Re[2]: ATX Power Supply
Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by ATX form factor? Just when I thought I knew all the 3-letter acronyms (TLA's)... Doug __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: ATX Power Supply Author: 72146@compuserve.com at PMDF List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/19/97 7:10 PM Samsung (for one) makes an ATX PS with fan inside. You may want to look at that. I can't say that inside fan mounting is better, though. Cortland == Original Message Follows Date: 19-Mar-97 12:10:16 MsgID: 1046-109726 ToID: 72146,373 From: Terry INTERNET:robert.te...@nematron.com Subj: ATX Power Supply Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoPart 1 of 1 I am looking for a 200W minimum continuous output ATX form factor power supply that meets the the following specifications: EN60950 UL1950 FCC Class B CE These are readily available, except I need one that has the processor cooling fan inside the PS/2 enclosure. Everything that I have seen to date has the cooling fan mounted outside of the PS/2 enclosure. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance for your help, I appreciate it greatly! Robert L. Terry Nematron Corporation 313 994 0591 Ext 235 313 994 8408 Fax robert.te...@nematron.com == End of Original Message = Received: from 192.168.190.1 by ALPHA.CORP.SCIATL.COM (PMDF V4.3-13 #7203) id 01igprnzt8s0001...@alpha.corp.sciatl.com; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 06:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from UNKNOWN [199.172.136.3] by gatekeeper.sciatl.com for owner-emc-p...@mail.ieee.org id GAA18385; Thu Mar 20 06:20:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA06635 for emc-pstc-list; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 21:07:02 -0500 (EST) List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:10:19 -0500 (EST) From: Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com Subject: Re: ATX Power Supply Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Reply-to: Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com Message-id: 970320001018_72146.373_fhc3...@compuserve.com X-Envelope-to: Kealey, Doug%SA-B08@ccmail.corp.sciatl.com Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Precedence: bulk X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
Interlock Requirements
To All: I am currently in process of getting a computer product UL Listed and TUV Certified and the two agencies have quite different interpretations of the interlock requirements from UL 1950 and EN60950. I am looking for input for both sides of this argument in an effort to try and resolve the issue. The power supply has a logic circuit with an input signal INHIBIT. When a logic high (+5v) is applied to INHIBIT the supply output is enabled and likewise when the signal goes low the supply output is shutdown. Our interlock switch is used to open and close the 5v for this INHIBIT signal therefore the switch is located in a 5 vdc, 30 mA secondary circuit. In para 2.8.6.1 regarding contact gap it is clear that in primary the gap must be 3mm, same as a disconnect device. For other circuits it refers you to the clearance requirements in Table 5 of 2.9. This is where the argument begins. What column in the table is to be used and what insulation category ? TUV says use the right most column for secondary circuits not subject to transients and meeting the conditions of note 4. TUV says this is an operational insulation requirement since I am not separating different circuits but only providing for the proper operation of the circuit. TUV's conclusion is 0.4mm contact gap required. UL says I must use the column for nominal mains between 150- 300 V, pollution degree 2, reinforced insulation. They argue I have no way of knowing that the secondary is not subject to transients and it must be reinforced insulation since the interlock is protecting operator access to energy hazards which requires two levels of protection. This would require a contact gap of 2.0mm as opposed to 0.4mm from TUV. I pointed out that if the switch were located in primary that I would only be required to meet 3mm which is not the 4mm required by reinforced, so why would a 5 vdc, 30 mA circuit be required to meet reinforced? The only explaination that I got was that 3mm had been determined sufficient for primary. The problem gets even stickier when you go to para 2.8.6.3 for dielectric testing. The para specifically states perform the test in 5.3 for reinforced insulation. Going to 5.3, there is no test for reinforced insulation in 5 v secondary circuits. TUV says OK, the standard says no test. UL says, that can't be right so we want you to do 500 v for operational insulation! HLP! All input to this issue would be very much appreciated for either case. I would just like to get some level of clarity to help get the agencies on some common ground on this issue for now and future submittals. Thanks in advance for the help. Steve Hackett NCR Corporation - Columbia, SC steve.hack...@columbiasc.ncr.com
RE: measurement uncertainity
Obtain guide NIS81 from NAMAS in the UK. Your local standards body may also have it. The 1996 IEEE EMC society proceedings has a paper on the subject. NAMAS Tel: + 44 081 943 7140 Fax: + 44 081 943 7134 -- From: Cem Kural To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: measurement uncertainity List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, March 24, 1997 10:53AM Can anybody recommend workshops - books etc. about measurement uncertainity calculations for EMC measurements(EN55014-EN61000-3-23 measurements)? Sincerely Cem KURAL RD Engineer ARCELIK A.S. TLF: +90 216 3954515 / 1045 FAX:+90 216 4233045 e-mail: ku...@arcelik.com.tr
Re: Hazardous materials
Polybrominated Diphenylethers are another class of materials that are a no-no. I think Polybrominated ANYTHING is suspect, but as Hans says, the OJ will have the answers. regards, tony_fredriks...@netpower.com -- From: HANS_MELLBERG To: Judd_Stewart; owner-emc-pstc Cc: emc-pstc Subject: Re: Hazardous materials List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, March 24, 1997 11:21AM Those materials, commonly known as polybrominated or polychlorinated dibenzofurenes, were listed in the hazardous materials directive in a subsequent OJ release from the original date. I have somewhere a copy of it but since my move, I have not seen it lately. I will try and get the directive number and OJ number and date so you can look it up. Best Regards, Hans Mellberg __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: Hazardous materials Author: Non-HP-owner-emc-pstc (owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org) at hp-boise,shargw2 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/21/97 7:08 AM I've asked our England office about a German requirement for the restriction of certain compounds that are typically used as a flame retardant in plastic's. I was returned a couple of pages in German, can't seem to find anyone around here that can translate it. Does anyone know where I may be able to get a English version of this regulation? Thanks in advance Judd Stewart Litton 619.552.5581
Re: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic.
Michael, Just as I received your e-mail, I received a direct mail from Acheson Colloids Company. (1-800-255-1908). They can set you up with what they have for conductive coatings. I don't know how enviromentally friendly they are, though. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Author: ,SITARSKI,MICHAEL sitar...@kodak.com at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/21/97 4:42 PM To: OAS --MAILSERV Open Addressing cc: 250105 --LOCKOVM1 SITARSKI MICHAEL J From: Michael J. Sitarski, PMI - DMI, 35905, 1/3/EP, (72)6-3717 Internet: sitar...@kodak.com Fax: (716) 726-9453 KNET: 236-3717 Subject: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Greetings to all viewers. I have been monitoring this forum for some time and would like to take this opportunity to ask a question concerning coatings or platings for steel, aluminum and plastic. Does anyone know of any studies that may have been performed comparing various coatings on the three mentioned substrates that considers cost, conductivity and/or shielding effectiveness. Apparently some of the tried and true materials are coming under attack for environmental friendliness and suitable alternatives must be identified. I am aware of the use of zinc chromates, electroless nickel and copper as well as various paints. Any experiences out there with practicality, durability, cost and environmental friendliness. Thanks in advance for your comments. -Regards, | M.J. Sitarski, Environmental Regulatory Compliance | |*| - Knowledge is Power
FW: Re: Remailer Operation
To All: Rich should have posted this private email explanation, since so many others have also been surprised by the sudden appearance of these bounced messages. I suppose that we haven't seen these in the past because our remailer custodians have been very efficient in eliminating bad addresses. Another lesson here is to empty your mailbox promptly; if it fills up, it means bounced messages and work for somebody. (I never realized these implications!) --- On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:43:07 -0800 (PST) Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote: Hi Ed: I believe you posted a message to the listserver recently. As such, your address appears on the message. When a message bounces from a particular invalid address, or from one where the mailer is unable to promptly complete the mailing, the mailer responds with an error report or a status report to BOTH addresses appearing in the message. One address is yours. The other address is the IEEE listserver. So, when this occurs, as the message originator, you will see most of the error messages. (The listserver gets ALL of the error messages.) Roger and I review all these message bounces and test the suspect addresses. If the address is confirmed as invalid, we unsubscribe it from the listserver. So, it does not happen to everyone. Just to those who post messages. And to the administrators. I probably get 100 bounce messages per day. Most are duplicates. Out of those 100, only 5 or so are true invalid addresses. You responded to our request for help. One chore is to review all the bounce messages, test invalid addresses, and unsubscribe any confirmed invalid addresses. Best regards, Rich Rich Roger: I'm suddenly getting a flock of weird emails in my mailbox, all associated with the emc-pstc remailer. I seem to be getting notifications, direct from various servers (like at Underwriters Labs from Australia) of undeliverable remailer postings (for various reasons like full mailbox and unknown addressee). Is this happening to everyone? I have not modified anything that I know of. (I'm still using emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org as the posting address.) -- Name: Ed Price E-mail: ed.pr...@cubic.com Date: 3/24/97 Time: 7:44:51 AM -- -End of Original Message- -- Name: Ed Price E-mail: ed.pr...@cubic.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 3/25/97 Time: 7:23:01 AM --
RE: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic.
Hello all, I have been watching this discussion with interest and the phrase environmentally friendly keeps cropping up. Can any one tell me of any EU or indeed world standards that pertain to the recycling on plastic parts that have been coated for EMC purposes? -- From: Eric Petitpierre[SMTP:er...@smtplink.pulse.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 1997 3:18 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; SITARSKI,MICHAEL Cc: 250...@ovmail.kodak.com Subject:Re: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Michael, Just as I received your e-mail, I received a direct mail from Acheson Colloids Company. (1-800-255-1908). They can set you up with what they have for conductive coatings. I don't know how enviromentally friendly they are, though. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Author: ,SITARSKI,MICHAEL sitar...@kodak.com at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/21/97 4:42 PM To: OAS --MAILSERV Open Addressing cc: 250105 --LOCKOVM1 SITARSKI MICHAEL J From: Michael J. Sitarski, PMI - DMI, 35905, 1/3/EP, (72)6-3717 Internet: sitar...@kodak.com Fax: (716) 726-9453 KNET: 236-3717 Subject: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Greetings to all viewers. I have been monitoring this forum for some time and would like to take this opportunity to ask a question concerning coatings or platings for steel, aluminum and plastic. Does anyone know of any studies that may have been performed comparing various coatings on the three mentioned substrates that considers cost, conductivity and/or shielding effectiveness. Apparently some of the tried and true materials are coming under attack for environmental friendliness and suitable alternatives must be identified. I am aware of the use of zinc chromates, electroless nickel and copper as well as various paints. Any experiences out there with practicality, durability, cost and environmental friendliness. Thanks in advance for your comments. -Regards, | M.J. Sitarski, Environmental Regulatory Compliance | |*| - Knowledge is Power
Re: IEC 529 Hosedown Test
We fabricated our test equipment for the IEC 529 hosedown tests (IPX5 IPX6), but the nozzles can be obtained from: PTL Dr. Grabenhorst GmbH Industrielstrasse 15 D-8652 Stadtsteinach Germany Tel: 49 92 25 9 86 0 FAX: 49 92 25 9 86 40 They produce many types of IEC test equipment. We purchased our IPX3 / IPX4 spray test fixture from them. They are probably also available from Friborg in Sweden although I am not sure. Bill Lawrence, Factory Mutual Views expressed are personal, not corporate. At 07:50 3/21/97 -0500, you wrote: Does anyone know where to obtain equipment for doing IEC 529 Hosedown Test equipment? I don't have the Standard and am not sure how many different pieces may be needed. Regards, Jody Leber j...@ltgservices.com http://www.ltgservices.com LTG Services Suite 103 11940 Alpharetta Highway Alpharetta, GA 30201 (770)772-4299 Fax: (770)772-4297 Bill Lawrence South Yarmouth, MA 02664 wlawr...@capecod.net
