Hi Doug, Without knowing the details of your product, how the part is implemented, what exactly it is exposed to or the concerns of the safety house, a question I would ask is what exactly is the concern? Is it possible that the exemptions under 1950, 3rd, cl. 4.4.3.2 .....7th hyphenated item dealing with abnormal testing per 5.4.6 to prove in no issues could be applied? Keep in mind it's a D3 deviation so although it might work for North America, you might have issues with non-North American markets. Another pointer might be the general description regarding the use of small parts, cumulative effects and the propagation of flame in 4.4.3.1-it is a bit nebulous and leaves the door open to applying engineering judgement.
Good Luck! My opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Sr. Product Safety Engineer ---------------------------------------------- Sanmina Canada ULC Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel: 403-769-4805 (ESN 758) fax: 403-769-4813 (ESN 758) e-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Sanmina Canada ULC does not accept liability for any errors, > omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or > any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. > *************************************************** > -----Original Message----- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:37 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Desperate for help on a UL1950 interpretation Hello All - I desperately need some opinions on an interpretation of a particular clause in UL1950. The background: I have an investigation underway to UL1950 of a portable handheld computer, powered by battery and other power options, all of which meet the requirements for inherently LPS. Clause 4.4.3.1 states, "Components inside a FIRE ENCLOSURE........", and continues into flammability requirements of materials and components. Clause 4.4.5.2 addresses components not requiring a fire enclosure, and states, "....-components in a SECONDARY CIRCUIT supplied by a limited power source complying with 2.11, provided that...." The product in question absolutely meets the requirements of clause 4.4.5.2, which I interpret to mean that a fire enclosure is not required. However, the test house performing the evaluation is applying all of the criteria of clause 4.4.3.2. Unfortunately, I have a relatively small foam spacer inside that does not meet the flammability class HF-2 or better as specified in 4.4.3.2. The test house tells me that yes, the product meets the requirements for the exemption allowed in 4.4.5.2, but that I cannot literally interpret the statement in 4.4.3.1 to mean that the substance of clause 4.4.3 regards only component and material flammability ratings inside a fire enclosure. I guess I'm a literal type guy - I can't see any other way to interpret the standard. Can anyone shed some light on this interpretation so that I can read between the lines and understand the real requirements? I'm not trying to make an enclosure of gasoline-impregnated paper, and with the exception of a small (but critical) piece of foam, everything else meets the requirements without the exclusion allowed by 4.4.5.2. HELP !?!? Doug Massey Safety Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. Norcross, GA., USA Ph. (770) 447-4224 x3607 FAX (770) 447-6928 e-mail: [email protected] Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.com ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
