test data and presentation
materials, which were received very well by the members of TC74. They gave an
excellent presentation and, as a result, it is my understanding that the
wording
in IEC950 will change to allow for "polyimide ... OR EQUIVALENT in compliance
with Annex U."
This will show up in Ammendment 4. Well, I certainly hope it does, anyway. I
have an Ammendment 4 DRAFT here that includes this ...
If you have any opinions, ideas to share, help to offer, or whatever, the
person
in charge of this project at Furukawa is Mr. Shigeo Yamaguchi, based near
Tokyo,
Japan.
His e-mail address is QWL01633 at NIFTY. Sorry, but I don't know the syntax
for
contacting Nifty via Internet. Using Compuserve, all I do is: NIFTY:QWL01633.
I think I've seen it as: QWL01633¹niftyserve.co.jp but I'm not certain.
By the way, Mr. Yamaguch is not aware that I'm sending this message, and I hope
that I have not offended him in any way by sharing his address. Of course, I
am
sending him a cc: at this time.
Again, I reiterate that I can not endorse any particular company. But I would
like to mention that Furukawa appears to be the only company taking a proactive
role in this project, and I think they deserve some credit for this.
And again, opinions expressed above are purely personal and don't necessarily
bear any resemblance to my employer's official policy. In fact, I'm probably
in
deep s... right now.
Regards,
Egon Varju
---- End of mail text
Additional SMTP headers from original mail item follow:
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP;
Thu, 29 Aug 96 22:55:57 EDT
Received: (from daemon¹localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA25362
for emc-pstc-list; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 21:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <960830011845_73132.2222_IHO124-1¹CompuServe.COM>
Sender: owner-emc-pstc¹majordomo.ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Egon H. Varju" <73132.2222¹CompuServe.COM>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <emc-pstc¹majordomo.ieee.org>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-request¹majordomo.ieee.org
X-Info: ÜUnðSubscribe requests to majordomo¹majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-approval¹majordomo.ieee.org
