Re: EN 55102
David Gelfand wrote: Has anybody heard of this? I tried searching CENELEC site but got nowhere. Thanks, David. David ENV 55102-1 and ENV 55102-2 were withdrawn in April 1996. They were for emission and immunity, respectively, for ISDN terminal equipment. The V in ENV means that they were pre-standards, not full ENs. Best wishes Brian Jones - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
EN 55102
Has anybody heard of this? I tried searching CENELEC site but got nowhere. Thanks, David. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Re: warning label overkill?
I withdraw my comments. I was not aware of any champagne related injures and I open a bottle almost every Sunday. Thank you for enlightened me. Hint for the less experienced: Warm champagne will project the cork with much greater force. Always chill the bottle for 24 hours before opening. Of course I thought this was common knowledge, and apparently it is not. Ron Duffy Agilent Technologies Product Safety Engineer. -Original Message- From: antonio.saro...@fer.hr [mailto:antonio.saro...@fer.hr] Sent: Sunday, 05 December, 1999 05:28 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: antonio.saro...@fer.hr Subject: FW: Re: warning label overkill? Well, it happenned to me earlier this year. We were still celebrating the new year 1999, when a friend brought a bottle of champagne. As I reached to open it (barely touched it), the cork (not really a cork but a plastic version of it) launched itself from the distance of about 1/2 meter right into my left eye. I have never believed such thing could happen. For a short time I thought I was the only loser this could happen to. But eventually, as I told my story to other people, I heard this was not an uncommon thing. Someone told me of a forehead injury, another friend's friend lost an eye, and I heard of a table set for the dinner when corks started flying without anyone touching them. I have also seen children champagne (non alcohol version for children celebrations!!!) corks flying up to 10 meters away! I know my children won't play with it! Oh yes, my left eye was OK after a month or two. If I lived in the US, I would surely use the legal system to sue. In fact, advices on that subject are welcome. Drinking sure is a risky business. Regards all, Antonio Antonio Sarolic Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing Dept. of Radiocommunications and Microwave Engineering Unska 3, HR-1 Zagreb CROATIA tel. +385 1 61 29 789, fax. +385 1 61 29 717 E-mail: antonio.saro...@fer.hr - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Re: warning label overkill?
You are always right when you play the safety card. I question a company having to defend itself against safety issues that are recognizable with a little common sense. Should we put warnings on automobiles because if you run into something stationary you will be injured, or a warning on a gun? I did recall a 60 Minutes episode where a ladder manufacturer lost a case when a farmer had placed the ladder in a cold manure pile, when the sun warmed the manure the ladder slipped and injured the farmer. The ladder manufacturer said on 60 Minutes Maybe I need to place a warning about the viscosity of cow manure. I hope you get where I am coming from. I think we as responsible individuals have some responsibility in our safety. -Original Message- From: ral...@igs.net [mailto:ral...@igs.net] Sent: Friday, 03 December, 1999 14:29 To: ron_du...@agilent.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; sobe...@fdanews.com Subject: FW: Re: warning label overkill? Hi Ron: In the interest of safety, why place the onus on the consumer when he/she had nothing to do with the design? Ralph Cameron - Original Message - From: ron_du...@agilent.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; sobe...@fdanews.com Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 6:40 AM Subject: RE: warning label overkill? I agree. I question the warning on champagne bottles. I mean anybody that reaches legal drinking age knows a champagne cork can become a projectile. This is a prime example of shifting the responsibility from the responsible person to the manufacturer. Ron Duffy Product Safety Engineer Aiglent Technologies -Original Message- From: sobe...@fdanews.com [mailto:sobe...@fdanews.com] Sent: Thursday, 02 December, 1999 14:14 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FW: warning label overkill? Serious question even though this involves a non-electrical product: at what point do warning labels undermine themselves? I was surprised to find this warning label on a 20 oz bottle of Dr. Pepper. It seems to be unique to that brand -- Coke, Pepsi and whatnot don't seem to carry it. ! WARNING (exclamation point is inside a triangle) CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE. CAP MAY BLOW OFF CAUSING EYE OR OTHER SERIOUS INJURY. POINT AWAY FROM FACE AND PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHILE OPENING. It didn't seem to be any more carbonated than the Cokes I usually buy. I can see the point of such labels on Champaign with the corks that often become projectiles. But the physics of a screw-off soda bottle cap just doesn't seem to have the same ballistic potential. (I know, I know, the GC made them do it. But still.) -- Sean Oberle Vice President of New Products Washington Business Information, Inc. 1117 N 19th St, Ste 200, Arlington, VA 22209 Voice: 703/247-3429; Fax: 703/247-3421 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: antenna and cable for 2.4GHz
I checked out the referenced web site. Not a whole lot of information, but I gleaned the following. Since the application is WAN/LAN, the antenna must be a low directivity broadcast type, probably a quarter wave stub or similar device. At 2.4 GHz, this amounts to 31 mm, or 1 1/4 . A quarter wave stub looks approximately like a 35 Ohm load. Not too bad a match to 50 Ohms. I suppose you could shorten it up a bit to increase the load, but it becomes capacitive when you do that. Still not sure about the 30 dB pad. Is this when you are connecting together two PCMCIA cards without the intervening loss associated with the rf link? In any case, I don't know of any kind of coax that would provide 30 dB of attenuation with a reasonable length. For example, you would need almost 100' (30 m) of RG-58 to get 30 dB attenuation. Better off to use a 30 dB pad. As long as transmit power is low, this is a minor addition. -- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@grucad.ufsc.br To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com Cc: Lista de EMC da IEEE emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: antenna and cable for 2.4GHz Date: Mon, Dec 6, 1999, 4:59 AM in detail the board details: http://www.mcc.com/projects - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
EU Mandate for EMF Standards for LVD
Attached is a mandate from the Commission to the EU standards bodies. The LVD will soon have EMF standards! EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Industrial affairs II: Capital goods industries Mechanical engineering and electrical engineering Brussels, 9 November 1999 D1/JR-mt M/032 Revision 1 DRAFT STANDARDISATION MANDATE ADDRESSED TO CEN, CENELEC AND ETSI IN THE FIELD OF ELECTROTECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS Title Harmonised standards covering the safety aspects of electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) generated by apparatus included in the scope of either the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/EEC (LVD) or the Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (RTTE) Directive 1999/5/EC. Purpose To draft European standards define the safety requirements to protect human beings from hazardous effects which may be caused by exposure to electromagnetic waves, emitted by electrical apparatus. These standards are intended to become harmonised standards giving a presumption of conformity to Article 2 of Directive 73/23/EEC and Article 3.1.a of Directive 1999/5/EC. Introduction Over a number of years there has been ongoing research in determining the effects on the human body of exposure to electromagnetic fields. In addition efforts have also been made to establish reproducible and reliable measurement and calculation methods for the physical quantities describing the electromagnetic field. Electrical apparatus creates electromagnetic fields. The majority of these apparatus falls under the scope of the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/EEC and the RTTE Directive 1999/5/EC. Risks, caused by these phenomena are covered by the Low Voltage Directive (see justification below). The RTTE Directive extends the applicability of the safety objectives and requirements of the LVD to equipment, which is in its scope but not in the scope of the LVD. It further enables a single conformity assessment for all requirements. In July 1999 a Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) was adopted. It is an update of the previously issued mandate M/032. The update takes into account the change of directive for Telecommunication Terminal Equipment from 91/263/EEC to the Radio Equipment Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive 99/5/EC. The scope of the mandate is broader and now covers the products covered by the Directive 73/23/EEC and the phenomena described in Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC. Justification Legal Basis This standardisation mandate falls within the framework of the Low Voltage Directive and the RTTE Directive and refers to products covered by these directives. Article 2 of Directive 73/23/EEC stipulates that Member States have to take all appropriate measures to ensure that electrical equipment may be placed on the market only if, having been constructed in accordance with good engineering practice in safety matters in force in the Community, it does not endanger the safety of persons, domestic animals or property when properly installed and maintained and used in applications for which it is intended. The principal elements of the safety objectives are listed in Annex I of Directive 73/23/EEC. In this case clause 2b is applicable: Measures of a technical nature should be prescribed in accordance with point 1 (of Annex I of Directive 73/23/EEC), in order to ensure that temperatures, arcs or radiation which would cause a danger, are not produced. Article 3 of Directive 1999/5/EC stipulates that the following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus: (a) the protection of the health and the safety of the user and any other person, including the objectives with respect to safety requirements contained in Directive 73/23/EEC, but with no voltage limit applying. In the introduction of Recommendation 1999/519/EC it is stated that whereas: (12) In order to assess compliance with the basic restrictions provided in this recommendation, the national and European bodies for standardisation (e.g. CENELEC, CEN) should be encouraged to develop standards within the framework of Community legislation for the purposes of the design and testing of equipment; Status of the original mandate Under the first version of this mandate (M/032) CEN, CENELEC and ETSI were entrusted to develop standards covering the so-called thermal effects of radiocommunications equipment operating in the most commonly used frequency ranges, notably including the frequency ranges used by GSM. In addition to M/032 the three bodies were entrusted with a programming mandate to assess the need to develop harmonised standards covering other effects (M/033).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
Just to provide a balance here: My father is Professor of Pathology at Surrey University in England. He has been involved in cancer research for most of his professional life. I have grilled (metaphorically) him on this issue. To date, he belives that there is no conclusive evidence of cell phones and damage to human tissues -Original Message- From: b...@anritsu.com [mailto:b...@anritsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 10:35 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? I think the most important point made by the article of Is your cell phone killing you? in Zdnn is this: We found evidence of genetic damage in human blood, said George Carlo, WTR's chairman. We have suggestions of excessive mortality from brain cancers among wireless phone users, and we have very clear evidence of a statistically significant higher risk of neuroepithelial tumors. ... and Many signs point to DNA damage as the likely culprit. Adey has found a link between low-intensity microwaves and DNA damage in rat brain cells. It is not important, on the other hand, whether or what analogy exists between Microwave fields from cell phone and silicone breast implants, tobacco, and Low Frequency EM Fields from power lines. If we already have very reliable statistic data showing the hazard to cell phone users. Let's try to prevent the damage first before finding the real biological mechanism behind the damage. Barry Ma -- From: geor...@lexmark.com, on 11/30/99 12:13 PM: The referenced article ponders why there might be a health effect if there is little or no heating of human tissue. The present standards for safe levels of RFR for the Western world are predicated on the assumption that biological effects are only due to the heating effect. There have been many published articles about cancers caused by those who worked with or near high powered X-ray or radar equipment that can effect heating of body tissues. In fact, RF generators have been used over patients arms or legs to intentionally apply heat therapy to the inner portions of these limbs. Oddly, only Russia focused on the possible biological effects of long term exposure to low level radiation. As a result, they set limits that were two orders of magnitude below those of the Western world. The truth is that no one knows what the health effects might be from long term exposure to low level radiation. As some have pointed out, distance is a critical element of exposure. Cellphone antenna are often virtually touching the users skull. Even with very low RF power out, they can produce levels within the head that are far higher than that from radio and TV transmitters that are a mile or so away. It is a recent phenomena for the average person to be exposed to long term low level radiation via the use of cheap personal transmitters. Even laborers who have used two way radios for decades did not spend the same time with the antenna pressed to their face as the typical cellphone user. Only time and more studies will reveal the truth. However, once all of the class action money has been rung out of the tobacco companies, do not be surprised if next BIG class action suits head in the direction of cellphone users. George Alspaugh -- On Tue, 30 November 1999, rbus...@es.com wrote: The following article was presented this morning on ZDNET with regard to the safety of Cell phones. Thought some of you might be interested. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2401220,00.html - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: NRTL recommendation required
Your choice of NRTL my be dictated by your customer. Otherwise, the choice is yours. We had some trouble with UL in the far past when they were very arrogant, so we moved to a different NRTL. UL has changed and we found them generally to be customer friendly and responsive, so we moved back a few years ago with no major problems since. UL has many standards including one for equipment for non-patient contact use in hospitals. However, I recommend that you use UL 1950 if it applies. Otherwise try using another IEC based standard. UL may try to tell you that you must use a particular standard. Don't take that for granted. If you feel strongly that a different standard applies, go up the chain of command in UL. Richard Woods -- From: Nick Williams [SMTP:n...@conformance.co.uk] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 6:32 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: NRTL recommendation required I've been asked to look at a piece of equipment for shipping to the US, and give some recommendations on what approval would be best for the equipment. I'm not at liberty to give great detail but I can say that the apparatus is for use in hospitals, but not in contact with patients - it is medical physics engineering related, not treatment or diagnostic equipment. Expected volumes are a few thousand units per year. I'm aware of recent threads on the 'requirements' for NRTL approval for equipment sold in the US, and I'm not looking to re-open the discussion over whether or not this is a legal necessity. Suffice to say that the client believes that some form of approval will be required for marketing reasons if no other. I could, of course, just go to UL with this and as them to give me price and time scale for an approval. I've dealt with several UL approvals in the past so I'm familiar with the issues of the process, including, of course, cost and time scale. What I am not familiar with, and where I would appreciate advice from readers, is whether UL are the best people to deal with this sort of equipment, and whether or not there are other NRTL's who are better recognised in the medical physics marketplace. Also, if there are potential cost and time scale advantages to be had by going to someone else I'd like to know about them. All replies on this topic will be treated with confidence so if readers want to make private comments by e-mailing me directly please feel free to do so. This is not intended to be an exercise un UL-bashing - I simply want some reasonably impartial advice from people who have used NRTL approvals as to who might be the best people to deal with. Replies from labs themselves would also be welcome, but might I suggest that these come to me direct without being copied to the mailing list lest they be misinterpreted as advertising. Thanks in anticipation Nick. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
The following comment is being forwarded on behalf of a fellow engineer who is not on this list -Original Message- I read a Science News article about using electric current pulses (conducted or induced) in human tissues to promote healing. Frequency and pulse shape are critical. Wrong frequency or shape is detrimental to healing. This technique is targeted to bone mostly and is used for arthritis and fracture treatment - but Europe is using it for immune system treatment as well. Another thought food. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: NRTL recommendation required
Sounds like Laboratory Equipment, you have NRTL options, but certainly none better recognized than UL. -Original Message- From: Nick Williams n...@conformance.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:26 AM Subject: NRTL recommendation required I've been asked to look at a piece of equipment for shipping to the US, and give some recommendations on what approval would be best for the equipment. I'm not at liberty to give great detail but I can say that the apparatus is for use in hospitals, but not in contact with patients - it is medical physics engineering related, not treatment or diagnostic equipment. Expected volumes are a few thousand units per year. I'm aware of recent threads on the 'requirements' for NRTL approval for equipment sold in the US, and I'm not looking to re-open the discussion over whether or not this is a legal necessity. Suffice to say that the client believes that some form of approval will be required for marketing reasons if no other. I could, of course, just go to UL with this and as them to give me price and time scale for an approval. I've dealt with several UL approvals in the past so I'm familiar with the issues of the process, including, of course, cost and time scale. What I am not familiar with, and where I would appreciate advice from readers, is whether UL are the best people to deal with this sort of equipment, and whether or not there are other NRTL's who are better recognised in the medical physics marketplace. Also, if there are potential cost and time scale advantages to be had by going to someone else I'd like to know about them. All replies on this topic will be treated with confidence so if readers want to make private comments by e-mailing me directly please feel free to do so. This is not intended to be an exercise un UL-bashing - I simply want some reasonably impartial advice from people who have used NRTL approvals as to who might be the best people to deal with. Replies from labs themselves would also be welcome, but might I suggest that these come to me direct without being copied to the mailing list lest they be misinterpreted as advertising. Thanks in anticipation Nick. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Paper manual - CD-ROM manual
Hi all, We have a product which is under the following standards: Low-voltage directive EN 60950 Teleterminal directive TBR 003 (ISDN) EMC directive FCC part 15 and 68 (and other world wide approvals) The equipment is very simple: no user access inside equipment auto ranging PSU 100 - 240 Vac no external user accessible fuse We have a discusion about the manual. As I see it we don't have to provide a paper manual/quick guide, the CD-ROM manual which include all FCC text and other tech. data should be enough. But some pepole in the firm have always delivered a paper quick guide and will not accept a CD only. Can anyone help me in finding requirements for a paper version. (EN 60950 1.7.2 Safety Instructions; say If it is necessary...) Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen i-data international Denmark - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: antenna and cable for 2.4GHz
Ken, Cortland et al. I've found a link that explains in detail the board details: http://www.mcc.com/projects/mosc/TVMS-13.html I'll keep trying to get more details... Muriel Ken Javor wrote: I know it's impolite to answer a question with a question (let alone a host of questions), but... What is this for? Do you need gain (directivity)? If so, how much? How much bandwidth? A quarter wave stub gives you broadcast coverage, with little gain and relatively sharply tuned. A logperiodic can give a lot more gain and a lot of bandwidth. A horn gives sub-octave bandwidth, but potentially more gain. Does the 30 dB attenuation have to be inherent in the coax, or can you use an external pad? Answer these questions, and I can tell you exactly what to get. -- 8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-) Muriel Bittencourt de Liz, M.Sc. - EMC Engineer GRUCAD - Group for Conception Analysis of Electromagnetic Devices Santa Catarina Federal University - UFSC PO Box: 476 ZIP: 88040-900 - Florianópolis - SC - BRAZIL Phone: +55.48.331.9649 - Fax: +55.48.234.3790 e-mail: mur...@grucad.ufsc.br ICQ#: 9089332 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
NRTL recommendation required
I've been asked to look at a piece of equipment for shipping to the US, and give some recommendations on what approval would be best for the equipment. I'm not at liberty to give great detail but I can say that the apparatus is for use in hospitals, but not in contact with patients - it is medical physics engineering related, not treatment or diagnostic equipment. Expected volumes are a few thousand units per year. I'm aware of recent threads on the 'requirements' for NRTL approval for equipment sold in the US, and I'm not looking to re-open the discussion over whether or not this is a legal necessity. Suffice to say that the client believes that some form of approval will be required for marketing reasons if no other. I could, of course, just go to UL with this and as them to give me price and time scale for an approval. I've dealt with several UL approvals in the past so I'm familiar with the issues of the process, including, of course, cost and time scale. What I am not familiar with, and where I would appreciate advice from readers, is whether UL are the best people to deal with this sort of equipment, and whether or not there are other NRTL's who are better recognised in the medical physics marketplace. Also, if there are potential cost and time scale advantages to be had by going to someone else I'd like to know about them. All replies on this topic will be treated with confidence so if readers want to make private comments by e-mailing me directly please feel free to do so. This is not intended to be an exercise un UL-bashing - I simply want some reasonably impartial advice from people who have used NRTL approvals as to who might be the best people to deal with. Replies from labs themselves would also be welcome, but might I suggest that these come to me direct without being copied to the mailing list lest they be misinterpreted as advertising. Thanks in anticipation Nick. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
re: Warning Label Overkill
[with various snips] I was surprised to find this warning label... CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE. CAP MAY BLOW OFF CAUSING EYE OR OTHER SERIOUS INJURY. POINT AWAY FROM FACE AND PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHILE OPENING. But the physics of a screw-off soda bottle cap just doesn't seem to have the same ballistic potential. Sean Oberle Sadly they do: a friend of my mother has lost the sight in one eye from a fizzy drink screw-on cap that come off with projectile force when undone. Let's hope proper design (the thread slots Ray Corson/ Richard Nute referenced) overcomes the need for warnings in most products, as there are so many now days that I'm sure we've become blind to them (no pun intended). Regards, Mark -- Mark Hone Wellman CJB Limited Email: m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk Airport Service Road Tel: +44 (0)2392 629239 (Direct) Portsmouth, HampshireTel: +44 (0)2392 664911 PO3 5PG, ENGLAND Fax: +44 (0)2392 697864 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: warning label overkill?
Sean, Serious question even though this involves a non-electrical product: at what point do warning labels undermine themselves? This is a good question. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to answer. One of the biggest problems is that response to warning labels varies greatly depending on the viewer's age, education and cultural background. It didn't seem to be any more carbonated than the Cokes I usually buy. I can see the point of such labels on Champaign with the corks that often become projectiles. But the physics of a screw-off soda bottle cap just doesn't seem to have the same ballistic potential. (I know, I know, the GC made them do it. But still.) Contrary to what you might think, these caps do have ballistic potential. To read an opinion on one of these suits, follow the link below. Caution! The information at the end of this link may cause drowsiness. Do not design equipment while reading. http://www.trinity.edu/departments/business_admin/lone2.htm Roughly, the points of interest: In 1976 a witness for ALCOA testified that from 1967 to 1975, thirty four personal injury law suits were filed against ALCOA (cap blow off). One of the main points of contention during the subsequent trial (and appeals) was to determine if ALCOA had done its duty to inform the final user of the possible hazard of cap blowoff. Since ALCOA was not the actual manufacturer (manufacturing was performed based on their patented design) - could they really make sure that the final user was informed? No. But what must they do convince a jury that they tried to make sure the user was informed? One of the judges felt that if ALCOA had made a contract with the manufacturer/bottler - requiring the man. to include a (proper?) warning on the bottle - ALCOA would be performing its duty to inform. So what does this mean now? If there is an injury from blowoff, everyone pays (liability is not avoided by labelling). However, if there is a warning label, everyone probably pays less. I was surprised to find this warning label on a 20 oz bottle of Dr. Pepper. It seems to be unique to that brand -- Coke, Pepsi and whatnot don't seem to carry it. Maybe it was not Dr. Pepper's desire to put the label on. Maybe the designer of the closure system required it. ! WARNING (exclamation point is inside a triangle) CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE. CAP MAY BLOW OFF CAUSING EYE OR OTHER SERIOUS INJURY. POINT AWAY FROM FACE AND PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHILE OPENING. All capitals for the message is not in accordance with the relevant ANSI standard. Furthermore, a non pictorial warning is better than nothing - but not best case. Also, did the warning get your attention BEFORE you were in range? But I guess this is another topic. If you really want some gratuitous warnings the list below taken from http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8884/more.html Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish.-- On a bottle of shampoo for dogs. Do not use while sleeping--On a hair dryer Do not light in face, nor expose face to flame--On a lighter Warning: May cause drowsiness--On a bottle of Nytol brand sleeping pills Not to be used as a personal floatation device--On a 6X10 inch inflatable picture frame Do not drive the cars in ocean--In small print at the bottom of the screen, during a car commercial which showed the car in the ocean Do not put lit candles on phone--On the instructions for a cordless phone Do not put in mouth--On a box of bottle rockets Warning: Misuse may cause injury or death--Stampled on the metal barrel of a .22 calibre rifle from http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8884/more.html Thanks, This was a real eye-opener for me! Matt -- Sean Oberle Vice President of New Products Washington Business Information, Inc. 1117 N 19th St, Ste 200, Arlington, VA 22209 Voice: 703/247-3429; Fax: 703/247-3421 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Warning Label Overkill
Also, filling liquid to very close to the top prevents the bottle from storing as much energy. - Robert - Coca Cola used to lose glass bottles until they reduced the air at the top. -Original Message- From: Mark m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 5:34 AM Subject: re: Warning Label Overkill [with various snips] I was surprised to find this warning label... CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE. CAP MAY BLOW OFF CAUSING EYE OR OTHER SERIOUS INJURY. POINT AWAY FROM FACE AND PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHILE OPENING. But the physics of a screw-off soda bottle cap just doesn't seem to have the same ballistic potential. Sean Oberle Sadly they do: a friend of my mother has lost the sight in one eye from a fizzy drink screw-on cap that come off with projectile force when undone. Let's hope proper design (the thread slots Ray Corson/ Richard Nute referenced) overcomes the need for warnings in most products, as there are so many now days that I'm sure we've become blind to them (no pun intended). Regards, Mark -- Mark Hone Wellman CJB Limited Email: m...@cjbdev.demon.co.uk Airport Service Road Tel: +44 (0)2392 629239 (Direct) Portsmouth, HampshireTel: +44 (0)2392 664911 PO3 5PG, ENGLAND Fax: +44 (0)2392 697864 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
