MOV's
Hello from San Diego, Does anyone know of components that will meet the requirements of EN60950 and also function as a MOV. The component will bridge basic insulation in a primary circuit. Thanks Judd Stewart Litton Data Systems 619.623.6639
optocoupler
Does anyone have knowledge of VDE 0884, 'optocouplers', and why it is more difficult to get approval to than UL1577 Optical Isolators? Particularly, the Dielectric withstand voltage required, and something about charge transfer between the emitter and detector. Thank you James Goedderz goedd...@sensormatic.com
Re: Comparative Tracking Index
Hi Rick: You ask about CTI for printed wiring boards, and typical values. According to the UL Yellow Book, CTI is indicated in volts. In glancing through the UL Yellow Book, very few board manufacturers have submitted their boards for CTI. The few that have submitted, have CTIs in the range of less than 100 up to about 250. A very few manufacturers can provide boards with CTI exceeding 600. Best regards, Rich Life is ours to be spent, not to be saved. -- D. H. Lawrence - Richard Nute Quality Department Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group San Diego Division (SDD) Tel : 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com -
Re: Comparative Tracking Index
Rick, Table 22.1 and clause 22 of UL 746A talk about CTI. The CTI is a voltage. UL 746C, clause 11 talks more about CTI. Clause 11.2 states that the comparative tracking voltage is an index and is not directly related to the suitable operating voltage in actual service. Clause 11.3 states that the CTI provides an indication of the relative track resistance of the material at voltages up to 600V. Regards, Frank Dominguez __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Comparative Tracking Index Author: Non-HP-rbusche (rbus...@es.com) at HP-Boise,mimegw150 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:2/19/98 11:23 AM IEC 950 defines CIT (comparative tracking index) in terms of material groups for the determination of creapage distance. Specifically groups I, II, IIIa and IIIb. are mentioned. In paragraph 2.9.3 (note 3) the actual index (CTI) is referred to as 600 or 400. My questions are as follows: 1. Is this CTI (as assigned by UL in the yellow book) actually a voltage level? 2. The FR4 laminate we use has been rated at 205. As such the maximum creapage distance is mandated. Is it common to find better material? Is this 205 level typical of common FR4 materials? Thanks Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com
Re: hi-pot testers
Hi Eric: You asked about hi-pot manufacturers with automated multiple testing. Here is a list of hi-pot and ground impedance test equipment manufacturers' web sites, including Associated Research, who you mentioned: Associated Research http://www.asresearch.com/ Vitrek (can be fully controlled by a PC) http://www.vitrek.com/ (Check out their new V3 multi-function tester.) Quadtech (formerly GenRad) http://www.quadtechinc.com/ Rod-L (requires a PC) http://www.rod-l.com/ Kikusui http://www.iijnet.or.jp/kikusui/index.htm Hypatia (ground resistance measuring equipment) http://www.leppo.com/~hypatiainc/ Best regards, Rich Courage is very important. Like a muscle, it is strengthened by use. -- Ruth Gordon - Richard Nute Quality Department Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group San Diego Division (SDD) Tel : 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com -
Comparative Tracking Index
IEC 950 defines CIT (comparative tracking index) in terms of material groups for the determination of creapage distance. Specifically groups I, II, IIIa and IIIb. are mentioned. In paragraph 2.9.3 (note 3) the actual index (CTI) is referred to as 600 or 400. My questions are as follows: 1. Is this CTI (as assigned by UL in the yellow book) actually a voltage level? 2. The FR4 laminate we use has been rated at 205. As such the maximum creapage distance is mandated. Is it common to find better material? Is this 205 level typical of common FR4 materials? Thanks Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com
Stripping Triple-insulated (Annex U) wire
We have been looking into various methods of stripping triple-insulated wire. Because of the high-temperature materials used (e.g. polyimide-wrapped with a teflon over-coat) and the degree of adhesion to the wire and between the layers, many traditional methods are unusable. Wire strippers and solder-pots are both useless. A lye-pot or equivalent is too dangerous. One manufacturer we have talked to recommends thermal wire strippers. Has anyone used these, and if so how well and how fast do they work? Does anyone have any other proven methods for stripping this type of wire? Thanks. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest.
Re: Antenna Correlation
Jim, You are correct in that a new set of antenna factors now must be generated for the 80 MHz tuned dipole covering the frequency range of 30 - 80 MHz. Tom Donnelly EMC Engineer Lucent Technologies tdonne...@lucent.com -Original Message- From: Jim Hulbert hulbe...@pb.com To: tdonne...@gpcl.ho.lucent.com tdonne...@gpcl.ho.lucent.com; emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 12:13 PM Subject: Re: Antenna Correlation Along the same line of discussion, what antenna factor is used when making radiated emissions measurements below 80 MHz in accordance with CISPR documents when the dipole antenna is tuned to 80 MHz? For example, if you are measuring an emission at 40 MHz with an antenna tuned to 80 MHz, do you apply the 40 MHz or 80 MHz antenna factor? It seems to me under these conditions of measuring one frequency while tuned to another that neither antenna factor is correct and that a new set of antenna factors needs to be determined for the 30 MHz to 80 MHz range with the antenna continuously tuned to 80 MHz. __ Jim HulbertTel:203-924-3621 Senior Engineer - EMC Fax:203-924-3352 Pitney Bowes email: hulbe...@pb.com P.O. Box 3000 35 Waterview Drive Shelton, CT 06484-8000 U.S.A.
Re: CD-Rom Drv for Note PC need CE Marking?.
If the CD-Rom does not have an external connection like a head phone jack then it will not need an FCC approval. It will need FDA DHHS approval for the laser and to get through customs in the US. If it is removable from the PC then it will need the CE mark. If it is built into the PC ( not removable ) then the CE mark for the PC would cover it. Hope this helps. Craig __ Reply Separator _ Subject: CD-Rom Drv for Note PC need CE Marking?. Author: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org at dell_unix List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:2/19/98 6:02 AM We need your advice. Model is CD-Rom Drv. -It is a CD-Rom Drv for Note PC. -It dons't be founded in retail outlets open to the general public.(So It isn't for sale) -It should be made suitable to special Note PC. (For example,suitable to SAMSUNG Note PC or COMPAQ Note PC) According to FCC Regulation,it doesn't necessary FCC Test. How about 89/336/EEC? Is it need a CE Marking? We waiting for your reply. Best regards, James Lee
Re: Antenna Correlation
Cortland, My comment is to a Latin sentence which according to my recollection should be: Morituri te salutant, meaning they who will die are greeting you. Gladiators greeted Imperior prior entering arena with lions. Greetings, Mirko -- From: Cortland Richmond To: TDonnelly; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: Antenna Correlation List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 10:09AM .. Let the games begin! (Te morituri salutamus) Cortland
Re: Antenna Correlation
Tom Donnelly wrote: When making measurements to CFR 47, Part 15, and using ANSI C63.4-1992 there are 2 requirements that conflict for measurements at lower frequencies. The first allows broadband antenna use as long as the results can be correlated to a 1/2 wave tuned dipole. The second requires a 1 to 4 meter height scan. At lower frequencies where the tuned length of the dipole exceeds that which would allow use of a 1 meter lower limit a conflict occurs as the dipole cannot go down to 1 meter. When broadband antennas are used at these lower frequencies, and a 1 meter lower limit is utilized, the result cannot be correlated to the dipole. The only way to establish the required correlation is to adjust the lower limit of the height scan range to that which would be utilized by a dipole. The key here is that both antenna must be electrically centered near the same elevation. There is no requirement for changing antenna factors with polarization, either, so a correlation good enough for horizontal polarization seems quite good enough to meet the requirement specified. Ground problems with dipoles are well known, and should render the dipole less desirable as its impedance (horizontal) and balance (vertical) vary with proximity to ground. Regardless of the ability of a dipole to fit into the space available, *we still need to know the field strength* at that location. Victim devices are rarely as large as the dipoles we're talking about, after all. The objection to using a biconical or other small antenna at low heights seems based on a misconception that since the standard antenna can't fit into the situation, even if we have an established correlation (free space or horizontal) we have to settle for what the standard would measure if it were there. But standards are often not applicable to field measurements. This will typically produce a lower measured level as you noted, however I do not believe this will cause the regulatory evaluation problems as you pointed out. That does depend on whether a regulatory agency measures field strength at the low elevation or ignores it, doesn't it? Since the date which the original message was posted I had a detailed conversation with Joe McNulte at the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology. He concurred with the need to establish correlation and restrict the height scan of broadband antennas accordingly. This is NOT a good approach. It does create a blind spot for fields in some circumstances, which cannot be what the Commission really wants. It will also hinder acceptance of mutual agreements with other authorities, who do not observe the same restriction. Keep in mind there is an underlying premise to the FCC/ANSI standards that everything should correlate back to a predictable set of conditions (measurements on an OATS with dipole antennas). You are allowed to test in an anechoic chamber of GTEM as long as you can correlate your results to an OATS, you can use broadband antennas as long as you can correlate your results to 1/2 wave tuned dipoles. The nature of that correlation is what we are talking about. The implications of the way correlation is obtained go well beyond Part 15 OATS testing. I'd not want to be the person who tried to convince anyone that RADHAZ potential could only be measured at a position where a vertical dipole could fit. But physics being what it is, there seems no way to defend one measurement method for one thing, and another for a different. Volts per meter should be the same regardless. When testing to the CISPR family of documents (including the harmonized versions) an 80 MHz tuned dipole is called out for testing at frequencies 80 MHz of below. Again a broadband antenna is allowed but now the results must be correlated to the 80 MHz tuned dipole at these frequencies. Using a 80 MHz tuned dipole the need to restrict the lower limit of the height scan is not required. As with the 1/2 wave tuned dipole I have found the best correlation occurs when the electrical centers of the antennas are near the same elevation. Yes, this seems a much more logical approach. It allows measuring fields pretty much where they are. However, it does differ greatly from the FCC's approach to a standard antenna, and (as I mentioned) means items tested to the FCC approach may well exhibit emissions higher than Part 15 methods restricted (for vertical polarization) to 3.5 to 4 meters elevation. This is not a new discussion -- as you know! -- and if I seem to confuse this one with OATS attenuation measurements, it's because that's where I've had it in the past. We need to keep our eyes on the target, which is to know what fields exist at locations where victim devices might be --and this includes near the surface, and at lower frequencies, and at places where a full-sized, vertically polarized dipole could not fit. Let the games begin! (Te morituri salutamus) Cortland
Re: Harmonics Flicker Presentation, 10 Feb, Sunnyvale CA
Sorry that it doesn't include the spoken word but the following provides the overheads shown at the above Harmonics/Flicker meeting:- http://www.emisoft.co.uk/special/harmonics/index.htm Regards Andy Griffin __ EMiSoft Limited - Test and Assessment Software Solutions Uk Tel +44 (0)468 188244 Uk Fax +44 (0)1793 522214 USA Tel/Fax +408 356 1980 Emailagrif...@emisoft.co.uk Web http://www.emisoft.co.uk EMC Seminars http://www.emisoft.co.uk/special/links/index.htm __
CD-Rom Drv for Note PC need CE Marking?.
We need your advice. Model is CD-Rom Drv. -It is a CD-Rom Drv for Note PC. -It dons't be founded in retail outlets open to the general public.(So It isn't for sale) -It should be made suitable to special Note PC. (For example,suitable to SAMSUNG Note PC or COMPAQ Note PC) According to FCC Regulation,it doesn't necessary FCC Test. How about 89/336/EEC? Is it need a CE Marking? We waiting for your reply. Best regards, James Lee
RE: What CE marks are required for what products?
Herber, Your question has not an easy answer. In fact, the only solution I know is a software my company has developed for the Regional Government in the South of Spain, and it includes general information about European New Approach Directives (CE Directives), their certification procedures and a guide to determine which Directives apply to any product through questions and answers. That software had a free distribution in this region, but the owner is the Industrial Direction of the Andalucia Regional Government (Spain). If you are interested on it, you should contact with the owner (I can give you their address). Unfortunately, it is only in Spanish. Juan Pedro Peña Director del Área de Seguridad // Electrical Safety Area Director CETECOM (CENTRO DE TECNOLOGÍA DE LAS COMUNICACIONES, S.A.) Parque Tecnológico de Andalucía C/ Severo Ochoa, 2. 29590 Campanillas (Málaga) Tel.: +34 5 261 9100 - Fax.: +34 5 261 9113 e-mail: jpp...@cetecom.es Web: http://www.cetecom.es/ -- De: Farnsworth, Heber[SMTP:hfarn...@physio-control.com] Enviado el: miércoles 18 de febrero de 1998 20:58 Para: pstc Post Message (E-mail) Asunto: What CE marks are required for what products? How can a person determine what products need CE marks, and to what directives? Pointers to guidance documents please. Example: We make medical devices. But of course, we also sell wall brackets, carts, tote bags, interconnect cables, printer paper, batteries and chargers, electrodes and sensors, etc... Which of them need CE marks, and to what directives? I am familiar with the scopes of the Medical Device Directive, the EMC directive, the Low Voltage directive and a couple others. It's what I don't know that can bite me. ___ Heber Farnsworth, P.E. Physio-Control Corp, Seattle, USA
Re: Coupling Capacitors 950
In a posting dated 98-02-18, Rich Nute writes: I am assuming that the capacitors are connected between mains and secondary circuits. (If they are connected between a high-voltage secondary and a low-voltage secondary, then this discussion does not apply.) Such capacitors would be Y capacitors in the IEC scheme, or UL-Recognizied capacitors in the UL scheme. Rich: I am interested in your parenthetical remark about the case where the capacitors are bridging the barrier between two secondary circuits. I have been having trouble getting a definitive answer regarding a special case of this situation. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. For telecom applications, EN 60950 requires basic insulation between a TNV-3 circuit (regular phone line) and a SELV circuit, per clause 6.2.1.2. A TNV-3 circuit is, by definition, a secondary circuit (clause 1.2.8.8). My question is, what requirements apply to capacitors which bridge the basic insulation barrier between TNV-3 and SELV? Two interpretations have been presented to me: 1) The capacitors simply have to meet the required dielectric strength test and provide the required creepage/clearance between their terminals. 2) The capacitors must be safety rated Y2 caps. Initially, my interpretation was #1 above. I believe that UL has a similar view. However, I am told that BABT has adopted interpretation #2. Reportedly, they justify this by pointing to EN 60950 clause 1.5.1, which says that where safety is involved, components shall comply with the requirements for this standard or the safety aspects of the relevant IEC component standard. This leads them to require that the capacitors comply with IEC 384-14. However, my view is that IEC 384-14 is not relevant to this case, because IEC 384-14 is directed at capacitors which bridge the barrier from a *primary* circuit. Note 1 in clause 1.5.1 of EN 60950 states that an IEC component standard is considered relevant only if the component in question clearly falls within its scope. I do not think that capacitors which bridge two secondary circuits fall within the scope of IEC 384-14. The difference between interpretations 1 and 2 has great significance for designers of phone line interfaces. In many of today's space-constrained products (such as PCMCIA card modems), it is often difficult or impossible to use Y2 caps to bridge the barrier. The use of interpretation 2 effectively eliminates certain design approaches that might otherwise be considered. Can you comment on this issue, and describe your interpretation of what requirements apply? I would also be interested to hear from any other emc- pstc members who may have comments on this subject. Thanks for any insight you can provide. Joe Randolph Randolph Telecom, Inc.
Re: CE Marking in Canada???
Diverging only slightly from the topic, I've noted that Canadian customers are the most vocal and insistent on CSA or C-UL approvals on electrical equipment they buy from us, presumably products used in the workplace. I'm left with the opinion that Canadian workplace safety is either (1) more aggressively enforced, or (2) more adamantly sought by employers for liability protection. Likely the former (1) dominates as well as (2) being a factor. I'd like to add a bit of clarification, if I may. The product safety legal requirements in Canada differ significantly from those of the USA. Canada has legal requirements that are uniform across the country. This applies not only to the workplace, but all locations. You can not sell these products anywhere in Canada, unless they are certified. The USA on the other hand, does not have any uniform, country-wide legal requirements, except for the work-place requirements of OSHA (NRTL certification). Certain states, cities and counties have their own regulations, which may, or may not, be equivalent. Other localities may have their own unique requirements. Many jurisdictions require certification to UL standards; others have different requirements (eg. the State of Oregon will accept CSA certified products in lieu of UL). Yet other localities may have no regulations at all. So the only uniform requirement in the USA is the work-place related OSHA NRTL program, while in Canada the regulations apply uniformly, regardless of where the product is used. And, from feedback I've received on two occasions, the customers are somewhat annoyed by having to schedule/pay a CSA inspector to make that special visit to personally evaluate the safety merits of a product on-site. The resulting cost, so I've been told, is about $600. (Canadian $, I presume.) Plus, of course, the delay in use of the product that is incurred when inspection is required. Yes, but please note that this is only applicable to products that are sent to Canada without the required certification. There is no need for on-site inspection of certified products. (Yes, there are some minor exceptions, such as medical equipment installations in hospitals, and also major electrical installations such as a large computer mainframe). On-site certification (Special Inspection and Special Acceptance) are intended for small volume shipments of uncertified products. Examples include such things as a large priting press sold to some newspaper, or a large electric motor sold to a wood mill; products that are more economically certified on-site, rather than type-approved, since the sale only involves a very few units. These on-site programs are also an option for getting products on the market quickly, while awaiting completion of the certification process (ie. panic-mode, poor advance planning :-) I contrast, I get notably fewer requests from USA customers for UL approvals. Considering the relative sizes of our two countries, does this not speak poorly for workplace safety/OSHA enforcement in the USA? Regards, Egon Varju
Re: CE Marking in Canada???
Diverging only slightly from the topic, I've noted that Canadian customers are the most vocal and insistent on CSA or C-UL approvals on electrical equipment they buy from us, presumably products used in the workplace. I'm left with the opinion that Canadian workplace safety is either (1) more aggressively enforced, or (2) more adamantly sought by employers for liability protection. Likely the former (1) dominates as well as (2) being a factor. And, from feedback I've received on two occasions, the customers are somewhat annoyed by having to schedule/pay a CSA inspector to make that special visit to personally evaluate the safety merits of a product on-site. The resulting cost, so I've been told, is about $600. (Canadian $, I presume.) Plus, of course, the delay in use of the product that is incurred when inspection is required. I contrast, I get notably fewer requests from USA customers for UL approvals. Considering the relative sizes of our two countries, does this not speak poorly for workplace safety/OSHA enforcement in the USA? Eric Lifsey National Instruments ray_russ...@leco.com on 02/18/98 09:21:54 AM Please respond to ray_russ...@leco.com To: emc-pstc emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: Re: CE Marking in Canada??? Another possible explanation is that Canada still does field inspections by the local Hydro or CSA office. It is possible to submit information, such as test reports, construction data, ect. ask the local Engineer to review the product and sell product into the country. This works well especially when the products are low volume and fall under harmonized standards such as 950, or 1010. Ray Russell ray_russ...@leco.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: CE Marking in Canada??? Author: Egon H. Varju eva...@compuserve.com at INTERNET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:2/18/98 8:00 PM One of our suppliers has told us that they are allowed to ship products into Canada using the CE mark in-lieu of the normal approval marks such as CSA, cUL, etc. Does anyone have any information on this? Sounds like a case of acute wishful thinking. Though certainly a future possibility, alas, at this time the CE mark is only applicable to (some) European countries. Canadian regulations require certification to Canadian standards (usually CSA standards). Regards, Egon Varju
Re: Coupling Capacitors 950
Hi Frank: You ask about testing requirements for capacitors bridging a safety insulation. I am assuming that the capacitors are connected between mains and secondary circuits. (If they are connected between a high-voltage secondary and a low-voltage secondary, then this discussion does not apply.) Such capacitors would be Y capacitors in the IEC scheme, or UL-Recognizied capacitors in the UL scheme. If the capacitors bear a certification mark (e.g., SEMKO or UL), then the capacitors have been appropriately tested and comply with the IEC 384-14 requirements for double/reinforced insulation, or with UL 1414 equivalently. As such, no further testing of the capacitors is necessary. If the capacitors do not bear a certification mark, then it is appropriate to test the capacitors per the applicable standard, IEC 384-14 or UL 1414. (I doubt ordinary capacitors will pass these tests!) After the capacitors are installed in the end-product, end-product tests should be conducted. These would include: hi-pot (a function of the lead spacings and body position) leakage current (a function of the capacitance value) If I have made the wrong assumptions, let me know the particulars and I will try again! Best regards, Rich Champions keep playing until they get it right. -- Billie Jean King - Richard Nute Quality Department Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group San Diego Division (SDD) Tel : 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com -
Just a Reminder for the Santa Clara PSTC February Meeting
Santa Clara Product Safety Technical Committee (PSTC), February 24 March 24, 1998 Meeting Notices Please mark you calendar and join us for the following meetings: List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: February 24, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. Topic: SEMI S2 Speaker: Mr. Andrew McIntyre Location: Hewlett Packard, 19447 Prunridge Ave. Cupertino CA, Bldg. 48, Oakroom PRESENTATION: Mr. Andrew McIntyre of Global Semiconductor Safety Services (GS3) has volunteered to be the speaker on the topic of SEMI S2 on February 24th PSTC meeting. SPEAKER: Andy McIntyre is a Certified Industrial Hygienist and is one of the more recognized semiconductor safety professional in the semiconductor industry. GS3 (a joint venture between ETL and EORM) is probably the most recognized S2 assessing body in the semiconductor industry and has already conducted numerous S2 training to a number of semiconductor equipment manufacturers. Should you need a map, please get in touch with me and I will be happy to send you one. Looking forward to seeing you at the meeting. Also, If you are interest in a topic please let me know. We still have a few opening for next year's presentations. DINNER: If you are interested in joining the speaker for dinner at El Torito's (by Vallco Fashion Park at Wolfe and Hwy 280), it will be at 5:30 p.m. RSVP to Kamran Mohajer. List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: March 24, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. Topic: Joint System Safety and PSTC Meeting, Topic will be announced later Speaker: Will be announced later Location: Hewlett Packard, 19447 Prunridge Ave. Cupertino CA, Bldg. 48, Oakroom Kamran Mohajer, M.S. Staff Engineer NeTpower Inc., 545 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Tel:408-522-5185 Fax:408-522-4135 kamran_moha...@netpower.com
