Thanks to those who responded. I'm still stuck...and feeling a bit dumb
about posting this.
The UL investigator working this ITE product is insisting on application of
a standard for these batteries beyond IEC 60950.
I posed the question of which standard he is applying my product's batteries
to and he supplied me with a list of 31 standards ranging from IEC 60050-481
to IEC 61434 with none marked in particular. This product is intended for
stationary computer room environments and SOHO, not aircraft, traction,
starters or ships. Since these cells are lead-acid and valve regulated, the
nearest standard that might apply is IEC 60896-2 (batteries - stationary,
lead-acid - General requirements and methods of test) but I do not have this
standard. Can anyone give me a clue what this is or what to expect? Do I
really need it?
Same vein:
This product uses a hardware optical communication through class one laser
devices, which meet IEC 60825, my feeble mind can understand the why's
behind this standard as it applies to my product, but where would I look to
understand what would apply to a CB'd product using lead-acid, valve
regulated standby batteries?
Kyle
<text of original post>
>I have a sticky situation that I want to share with you for
opinions on
>either how to negotiate this with UL, or select a different battery
vendor
>to satisfy the agency.
>
>We make an ITE product that uses a couple of 6V 7.7Ah sealed gel
cells as a
>battery backup (BBU) for buffer memory in a disk array controller.
The
>batteries are fault protected from the charging circuits with a
resettable
>fuse (polyswitch).
>The BBU is an all steel box that fits into the fire enclosure of
the product
>-which is all steel as well. The BBU could almost serve as a fire
enclosure
>in itself, but I don't claim it as such.
>The batteries are a listed component (BASS2), but the Mfr. does not
certify
>the flame rating of the battery. These are part numbered with an
'FR' for
>flame resistant which implies a better flame rating (V0 in the
resin
>listing) yet remains vague because proving the flame rating
requires a lot
>code traceback to the vendor of the battery case parts. The
batteries are
>not marked for flame rating or UL Recognized Component but in my
description
>I list them as V0 rated. Have I gone wrong with that?
>
>I want to obtain CB for this product by either TUV or UL and UL is
asking
>for a 'European Certificate' for this domestic U.S. made battery.
There
>never has been a 'European Certificate' for this battery and I
doubt there
>ever will be. As an interesting side-note, we have TUV Rheinland
doing the
>CB for this product in parallel, and they have not asked for any
certs for
>these batteries.
>
>The dilemma I am faced with is that if I cannot produce a 'European
>Certificate' for these batteries, we may be forced to re-select a
vendor.
>My question is; do I have any negotiating room to reason the UL
investigator
>out of his concern for this application? What tactical approach
(if any)
>would work?
>On the other hand, we have been using this same battery in another
nearly
>identical product that has had CB for several years. The
difference being
>that the investigator on this new product has changed from previous
years
>and he has a bit more zeal in the performance of his job. I am
hesitant to
>start a big stink because it might stir the other product into this
and then
>I've got two products in limbo while we scramble to adjust.
>
>Any pearls of wisdom deeply appreciated.
>
>Kyle Ehler [email protected]
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], or
[email protected] (the list administrators).
