RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
David, This particular test profile is one which I have recently tried to shed some light on as well. I am curious where you come to the conclusion that the application of the criteria for altitude references Table 4.5. The requirement (R4-8 anyway) states, All equipment shall be functional within the limits specified in Table 4-4 when installed at elevations between 60 m (197 ft) below sea level and 1800 m (5905 ft) above sea level. I would think this would be overkill as you seem to imply that this would encompass another 8-day test profile. Referencing Table 4.5 would also imply that the temperature limit at 4000M would be 55 degC where the limits of Table 4.4 clearly state a temperature limit of 50 degC. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone else could share their experiences on this requirement. What do the RBOC's expect to see for test results? I figured I'd post this on the NEBS Forum as well to reach a wider audience. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:42 PM To: 'Collins, Jeffrey'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher:
Re: Battery Safety
I've seen this resistor used for the low battery alarm circuit. It keeps the battery voltage from rising as load is shed and confusing the low battery alarm circuit. There is no safety reason that I know of. 91K ohm is an odd value though, left overs from another product? I'm assuming that the normal current drain of this product is small, in the 10 to 100 microamp regions. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Battery Safety
Hi, I've seen this done before on low current designs. Sometimes when you replace the batteries in this type of design the circuit voltage does not have time to drop completely away due to the charge saved on bulk capacitors. When the new batteries are added the circuit comes up in a peculiar state. This is particularly true of uP power on reset circuits. There are more elegant ways to take care of this problem but I suppose a single resistor would be the cheapest (if one ignored battery life). Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:31 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Battery Safety All, We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased. The product is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries. Inside the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the batteries. Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety feature. I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the instrument. I did read through the safety test report; and I found no reference to this resistor being required. All it does is provide a constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life). It has been suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce the electrical noise in a product. To me a capacitor would be better for this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering. Even so, isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor? I'm just drawing a blank why anyone would do this. I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life. However, I don't want to sacrifice the safety of the product. Anybody want to take a guess at this one? Thanks. Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Battery Safety
All, We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased. The product is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries. Inside the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the batteries. Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety feature. I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the instrument. I did read through the safety test report; and I found no reference to this resistor being required. All it does is provide a constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life). It has been suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce the electrical noise in a product. To me a capacitor would be better for this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering. Even so, isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor? I'm just drawing a blank why anyone would do this. I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life. However, I don't want to sacrifice the safety of the product. Anybody want to take a guess at this one? Thanks. Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Battery Safety
Chris: Is the battery a rechargeable? Have you tried disconnecting the 91K reisstor and measuring the resulting voltage increase? Doesn't make sense to me. Ralph Cameron EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronics (After sale) - Original Message - From: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:30 AM Subject: Battery Safety All, We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased. The product is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries. Inside the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the batteries. Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety feature. I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the instrument. I did read through the safety test report; and I found no reference to this resistor being required. All it does is provide a constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life). It has been suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce the electrical noise in a product. To me a capacitor would be better for this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering. Even so, isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor? I'm just drawing a blank why anyone would do this. I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life. However, I don't want to sacrifice the safety of the product. Anybody want to take a guess at this one? Thanks. Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Red LED's
Mark, Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN 60950 (for ITE Equipment) states: Where safety is involved, colors of controls and indicators shall comply with IEC 73. Where colors are used for functional controls or indicators, any color, including red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety is not involved. We have used red LEDs in ITE equipment that is approved for use in the EU for items such as fan faults, overtemperature faults, etc. These products have been approved for use in the EU by both TÜV and Intertek with red LEDs. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [SMTP:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:59 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Red LED's Is the use of Red LED's acceptable for I.T.E. equipment in the EU in accordance with LVD and EMCD? All comments welcome. Thank you. Mark Schmidt X-Rite Incorporated U.S.A. mschm...@xrite.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude * Temperature at max Altitude * Relative Humidity * Length of time at Max Altitude Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Cell phones and humans
Paolo: Assuming that she was not wearing shoes at the time, then as she stepped back, with her feet already wet, she was likely still reasonably well grounded to the conductive concrete pool edge. I'll bet the explanation is more likely to be multipath cancellation; the RF null created by the addition of multiple signal reflections. Proving this might be difficult, since the null would be the product of ever reflection present in the pool vicinity that day. The position of every conductive object would need to be recreated. Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: Roncone Paolo [mailto:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 3:19 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: Cell phones and humans Group, the subject of possible biological effects of cell phones is having a lot of attention these days and it was already touched in this forum. I'd like to get opinions about what my wife just told me. I don't know if this should be classified as influence of cell phones on humans or influence of humans on cell phones. The story is as follows: my wife was talking on her cell phone while walking by a swimming pool. As she steppen right on the wet border of the pool (she was bare foot) the line went down. But just after stepping back on dry ground (just a step or two back, so the signal level shouldn't have changed so much) the line got back and she was able to resume her conversation. She told me she didn't step back again on the water, just to check if the phenomenon was repeatable. I honestly don't know if this is even worth of attention because of course it's not a laboratory or just even a controlled experiment. But if anyone out there has any guess or thinks there is an explanation... that would be welcome !! Paolo --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Bulgarian requirements
To the group, a Bulgarian customer has asked if we comply with the following standards: Safety: BSS 12.2.006.0-80, prBSS EN60950 and BSS 14525 EMC: BSS EN 55022 and BSS EN 50082-1. prBSS EN60950, BSS EN 55022 and BSS EN 50082-1 seem wellknown but does anybody know if there are national deviations in these Bulgarian versions? Does anybody know BSS 12.2.006.0-80 and/or BSS 14525, or where to find more about these standards? Thanks in advance Venlig hilsen/Kind regards Niels Hougaard EMC Engineer, B.Sc.E.E BARCO AS/Communication Systems Phone direct: +45 39170815 Fax: +45 39170010 Mailto:niels.houga...@barco.com www.barco.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Cell phones and humans
Paolo, In my opinion, I agree with the null theory. I did some work in the '70's with a digital RG system operating at an assigned experimental frequency of 939+mHz. At this frequency, line of sight is extremely important, unlike lower frequency AM/FM radio signals, which often bend over the earth's curvature. We also experienced problems with isolated nulls. One of two things could have happened. She could have stepped into a null due to a blocked line of sight (and no strong refleced signal), or a null caused by an out-of-phase reflected signal. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Correction of error
In my prior note, RG should have been RF. So much for engineers as typists. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Red LED's
Hi folks A comment - I would urge a little caution if IT products are being used in the industrial or medical environments since it is these where the traffic light approach is mandated in the appropriate sector standards (e.g. EN60204 EN/IEC 601 respectively). Also, correctly coloured LED's are now available for many purposes, so there is not too much justification for claiming that you cannot get the correct coloured devices! John Allen Thomson-Racal Defence Electronics Ltd. PS: The comment is based on bitter past experience - albeit many years ago - when working on CT Scanners for EMI Medical (now long defunct) and when LED's were almost exclusively Red with no options! -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: 25 September 2000 14:04 To: Mark Schmidt; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Red LED's Mark, Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN 60950 (for ITE Equipment) states: Where safety is involved, colors of controls and indicators shall comply with IEC 73. Where colors are used for functional controls or indicators, any color, including red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety is not involved. We have used red LEDs in ITE equipment that is approved for use in the EU for items such as fan faults, overtemperature faults, etc. These products have been approved for use in the EU by both TÜV and Intertek with red LEDs. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [SMTP:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:59 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Red LED's Is the use of Red LED's acceptable for I.T.E. equipment in the EU in accordance with LVD and EMCD? All comments welcome. Thank you. Mark Schmidt X-Rite Incorporated U.S.A. mschm...@xrite.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EN 54 Pat 7
Hello Group, For some time now there has been a pr version of EN54 Part 7 going through the approval process. I've been hearing that the new version will become official any day now for at least a year. Is anyone out there have more informed knowledge of the progress of this revision Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Bulgarian requirements
Hi Niels, As a suggestion, if you are new to the Bulgarian regulatory scene or have had little experience in that area, try asking the customer these questions. He may even have a copy of the spec(s) that he may be willing to give to you. And he might even appreciate you going to him for assistance. However, as I do not know the situation between your company and this customer, please determine your own path. Anyway, I am not aware of any national deviations imposed into any of the Bulgarian versions of these standards, but here's what I have regarding the following standards: - BSS 12.2.006.0-80, Professional Radioelectronic Equipment. Safety requirements and methods of testing. - BSS 14525,Not familiar with this standard. I hope this helps. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com Hougaard, Niels To: emc-p...@ieee.org niels.hougaard@cc: Jensen, Tobias Lykkegaard tobias.jen...@barco.com barco.com Subject: Bulgarian requirements Sent by: owner-emc-pstc@i eee.org 09/25/00 07:08 AM Please respond to Hougaard, Niels To the group, a Bulgarian customer has asked if we comply with the following standards: Safety: BSS 12.2.006.0-80, prBSS EN60950 and BSS 14525 EMC: BSS EN 55022 and BSS EN 50082-1. prBSS EN60950, BSS EN 55022 and BSS EN 50082-1 seem wellknown but does anybody know if there are national deviations in these Bulgarian versions? Does anybody know BSS 12.2.006.0-80 and/or BSS 14525, or where to find more about these standards? Thanks in advance Venlig hilsen/Kind regards Niels Hougaard EMC Engineer, B.Sc.E.E BARCO AS/Communication Systems Phone direct: +45 39170815 Fax: +45 39170010 Mailto:niels.houga...@barco.com www.barco.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Testing of product per en60825-1
Hello, Is there any independent laboratory who can conduct the test per EN60825-1 ? Thank you, Regards, Bharat Shah --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Hi, At the last two NEBS conferences Mike Bentley of USWest stated that all he was concerned about was the EUT performance at high temperature. What changes at altitude is the heat capacity of air. Thus it becomes more difficult to cool equipment because the air is thin. USWest is the RBOC which is most concerned with this test as they are the only one to my knowledge with COs above 12,000 feet. We run the altitude test at 50C for frames and 55C for shelves. We allow the EUT to stabilize within the chamber and we also determine the temperature at which equipment starts to fail in the event that the EUT has a problem at the extreme temperature. ATT NEDS does have a non-operational test at 40,000 feet which we run at ambient temperature and humidity as an unpressurized airplane bay is unlikely to be very hot.. BTW, the next NEBS conference is in Baltimore next week. See www.800teachme.com for details. -Jon Curtis David Spencer wrote: Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org -- Jon D. Curtis, P.E. Director of Engineering Curtis-Straus LLC One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Product Safety, and Telecom Testing. 527 Great Road Littleton, MA 01460 USA Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828 email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Hello Jeffrey, Basically, to demonstrate compliance with GR-63-CORE, no altitude testing is required assuming you have passed the standard temperature and humidity profile. The rationale is that, at that altitude, heating the facility will be the primary concern, not cooling it. According to the national weather service, the expected ambient high temperature at that altitude is less than 20C. If a facility at that altitude lost HVAC, it probably would start cooling off rather than heating up. Thus the reason there is no test method. It was simply intended as a design criteria that should be considered. However you can demonstrate compliance above and beyond the current GR-63-CORE for altitude by raising the temperature limits during the operational temperature and humidity testing by 1 degree C per 1000 foot of altitude that you want to simulate. This assumes you do not have components that may be altitude sensitive. It also assumes worst case conditions for the amount of heat that your product may be generating. However, some ILEC's may want to see an actual altitude test depending upon the equipment type and application. In this case Richard Kluge at Telcordia has developed a proposed altitude exposure test and he has a paper that was written in December of 1999 covering the rationale etc. Telcordia now has an altitude chamber and is conducting a study to determine if altitude is a potential concern based on the design of modern telecommunications equipment for the next revision of GR-63-CORE. Attached is the Telcordia document from Richard Kluge, note that the temperatures recommended for testing at altitude are much lower than 50C, and thus are looking more at determining component altitude sensitivity rather than reduced air density and temperature. Adobe Portable Document These are solely my opinions, and not necessarily those of my employer Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com -- From: Collins, Jeffrey[SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com] Reply To: Collins, Jeffrey Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 8:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude * Temperature at max Altitude * Relative Humidity * Length of time at Max Altitude Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org alt-12-31-99.pdf Description: Adobe Portable Document
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Jeffrey, I agree with David's view. The Altitude and Temp/Humidity requirements should be AND-ed requirements not OR-ed to reflect realistic deployment scenarios. In reality, thermal analysis experts tell me that altitude does not really affect the thermal performance significantly so you should be able to pass at sea level or at 4000m equally easily (or not so easily!). The loss of heat carrying capability due to the decreased air density is off-set, at least somewhat, by the loss of pressure needed to move the air (recall the fan speed curve). Marko Radojicic email: ma...@caspiannetworks.com phone: 408/382-5206 fax: 408/382-5593 -Original Message- From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:42 AM To: 'Collins, Jeffrey'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
UL1697 ???
Forumites, UL1697. Anyone ever heard of it? It has shown up in a recent design spec for quotation and I suspect a typo. Rob Legg rl...@tectrol.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Application of agency safety markings
I want to thank all those who responded to my query. This question was posed to me from a non-member and, since I have no experience with other NRTL's except UL, I had no definite answer to give. Also, since some members responded only the sender (myself) and not to all, I am summarizing all the responses received: The following NRTL's require that their safety mark be affixed at the specified factory locations: * CSA. So specified in the Product Service Agreement, Section 1.2(b). * Intertek Testing Service (ETL). Specified in the Listing Agreement. * Factory Mutual. Where specified was not provided. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal [mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 7:53 AM To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal; 'Lyons, Jim'; 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings Sorry folks...need more coffee today as the info I added wasn't an answer Tania's question. I've found the same requirement in the CSA Product Service agreement, section 1.2 (b). Again, my opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC. 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: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Gawrzyjal, Kazimier [WDC:C149:EXCH] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:47 AM To: 'Lyons, Jim'; 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings Tania, With UL, I've found the requirement to apply the listing mark at the approved factory location gets invoked in the FUS Procedure, very first page identifying the Listee, applicant and possibly the manufacturing location and the CCN (a one page document at the start of the FUS proceduresorry to the UL folks but I'm not sure what the page is called). Section General of the FUS also reflects the requirement. Finally, this requirement is further indicated in the original Follow Up Service Agreement, signed by UL and the Subscriber sections 1 and 2. I assume a similar process requirement is held by other NRTL's. Was the option of field investigations or the like explored at all? It's often more expensive and good for a one-shot type of application or quickie field deployment but it can get the job done. My 2 cents and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC. 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: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Lyons, Jim [ mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com ] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 6:44 AM To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings I recently had a situation where we had transferred some completed product to a warehouse to free up floor production space while an ETL investigation was still underway, but before we had obtained the ETL approval. ETL would not allow us to simply go to the warehouse and affix the markings even though the units were identical to the ones still on the production line, and 100% had undergone the required hipot and ground testing. We were required to transport the units back to the factory for the sole purpose of marking them. So, add ETL to the list with UL. James W. Lyons Manager - Product Compliance GTECH Corp. 55 Technology Way West Greenwich, RI 02817 Tel (401) 392-7723 Fax (401) 392-4955 Email jim.ly...@gtech.com -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [ mailto:tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com ] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:52 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Application of agency safety markings Importance: High Does anyone know whether NRTLs, other than UL, have the requirement that their labels must only be applied at the factory location? And if so, is this an urban legend, or is this actually specified somewhere in writing? I know and respect UL's position but I was wondering whether other NRTLs in this country have the same requirement. Any replies or experience you might have had are welcome! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
Re: Testing of product per en60825-1
Bharat, Nemko do this type of test. They have offices worldwide. Thanks Kevin --- bharat_s...@logitech.com wrote: Hello, Is there any independent laboratory who can conduct the test per EN60825-1 ? Thank you, Regards, Bharat Shah --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org __ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
NEBS web site
Does anyone have a url for a web site that lists the NEBS Standards, specifically level 3? Thank you in advance. Guy Story, KC5GOI Compliance Technician Interphase Corporation Dallas Texas phone: 214.654.5161 fax: 214.654.5406 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Verifying functionality of the equipment for Production Safety Testing
Folks, My manufacturing contacts have asked for a lead on a supplier of test equipment that I can use to be able to test the Hi pot lead for it not to be open. If you run the Hi Pot test holding the lead in the air it will pass . We need a way to test that the lead is not open . The Test requirement (as far as I know) is to verify functionality of the equipment before testing. Best Regards, Paul J. Smith, Teradyne Kevin Harris harr...@dscltd.com on 09/25/2000 01:39:29 PM Please respond to Kevin Harris harr...@dscltd.com To: 'Maxwell, Chris' chr...@gnlp.com cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: RE: Battery Safety Hi, I've seen this done before on low current designs. Sometimes when you replace the batteries in this type of design the circuit voltage does not have time to drop completely away due to the charge saved on bulk capacitors. When the new batteries are added the circuit comes up in a peculiar state. This is particularly true of uP power on reset circuits. There are more elegant ways to take care of this problem but I suppose a single resistor would be the cheapest (if one ignored battery life). Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:31 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Battery Safety All, We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased. The product is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries. Inside the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the batteries. Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety feature. I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the instrument. I did read through the safety test report; and I found no reference to this resistor being required. All it does is provide a constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life). It has been suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce the electrical noise in a product. To me a capacitor would be better for this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering. Even so, isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor? I'm just drawing a blank why anyone would do this. I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life. However, I don't want to sacrifice the safety of the product. Anybody want to take a guess at this one? Thanks. Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Re: Verifying functionality of the equipment for Production Safety Testing
Hi Paul: My manufacturing contacts have asked for a lead on a supplier of test equipment that I can use to be able to test the Hi pot lead for it not to be open. If you run the Hi Pot test holding the lead in the air it will pass . We need a way to test that the lead is not open . Connect the lead to ground and initiate the hi-pot test. ... ... ... A long time ago, I was embarrased by this situation. A UL or CSA inspector asked to verify that the hi- pot tester was indeed applying voltage to the EUT. I was about to go get a high-voltage voltmeter when the inspector simply connected the HV lead to ground and punched the start button. To my dismay, the hi-pot tester indicated pass!!! The lead was open! Well... we pulled our warehouse stock and re-tested all units. Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
