RE: Intrinsically safe equipment

[Massey, Doug C.]

It would seem that this is one issue of signiicant difference between UL913
and ATEX - UL913 recommends constructing a portable device out of a "non
sparking material such as plastic or brass" (clause 14.1). Here UL is
addressing a valid concern about the risk of ignition caused by the unit
accidentally banging up against something and creating a spark. ATEX does
not address this concern, and UL913 doesn't address the concern of ESD
caused by a buildup of charge in a material with extremely high surface
resistivity.

I'm thinking if I make the enclosure out of Flubber, it would meet all
requirements. Anybody got the nutty professor's number?

Doug

-Original Message-
From: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI)
[mailto:john.linst...@cdynamics.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:07 PM
To: Massey, Doug C.
Subject: RE: Intrinsically safe equipment


WE were denied an ATEX approval for a HAZLOC box with a plastic overlay on a
touchscreen due to ESD concerns. Screen was beyond a certain size (?) and
non-dissipative. I looked all over for a high Z optically clear plastic.
Needed to be ~ 2gohm/sq, IIRC. No joy. GE would make some if I bought a
truckload (thanks!) - so would some others. We finally settled for no ATEX
and no touch screen. If it was just a plastic part, colored, etc. I think we
could have found a suitable replacement...


John Linstrom
Computer Dynamics
ph 864.672.4363 x266
fx 864.675.0106
john.linst...@cdynamics.com 

-Original Message-
From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@lxe.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 2:59 PM
To: 'IEEE Forum'
Subject: Intrinsically safe equipment



Hello group -

I'm looking for help regarding the safety of equipment for use in hazardous
locations, especially intrisically safe systems.
Specifically, I have questions regarding clause 7.3.2 of standard EN
50014:1997, concerning electrostatic charges of enclosures of plastic
materials.

If anyone has experience with the ATEX Directive standards (IEC-79 based), I
would greatly appreciate hearing from you. Please e-mail me directly or call
at (770) 447-4224 x3607.

I'm afraid this discussion may get a little large for this forum, so I am
hesitant to post detailed questions here to a group that may likely be
uninterested in the topic.

Thanks in advance.

Doug Massey
Safety Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
Norcross, GA., USA
Ph.  (770) 447-4224 x3607
FAX (770) 447-6928
e-mail: masse...@lxe.com

Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 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: FW: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal

[rarndt]

In support of Doug's comments, check this out
I wonder what kind of disposal statements are with these batteries?
I bet you they are revising this now :)

http:www.support.dell.com/battery/

Regards,

Regan Arndt
Sr. Engineer
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
Product Safety West Division
Calgary, AB  Canada




"Massey, Doug C." @ieee.org on 11/16/2000 10:40:39 AM

Please respond to "Massey, Doug C." 

Sent by:  owner-emc-p...@ieee.org


To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:

Subject:  FW: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal



Hi Jeffrey:

As far as the EPA is concerned, Li-ion batteries are not considered as
hazardous material. Remember, the EPA is NOT concerned with the safety of
your customer, only the effects on the environment. The Battery Management
Act is Public Law 104-142, 104th Congress, and there is an EPA publication
available, EPA530-K-97-009. The act is concerned with keeping with mercury,
lead, and cadmium out of landfills - ie, Ni-Cd and SSLA's (Small Sealed
Lead
Acid) batteries. For Lithium batteries, the only disposal criteria is DO
NOT
INCINERATE - the contents are not considered harmful to the environment,
but
it may explode if heated beyond certain temps. Although it is still a
mystery to me why a coin cell exploding in a trash incinerator at 2500 C
can
cause anyone concern.

As to the UL concerns, the text of the safety warning is given in UL1950
3rd
Ed., clause 1.7.17. Note that if the battery is in a service area and not
operator accessible, this text need only be in service instructions. So if
we're talking about a coin cell Lithium battery, most likely UL will want
this text in the reference guide only. This text includes the statement
"Dispose of used batteries according to the manufacturers instructions."
Now, you can take the low road and say that you aren't the battery
manufacturer, but in my opinion you aren't making things easier for your
customer - so you should take the initiative to either publish disposal
instructions in your operators guide, or make those instructions available
to your tech support folks so that if a customer calls in asking they will
know what the answer is.

If your battery is a custom Li-ion battery pack, then you become the
manufacturer, even though you probably did not manufacture the cells
themselves. I have recently addressed this issue with one of our products,
and it caused me a bit of consternation. As a quick sanity check, I looked
on a variety of battery packs used in various laptop and notebook computers
to see what text was there - to my surprise, they all differed slightly
(all
were UL listed products). What I have learned is that the conditions of
acceptability in the UL reports for the cells may dictate what the text
says. The only thing you can do in this case is to let UL dictate the text
to you, as you most likely don't have access to those reports. The main
difference will be warning text restricting the upper operating temp, which
in most cases will be much higher than anyone is likely to operate your
device under.

Here is the text on our battery pack: CAUTION: Risk of fire, explosion, or
burns. Do not short circuit, crush, heat above 100 C, incinerate, or
disassemble the battery.

I have seen that temp range go as high as 200 C, all on UL listed products.
I can't find a specific temp in the standard or in the practical
applications guides, so all I can say in this case is let UL tell you. I do
believe it depends on the conditions of acceptability of the particular
cell
used.

You can get a lot of info from the cell manufacturers - Sanyo, Sony,
NEC/Moli Energy. Also the RBRC and PRBA might help - independent battery
recycling organizations.

The upshot is to put the warning text required by UL in the appropriate
location, and let your customers know that the batteries are not to be
recycled or incinerated - just dispose of normally. I could never figure
out
how one disposing of a Lithium battery knows whether the trash can you just
tossed it in is bound for an incinerator or not.

I'm interested in hearing from anyone with more knowledge of proper
disposal. The best I could find out from EPA, vendors,RBRC and PRBA is
chuck
'em.

Hope this helped.

Doug Massey
LXE, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:04 PM
To: IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum
Subject: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal



Group,

I've got two general questions regarding hazardous material:

1). Any experience with identifying materials defined as hazardous by the
EPA? (Is there a list somewhere??)  My customer is interested in steps that
should be taken to:

 * Avoid exposure
 * Avoid injury
 * Proper disposal of the material

I took a look at the EPA website but it appears not to be straight forward
in identifying what is and is not hazardous.
We are the Mfg of Telecom equipment so there are no chemicals or fumes
associa

Re: safe voltage limits for cattle ( cows horses etc)

[Nick Rouse]

>Chris Maxwell wrote
>
> There is no such thing as the "Bovine/Equine Equipotential Directive".

No, there isn't, but the Low Voltage Directive (73/23/EEC) in its principle
protection requirements in Article 2 says:-

"The member states shall 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 made."

I do not know of any harmonised standards relevant to this directive
that refer to domestic animals but on the other hand I do not remember
in any of the standards that specify hazardous voltages that they
specifically
state that these levels are only for the protection of humans.

Nick Rouse



---
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:RE2: Speed Measuring Devices

[brian_kunde]

I have heard of several people fighting a ticket with claims of the radar gun
not working or being used right. In all cases they lost (all people I know).  I
wish you luck and please let us know how it turned out.

Looking at it from their side, if a Judge ruled that the radar (or laser) guns
are not reliable that would open a BIG can of worms. Everyone that gets a
speeding ticket will try to fight it. Hey, that might be a good idea. If
everyone fought their cases in court then all the police will be tied up in
court all day and wouldn't be able to give out ticket.  Also, if they knew
writing a ticket would result in them going to court maybe they would think
twice about it. (Never mind me, just dreaming.)

Here is maybe some good advice... My brother in law is a truck driver. Speeding
tickets to him means he could lose his license and his job.  When he gets a
ticket he contacts his lawyer. His lawyer contacts the courthouse and they
plea-bargain down to a lesser charge. Usually it ends up to be a "Non-Moving"
violation which doesn't add points to his license.  He has found that they will
plea-bargain because they don't want you to go to court, they don't want to pay
the police officer to sit in court, they don't really want to mess with you.

Now the cost of dealing with a lawyer is not cheap, but it keeps him on the road
and it saves him lots of money on his insurance which is always more than the
ticket.

Something to think about.

Brian


Reply Separator
Subject:RE: Speed Measuring Devices 
Author: "Bailey  Jeff"  
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   11/16/00 12:55 PM


Hi Peter,

I am by no means an expert on this subject but I believe they use a tuning
fork 
to calibrate the standard radar guns (the ones based on Doppler shift) so
you
may have asked to see the cal cert for the tuning fork.  I think the police 
usually calibrate there standard guns daily and if she did not even know
what
you were talking about when you mentioned the cal cert she may not even know
what it means to calibrate something so you may be able to make a case on
that.

If you were pinched with one of the laser radar guns you may be into a
tighter
spot and I have no idea how often or even how they calibrate those nasty
guns.

Good luck, and don't crack under the pressure when the judge is glaring at
you!

:-)

Jeff Bailey 
Compliance Engineering 
SST - A Division of Woodhead Canada 
Phone: (519) 725 5136 ext. 363 
Fax: (519) 725 1515 
Email: jbai...@sstech.on.ca 
Web: www.sstech.on.ca 

All comments contained in the message are my own and do not necessarily
express the views of SST/Woodhead Canada Limited. 



-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:28 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Speed Measuring Devices



Dear All,

Yes, I did get a speeding ticket today! I am not sure if I was speeding or
not - I do not have my eyes on the speedometer all the time! I asked the
policewoman to show me the calibration certificate on her speed measuring
gun. She did not know what I was talking about! I inspected the gun and did
not see any stickers on it.

I plan to go to court and attempt to convince the judge that the speeding
gun was not calibrated and/or the gun's measurement data may have been
affected by emissions from another device.

Can anyone in the calibration business send me professional opinions on the
methods and reasons for calibrating speeding guns? 

What is the best way to present this case in court?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 

TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE
EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY!






---
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

Intrinsically safe equipment

[Massey, Doug C.]

Hello group -

I'm looking for help regarding the safety of equipment for use in hazardous
locations, especially intrisically safe systems.
Specifically, I have questions regarding clause 7.3.2 of standard EN
50014:1997, concerning electrostatic charges of enclosures of plastic
materials.

If anyone has experience with the ATEX Directive standards (IEC-79 based), I
would greatly appreciate hearing from you. Please e-mail me directly or call
at (770) 447-4224 x3607.

I'm afraid this discussion may get a little large for this forum, so I am
hesitant to post detailed questions here to a group that may likely be
uninterested in the topic.

Thanks in advance.

Doug Massey
Safety Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
Norcross, GA., USA
Ph.  (770) 447-4224 x3607
FAX (770) 447-6928
e-mail: masse...@lxe.com

Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 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

FW: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal

[Massey, Doug C.]

Hi Jeffrey:

As far as the EPA is concerned, Li-ion batteries are not considered as
hazardous material. Remember, the EPA is NOT concerned with the safety of
your customer, only the effects on the environment. The Battery Management
Act is Public Law 104-142, 104th Congress, and there is an EPA publication
available, EPA530-K-97-009. The act is concerned with keeping with mercury,
lead, and cadmium out of landfills - ie, Ni-Cd and SSLA's (Small Sealed Lead
Acid) batteries. For Lithium batteries, the only disposal criteria is DO NOT
INCINERATE - the contents are not considered harmful to the environment, but
it may explode if heated beyond certain temps. Although it is still a
mystery to me why a coin cell exploding in a trash incinerator at 2500 C can
cause anyone concern.

As to the UL concerns, the text of the safety warning is given in UL1950 3rd
Ed., clause 1.7.17. Note that if the battery is in a service area and not
operator accessible, this text need only be in service instructions. So if
we're talking about a coin cell Lithium battery, most likely UL will want
this text in the reference guide only. This text includes the statement
"Dispose of used batteries according to the manufacturers instructions."
Now, you can take the low road and say that you aren't the battery
manufacturer, but in my opinion you aren't making things easier for your
customer - so you should take the initiative to either publish disposal
instructions in your operators guide, or make those instructions available
to your tech support folks so that if a customer calls in asking they will
know what the answer is.

If your battery is a custom Li-ion battery pack, then you become the
manufacturer, even though you probably did not manufacture the cells
themselves. I have recently addressed this issue with one of our products,
and it caused me a bit of consternation. As a quick sanity check, I looked
on a variety of battery packs used in various laptop and notebook computers
to see what text was there - to my surprise, they all differed slightly (all
were UL listed products). What I have learned is that the conditions of
acceptability in the UL reports for the cells may dictate what the text
says. The only thing you can do in this case is to let UL dictate the text
to you, as you most likely don't have access to those reports. The main
difference will be warning text restricting the upper operating temp, which
in most cases will be much higher than anyone is likely to operate your
device under.

Here is the text on our battery pack: CAUTION: Risk of fire, explosion, or
burns. Do not short circuit, crush, heat above 100 C, incinerate, or
disassemble the battery.

I have seen that temp range go as high as 200 C, all on UL listed products.
I can't find a specific temp in the standard or in the practical
applications guides, so all I can say in this case is let UL tell you. I do
believe it depends on the conditions of acceptability of the particular cell
used.

You can get a lot of info from the cell manufacturers - Sanyo, Sony,
NEC/Moli Energy. Also the RBRC and PRBA might help - independent battery
recycling organizations. 

The upshot is to put the warning text required by UL in the appropriate
location, and let your customers know that the batteries are not to be
recycled or incinerated - just dispose of normally. I could never figure out
how one disposing of a Lithium battery knows whether the trash can you just
tossed it in is bound for an incinerator or not.

I'm interested in hearing from anyone with more knowledge of proper
disposal. The best I could find out from EPA, vendors,RBRC and PRBA is chuck
'em.

Hope this helped.

Doug Massey
LXE, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:04 PM
To: IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum
Subject: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal



Group,

I've got two general questions regarding hazardous material:

1). Any experience with identifying materials defined as hazardous by the
EPA? (Is there a list somewhere??)  My customer is interested in steps that
should be taken to: 

 * Avoid exposure
 * Avoid injury 
 * Proper disposal of the material

I took a look at the EPA website but it appears not to be straight forward
in identifying what is and is not hazardous.
We are the Mfg of Telecom equipment so there are no chemicals or fumes
associated with our products. 
I've also looked at the WEEE Directive but this is a US based customer and
they are specifically referencing the EPA.

2). Do you provide any instructions / processes regarding the disposal of
Lithium batteries for your customers?
 If so what documents/standards are you referencing???


All replies are appreciated..


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
Te

RE: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz

[Dick Grobner]

Short range device? Look at ETSI 300-683, EMC Std for Short Range Devices -
operating freq. 9kHz to 25GHz. Chapter 8 deals with emissions.
Hope this helps!

-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:10 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz



I have an Information Technology device that intentionally generates and
uses 2.45 GHz signals. EN55022 does not provide limits above 1 GHz. Is there
another harmonized EN that can be applied for spurious emissions above 1
GHz? If not, will this product have to be submitted to a Competent Body?

Richard Woods

---
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: safe voltage limits for cattle ( cows horses etc)

[Maxwell, Chris]

All,

There is no such thing as the "Bovine/Equine Equipotential Directive".
However, all this talk about "Stray Voltage" is very much on the minds of
farmers.  I replied to Gert offline on this subject because I thought nobody
else had any interest.  But the list of serious and not-so-serious replies
has proven otherwise.

I grew up on a farm and still spend time with my brothers and uncles on our
farms at night and on weekends.  I can tell you that newer cattle barn
installations are being designed with the equipotential principle very much
in mind.

Some of the design features that I have heard of are:

1.  Ground rods spaced about every ten feet around the barn to ensure that
return currents flowing to the utility company don't "flow through" the
facility and set up potentials.
2.  Burying a grounding mesh in the concrete on which the cows stand and
bonding this to the water pipes, metal stantions, milking equipment and any
other metal objects that the cows' upper bodies could contact.
3.  Isolating the entire farm's electrical system from the utility company
using a spark gap.
4.  Installing a voltage monitor on the ground and neutral lines in the
facility which will inject charge on one or the other in order to keep them
balanced.

I'm sure that there are other design methods being used for facilities, I
just don't know about them.  When it comes to equipment, I would assume that
the leakage current (especially of milking machines and other direct contact
devices)   would need to be specified.   How would any of you like an
electrically leaky device attached to your mammary glands?  Udderly painful!
(couldn't resist the pun)  I was interested to see if any standards turned
up, but I haven't really seen any.  The only thing I could recommend was
Cornell University's College of Animal Science.

>From my weekday engineer/weekend farmer point of view, I think that some
farms do have a "stray voltage" problem, while others are being told to
spend their hard earned money on expensive fixes that maybe aren't
necessary. (Sound like compliance to anyone?)  However, farming is very
competitive (consumers can buy a half pint of milk for $0.50 (of which, a
farmer gets about $0.06), while a serving sized bottle of water can cost
$0.65) which leads me to wonder how the farmers can put water through a cow
and get less money for it at the udder end. 

As such, anything that influences the cow's ability to produce, even minute
amounts of stray voltage, is taken into consideration.

Hope I haven't slung too much bull.

Have a nice day!!


> -Original Message-
> From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:40 AM
> To:   'Art Michael'; CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
> Cc:   Emc-Pstc@Ieee. Org
> Subject:  RE: safe voltage limits for cattle ( cows horses etc)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Art Michael [mailto:amich...@connix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 9:03 PM
> To: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
> Cc: Emc-Pstc@Ieee. Org
> Subject: Re: safe voltage limits for cattle ( cows horses etc)
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Gert,
> 
> After watching the responses to your query for the last few days, and the
> good humour offered too, I decided to see what I could find on the
> subject. 
> 
> If you go to either of my two favorite search tools  or
>  and input the term   
> 
> stray voltage AND cows  
> 
> you will get a number of very good hits at the top of the pile of links
> they locate. (Don't use any quote marks surrounding the term)
> 
> A quick read of a few of the papers indicates that cows are sensitive to
> very low voltages (well below 30V) and very small currents. And, although
> I didn't note any standards, per se, I did note a number of
> recommendations. Apparently this is a well-known and long-studied area of
> interest. 
> 
> Regards, Art Michael
> 
> Int'l Product Safety News
> A.E. Michael, Editor
> 166 Congdon St. East
> P.O. Box 1561 
> Middletown CT 06457 U.S.A.
> 
> Phone  :  (860) 344-1651
> Fax:  (860) 346-9066
> Email  :  i...@connix.com
> Website:  http://www.safetylink.com
> ISSN   :  1040-7529
> 
> --
> --
> ---
> 
> Ah, then there must be a Bovine / Equine Equipotential Directive.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> ---
> 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.

RE: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ???

[Dick Grobner]

I would like to add that I (my employer) also have used Tania's #1
suggestion with regards to a similar device. Has worked out well over the
past years. Responsibility of compliance stays within the manufacturer's
facility and not ours! 

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 10:29 AM
To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'Chris Wells'; 'emc-pstc'
Subject: RE: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 



Just another vote for Tania's plan outlined below. I have used that
in the past, and used path 1. Including I changed potential vendors, when
the first guy didn't want to work with me. I paid the investigation fee's,
and he paid the follow-up just as Tania described. I'm sure the cost went a
few quid when I wasn't looking, but the overall cost of continued compliance
was still cheaper with him being inspected rather than me trying to pry open
transformers and verifying the system every so often.
You may even want to make it an unlisted component - in other words
it is recognized only in your files. The vendor cannot now start advertising
and selling the transformer as recognized to others. You own the information
out of the UL investigation.
Why is it called an "unlisted" component when its recognized. UL
abhors the use of the term listed in their reports in order to avoid
confusion with the word as it is used on a complete product?
Gary


-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:23 PM
To: 'Chris Wells'; 'emc-pstc'
Subject: RE: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 
Importance: High



Chris,
Per your description, your Current Transformer is in a safety circuit.  The
fact that "normally" you do not have high voltages on the primary side does
not cut it.  (Besides, what is "high" voltage???)  You have several choices
(in order of what my preference would be, and money being no object!).
However, if I misunderstood you, and your transformer is NOT in a safety
circuit, then all you need to do is to prove to UL that this is the case;--
it should be obvious from your schematics.
 
1.   Since the transformer manufacturer already is using a UL
coordinated/approved insulation system, it would not take much more money
for him to submit this particular transformer to UL.  Your company probably
should pay for the UL submittal costs, but the manufacturer should pay for
UL factory inspections.   This way, you are off the hook when he changes
construction;-- he has to maintain compliance at all costs, and you don't
need to know the details as to how he does this.
 
2.   If the manufacturer is very stubborn for some reason, and does not
want to do the above, tell him you will submit the transformer, however, you
will need complete construction details that he will have to provide you.
Since this is a custom design, he should not mind this.   Thus, you pay
directly to UL for this evaluation.   However, you also designate the
manufacturing location the address of your vendor, not your own.  (This is
not the same as split inspection.)   Here, you have more of a headache:  you
pay for UL factory inspections;-- whenever anything is wrong UL writes you
letters about it, since you are the listee and applicant.   Thus, you know
every time your vendor trips up.   Be sure to tell him that now you will
have this knowledge!
 
3.   You submit this transformer to UL as described in 2 above, but do
not designate the vendor as the manufacturing location.   Now you have a
very big headache.   Whenever the vendor changes construction, you don't
know anything about this, and then you get a spiffy UL field inspector who
demands that you saw the transformer in half so that he can measure the
spacings and count the number of windings!   (Don't ever fall for this!
You need a laboratory special saw to do this correctly.)   I would never
never choose this last option!
 
Thus, number 1 is your best choice even if your company has to pay up-front
costs for the UL evaluation-- after all, it is a custom design!   However,
you save money and time down the road.  I hope I have given you some
justifications for your decision.

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com 
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group 
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions 

 
-Original Message-
From: Chris Wells [mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:20 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 


Question - What is the simplest, least expensive,  way to define an
isolation transformer used in a UL508 (or similar standard) recognized
product?  The transformer is a custom design made by a magnetics vendor for
use in our industrial products.
The product is manufactured under a UL coordinated insulation system or
recipe.
Do I need the manufacture to obtain a UL construction file?
I am concerned about managing

1 - 10 GHz Reference Source

[Wolak, Marvin]

A few months ago, I posted a design for a reference source which emitted
harmonics of 250 MHz from 1 to 10 GHz.  Since then I have received inquiries
as to whether it will be made commercially available.  Unfortunately, plans
to do so have not materialized.

While the description given should allow you to make your own, I am offering
to make a few myself.  If any of you are interested, let me know.  I would
need at least 10 commitments as the vendor is citing a minimum order for the
oscillator of 10.

Please respond for performance specifications (measurements made on actual
source), and anticipated pricing.

Marvin Wolak

Ph: 724-742-7453
Fx: 724-742-7474
EMail: marvin.wo...@marconi.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: Speed Measuring Devices

[Ralph Cameron]

Peter:

I acted as a professional witness in a similar claim that clocked a
neighbour doing 110 in an 80 Km zone. The neibour lost.

I attempted to prove there was the possibility of EMI from a local 50Kw
broadcast transmitter which was less than 1/4 mile away. Since the reading
taken is a gated reading  the gun is only listening for a very few
miliseconds to acquire the signal that pretty well ruled out EMI as a souce.

Re the calibration. The officier was cross examined by the defendant's
lawyer as to his training and qualifications that would ensure he/she knew
that the rinstrument was calibrated. They simply use a tuning fork with the
gun pointed at it ( one method) and it can be self calibrated.

One can request at what time was the gun calibrated and what is the maximum
length of time between calibrations as these things do drift over time .
This particular gun operated in the 10Ghz band  and was relatively new.
Older units that did not take a gated reading were susceptible to errors.

Another point to make is the angle at which the reading was taken. It was
overlooked in the case in which I participated  but there was a sharp bend
in the road and there was no way my neiighbour could have been travelling at
the speed claimed from the angle where the reading was taken.   It cost him
$1000 and some demerit points.

Many judges will side with the officer when push comes to shove but at least
ask the right questions and you may find yourslef believed.

Ralph Cameron,   EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronics
 After sale)



- Original Message -
From: "Peter Merguerian" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:28 AM
Subject: Speed Measuring Devices


>
> Dear All,
>
> Yes, I did get a speeding ticket today! I am not sure if I was speeding or
> not - I do not have my eyes on the speedometer all the time! I asked the
> policewoman to show me the calibration certificate on her speed measuring
> gun. She did not know what I was talking about! I inspected the gun and
did
> not see any stickers on it.
>
> I plan to go to court and attempt to convince the judge that the speeding
> gun was not calibrated and/or the gun's measurement data may have been
> affected by emissions from another device.
>
> Can anyone in the calibration business send me professional opinions on
the
> methods and reasons for calibrating speeding guns?
>
> What is the best way to present this case in court?
> Peter Merguerian
> Managing Director
> Product Testing Division
> I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
> Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
> Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
>
> Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
> e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
> website: http://www.itl.co.il
>
> TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE
> EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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

Spurious Emissions above 1 GHz

[WOODS]

I am going to ask my previous question in a different (and, hopefully,
improved) way. Assume I have an ITE device that is an unintentional radiator
(i.e., it is not a transmitter). Also assume the device has spurious
emissions above 1 GHz that may not be insignificant. In order to comply with
the essential requirements of the EMC Directive, is it sufficient to comply
with EN 55022 which has no requirements above 1 GHz? If not, then a relevant
harmonized standard must be applied for the emissions above 1 GHz or the TCF
route must be followed. Is there a harmonized standard that may be applied
to ITE for emissions for above 1 GHz? 

Richard Woods

---
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: Speed Measuring Devices

[Bailey, Jeff]

Hi Peter,

I am by no means an expert on this subject but I believe they use a tuning
fork 
to calibrate the standard radar guns (the ones based on Doppler shift) so
you
may have asked to see the cal cert for the tuning fork.  I think the police 
usually calibrate there standard guns daily and if she did not even know
what
you were talking about when you mentioned the cal cert she may not even know
what it means to calibrate something so you may be able to make a case on
that.

If you were pinched with one of the laser radar guns you may be into a
tighter
spot and I have no idea how often or even how they calibrate those nasty
guns.

Good luck, and don't crack under the pressure when the judge is glaring at
you!

:-)

Jeff Bailey 
Compliance Engineering 
SST - A Division of Woodhead Canada 
Phone: (519) 725 5136 ext. 363 
Fax: (519) 725 1515 
Email: jbai...@sstech.on.ca 
Web: www.sstech.on.ca 

All comments contained in the message are my own and do not necessarily
express the views of SST/Woodhead Canada Limited. 



-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:28 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Speed Measuring Devices



Dear All,

Yes, I did get a speeding ticket today! I am not sure if I was speeding or
not - I do not have my eyes on the speedometer all the time! I asked the
policewoman to show me the calibration certificate on her speed measuring
gun. She did not know what I was talking about! I inspected the gun and did
not see any stickers on it.

I plan to go to court and attempt to convince the judge that the speeding
gun was not calibrated and/or the gun's measurement data may have been
affected by emissions from another device.

Can anyone in the calibration business send me professional opinions on the
methods and reasons for calibrating speeding guns? 

What is the best way to present this case in court?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 

TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE
EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY!






---
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: New Edition of EN 61010-1

[Barry Ma]

Paul,

Would it be possible for you or anybody else to summarize main points of 
modifications made in the new edition of IEC61010-1?

Regards,
Barry

--
On Wed, 15 November 2000, "O'Shaughnessy, Paul" wrote:

> Dear List,
>  
> I've received word of an Edition 2 for IEC 61010-1 which was recently
> approved in a vote within the IEC.  Does anyone have any information on when
> or if this will be published by the EC (a DOP), or when an ultimate DOW
> might be set?
>  
> Many thanks,
>  
> Paul O'Shaughnessy
> Affymetrix, Inc.

___

Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! 
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html

___


---
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: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ???

[Gary McInturff]

Just another vote for Tania's plan outlined below. I have used that
in the past, and used path 1. Including I changed potential vendors, when
the first guy didn't want to work with me. I paid the investigation fee's,
and he paid the follow-up just as Tania described. I'm sure the cost went a
few quid when I wasn't looking, but the overall cost of continued compliance
was still cheaper with him being inspected rather than me trying to pry open
transformers and verifying the system every so often.
You may even want to make it an unlisted component - in other words
it is recognized only in your files. The vendor cannot now start advertising
and selling the transformer as recognized to others. You own the information
out of the UL investigation.
Why is it called an "unlisted" component when its recognized. UL
abhors the use of the term listed in their reports in order to avoid
confusion with the word as it is used on a complete product?
Gary


-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:23 PM
To: 'Chris Wells'; 'emc-pstc'
Subject: RE: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 
Importance: High



Chris,
Per your description, your Current Transformer is in a safety circuit.  The
fact that "normally" you do not have high voltages on the primary side does
not cut it.  (Besides, what is "high" voltage???)  You have several choices
(in order of what my preference would be, and money being no object!).
However, if I misunderstood you, and your transformer is NOT in a safety
circuit, then all you need to do is to prove to UL that this is the case;--
it should be obvious from your schematics.
 
1.   Since the transformer manufacturer already is using a UL
coordinated/approved insulation system, it would not take much more money
for him to submit this particular transformer to UL.  Your company probably
should pay for the UL submittal costs, but the manufacturer should pay for
UL factory inspections.   This way, you are off the hook when he changes
construction;-- he has to maintain compliance at all costs, and you don't
need to know the details as to how he does this.
 
2.   If the manufacturer is very stubborn for some reason, and does not
want to do the above, tell him you will submit the transformer, however, you
will need complete construction details that he will have to provide you.
Since this is a custom design, he should not mind this.   Thus, you pay
directly to UL for this evaluation.   However, you also designate the
manufacturing location the address of your vendor, not your own.  (This is
not the same as split inspection.)   Here, you have more of a headache:  you
pay for UL factory inspections;-- whenever anything is wrong UL writes you
letters about it, since you are the listee and applicant.   Thus, you know
every time your vendor trips up.   Be sure to tell him that now you will
have this knowledge!
 
3.   You submit this transformer to UL as described in 2 above, but do
not designate the vendor as the manufacturing location.   Now you have a
very big headache.   Whenever the vendor changes construction, you don't
know anything about this, and then you get a spiffy UL field inspector who
demands that you saw the transformer in half so that he can measure the
spacings and count the number of windings!   (Don't ever fall for this!
You need a laboratory special saw to do this correctly.)   I would never
never choose this last option!
 
Thus, number 1 is your best choice even if your company has to pay up-front
costs for the UL evaluation-- after all, it is a custom design!   However,
you save money and time down the road.  I hope I have given you some
justifications for your decision.

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com 
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group 
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions 

 
-Original Message-
From: Chris Wells [mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:20 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 


Question - What is the simplest, least expensive,  way to define an
isolation transformer used in a UL508 (or similar standard) recognized
product?  The transformer is a custom design made by a magnetics vendor for
use in our industrial products.
The product is manufactured under a UL coordinated insulation system or
recipe.
Do I need the manufacture to obtain a UL construction file?
I am concerned about managing our UL inspections since I can not prove the
construction at our sight.
What is the best way to handle the inspection issues?
I run into this issue with some of our switch mode power supply isolation
transformers. Typically these have a construction file.  But I have been
told that I don't always need to do this.
I am confused!
 
Details  - 
My latest application is a Current Transformer used in power distributions
systems.
A power main transformer steps down the supply current to 

RE: Speed Measuring Devices

[Andrews, Kurt]

Peter,

I suggest you check out the National Motorists Association web site at
www.motorists.com. In case you have not heard of this organization before
they are a National Motorists rights group. They were largely responsible
for the repeal of the National 55 mph speed limit. They have lots of
resources available for fighting tickets including a package that you can
rent that is geared specifically towards fighting speeding tickets. They
also have lots of resources about radar guns and their requirements for
calibration. From what I recall each officer is supposed to have a tuning
fork for checking the gun that is supposed to be used before each shift.
They also have a list of experts in various fields that you can contact for
help, including experts on radar and radar guns. I have been a member for
several years and I believe it is a very worthwhile organization. They
should be able to provide everything you need to fight the ticket.

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/  


-Original Message-
From:   Peter Merguerian [SMTP:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent:   Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:28 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Speed Measuring Devices


Dear All,

Yes, I did get a speeding ticket today! I am not sure if I was
speeding or
not - I do not have my eyes on the speedometer all the time! I asked
the
policewoman to show me the calibration certificate on her speed
measuring
gun. She did not know what I was talking about! I inspected the gun
and did
not see any stickers on it.

I plan to go to court and attempt to convince the judge that the
speeding
gun was not calibrated and/or the gun's measurement data may have
been
affected by emissions from another device.

Can anyone in the calibration business send me professional opinions
on the
methods and reasons for calibrating speeding guns? 

What is the best way to present this case in court?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 

TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME
AT THE
EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY!






---
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: safe voltage limits for cattle ( cows horses etc)

[Price, Ed]

-Original Message-
From: Art Michael [mailto:amich...@connix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 9:03 PM
To: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...
Cc: Emc-Pstc@Ieee. Org
Subject: Re: safe voltage limits for cattle ( cows horses etc)



Hello Gert,

After watching the responses to your query for the last few days, and the
good humour offered too, I decided to see what I could find on the
subject. 

If you go to either of my two favorite search tools  or
 and input the term   

stray voltage AND cows  

you will get a number of very good hits at the top of the pile of links
they locate. (Don't use any quote marks surrounding the term)

A quick read of a few of the papers indicates that cows are sensitive to
very low voltages (well below 30V) and very small currents. And, although
I didn't note any standards, per se, I did note a number of
recommendations. Apparently this is a well-known and long-studied area of
interest. 

Regards, Art Michael

Int'l Product Safety News
A.E. Michael, Editor
166 Congdon St. East
P.O. Box 1561 
Middletown CT 06457 U.S.A.

Phone  :  (860) 344-1651
Fax:  (860) 346-9066
Email  :  i...@connix.com
Website:  http://www.safetylink.com
ISSN   :  1040-7529


---

Ah, then there must be a Bovine / Equine Equipotential Directive.


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

---
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

Speed Measuring Devices

[Peter Merguerian]

Dear All,

Yes, I did get a speeding ticket today! I am not sure if I was speeding or
not - I do not have my eyes on the speedometer all the time! I asked the
policewoman to show me the calibration certificate on her speed measuring
gun. She did not know what I was talking about! I inspected the gun and did
not see any stickers on it.

I plan to go to court and attempt to convince the judge that the speeding
gun was not calibrated and/or the gun's measurement data may have been
affected by emissions from another device.

Can anyone in the calibration business send me professional opinions on the
methods and reasons for calibrating speeding guns? 

What is the best way to present this case in court?
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 

TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE
EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY!






---
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: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz

[Wismer, Sam]

Richard,
EN55022 is only for unintentional radiators, or intentional radiators in
stand-by mode.  The applicable radio standard should cover the spurious
emissions above 1 GHz(i.e. ETS 300 328).  I don't see that a competent body
is necessary here.


~
Sam Wismer
Lead Regulatory Engineer/
Radio Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654

Visit Our Website at:
http://www.lxe.com



-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:10 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz



I have an Information Technology device that intentionally generates and
uses 2.45 GHz signals. EN55022 does not provide limits above 1 GHz. Is there
another harmonized EN that can be applied for spurious emissions above 1
GHz? If not, will this product have to be submitted to a Competent Body?

Richard Woods

---
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: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal

[Peter Merguerian]

John,

Most of the time these batteries are not replaceable (ie they are soldered
to the board) and servicing of the board is not likely in the field. In
this case, you need to provide service instructions with the battery
statement. Now, if servicing is done at your factory, it simply means that
your in-house procedures should follow the manufacturer's disposal
instructions.

John, it is not UL only who sits on the IEC WG8 IEC 950 Committe. There are
many manufacturers like you sitting on the committee. If you wish your
voice heard, you need to join the group. Beware, it can become an expensive
activity!


At 09:19 16/11/2000 -, Crabb, John wrote:
>
>As far as lithium battery disposal is concerned, for some of our
>products, we have had to include the required warning from UL1950, 
>1.7.17, in our manuals, namely "CAUTION, Danger of explosion 
>if battery is incorrectly replaced. Replace only with the same or 
>equivalent type recommended by the manufacturer. Dispose of
>used batteries according to the manufacturer's instructions."
>
>It certainly seems to be a complete waste of time including this,
>as it is open to question whether there really is a "danger of 
>explosion", and also since we don't provide the manufacturer's 
>disposal instructions (which for one manufacturer was 
>"dispose of according to local regulations"), there is no guidance 
>for disposal.
>
>Looking at a UL report from a well known manufacturer of lithium
>batteries, they seem pretty robust. The test record shows:
>temperature cycling at -54 and +71 degrees C, short circuit
>tests, heating in a sand bath at 180 degrees C, being crushed, 
>vibration,forced discharge and charge, drop tests, etc. At no
>time was there any any evidence of any "danger of explosion",
>so maybe we should argue that there is no need for the above
>statement - but it's sometimes easier not argueing with UL !!
>
>Regards,
>John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
>NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
>3XX
>E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
>Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
>6-341-2289.
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From:Collins, Jeffrey [SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com]
>> Sent:15 November 2000 21:04
>> To:  IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum
>> Subject: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal
>> 
>> 
>> Group,
>> 
>> I've got two general questions regarding hazardous material:
>> 
>> 1). Any experience with identifying materials defined as hazardous by the
>> EPA? (Is there a list somewhere??)  My customer is interested in steps
>> that
>> should be taken to: 
>> 
>>  * Avoid exposure
>>  * Avoid injury 
>>  * Proper disposal of the material
>> 
>> I took a look at the EPA website but it appears not to be straight forward
>> in identifying what is and is not hazardous.
>> We are the Mfg of Telecom equipment so there are no chemicals or fumes
>> associated with our products. 
>> I've also looked at the WEEE Directive but this is a US based customer and
>> they are specifically referencing the EPA.
>> 
>> 2). Do you provide any instructions / processes regarding the disposal of
>> Lithium batteries for your customers?
>>  If so what documents/standards are you referencing???
>> 
>> 
>> All replies are appreciated..
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>
>
Peter Merguerian
Managing Director
Product Testing Division
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
Hacharoshet 26, POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel

Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019
e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il
website: http://www.itl.co.il 

TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE
EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY!






---
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: Vedr.: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz

[WOODS]

Obviously, I was not clear. This is an unintentional radiator. The rf signal
is radiated internally, but any external emissions are unintentional.

Richard Woods

--
From:  Helge Knudsen [SMTP:h...@jyske-emc.com]
Sent:  Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:35 AM
To:  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; wo...@sensormatic.com
Subject:  Vedr.: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz

Hello Richard,

Is the device a "blue tooth" using wireless radiation to communicate with
other devices, if yes the device is a subjet for the R&TTE directive. 
You may use the ETSI standards: 

EN 301 489-3 V1.2.1 (2000-08)
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM);
ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) standard for radio equipment and
services;
Part 3: Specific conditions for Short-Range Devices (SRD) operating on
frequencies between 9 kHz and 40 GHz

and

EN 300 440-2 V1.1.1 (2000-07)
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM);
Short range devices;
Radio equipment to be used in the 1 GHz to 40 GHz frequency range;
Part 2: Harmonized EN under article 3.2 of the R&TTE Directive

Those standards may be downloaded free of charge from www.etsi.org. 
NOTE:They are not harmonized yet!

If it not is used for wireless communication then the EN 55022 still shall
be used for showing complience with the EMC Directive.

Best regards


Helge Knudsen
Delta 
Electronics Testing, EMC
Venlighedsvej 4, DK-2970 Hoersholm
Telephone : +45 45 86 77 22
Fax  : +45 45 86 58 98


>>>  15-11-00 22:10 >>>

I have an Information Technology device that intentionally generates and
uses 2.45 GHz signals. EN55022 does not provide limits above 1 GHz. Is there
another harmonized EN that can be applied for spurious emissions above 1
GHz? If not, will this product have to be submitted to a Competent Body?

Richard Woods

---
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: Vedr.: Re: EN55011 Group 1 and Group 2

[WmFlan]

Please be advised that the emission limit figures you quote in your 
referenced e-mail are _not_ for ClassA Grp2 equipment, but for ClassA, Grp1 
equipment. CISPR 11 also specifies 10m distance for this 40dB level.



---
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

Vedr.: ITE Emissions above 1 GHz

[Helge Knudsen]

Hello Richard,

Is the device a "blue tooth" using wireless radiation to communicate with other 
devices, if yes the device is a subjet for the R&TTE directive. 
You may use the ETSI standards: 

EN 301 489-3 V1.2.1 (2000-08)
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM);
ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) standard for radio equipment and services;
Part 3: Specific conditions for Short-Range Devices (SRD) operating on 
frequencies between 9 kHz and 40 GHz

and

EN 300 440-2 V1.1.1 (2000-07)
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM);
Short range devices;
Radio equipment to be used in the 1 GHz to 40 GHz frequency range;
Part 2: Harmonized EN under article 3.2 of the R&TTE Directive

Those standards may be downloaded free of charge from www.etsi.org. 
NOTE:They are not harmonized yet!

If it not is used for wireless communication then the EN 55022 still shall be 
used for showing complience with the EMC Directive.

Best regards


Helge Knudsen
Delta 
Electronics Testing, EMC
Venlighedsvej 4, DK-2970 Hoersholm
Telephone : +45 45 86 77 22
Fax  : +45 45 86 58 98


>>>  15-11-00 22:10 >>>

I have an Information Technology device that intentionally generates and
uses 2.45 GHz signals. EN55022 does not provide limits above 1 GHz. Is there
another harmonized EN that can be applied for spurious emissions above 1
GHz? If not, will this product have to be submitted to a Competent Body?

Richard Woods

---
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

Vedr.: Re: EN55011 Group 1 and Group 2

[Helge Knudsen]

Hello Bruce and EMC-ESPC Group,

The latest draft on next edition of (EN/) IEC 61800-3 is using the CISPR 11 
Class A group 2 limits for power drive systems to be used in "Second 
environment" = Industrial use.
The radiated emission limits are 40 dB from 30 - 230 MHz and 50 dB from 230 - 
1000 MHz with 30 meter measuring distance. Those limits are derived from CISPR, 
11 Table 5 - Electromagnetic radiation disturbance limits for Group 2 Class A  
equipment.
So, someone (producers of power drive system?) do want to use at least a part 
of the CISPR 11 Group 2 Class A  test for power drives.
If some of you are interested in reading this new proposal you must get from 
your local IEC Committee, document reference: IEC/22G/73/CD.


Best regards

Helge Knudsen
Delta 
Electronics Testing, EMC
Venlighedsvej 4, DK-2970 Hoersholm
Telephone : +45 45 86 77 22
Fax  : +45 45 86 58 98


>>>  15-11-00 06:07 >>>


Since there are no comments on this so far, I thought I would put my 2
cents in.It seems to me that motor drives would be in group 1, keeping
in mind the first paragraph of appendix A where it says "for testing
purposes the equipment is to be defined in terms of the purpose for which
it was designed"  Also, I believe the power drive system product family EMC
standard, EN 61800-3:1996 uses limits similar to EN 55011 group 1(I don't
have this standard in front of me so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm also curious why someone would want want to be in group 2 because this
requires an additional magnetic field (table 5 of EN 55011) test down to
150khz that could be difficult for Power inverters.


Bruce Fagley
Sr. Specialist, in-situ EMC
TUV Rheinland
Newtown CT.
203-426-0888 ext 119


---
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: EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal

[Crabb, John]

As far as lithium battery disposal is concerned, for some of our
products, we have had to include the required warning from UL1950, 
1.7.17, in our manuals, namely "CAUTION, Danger of explosion 
if battery is incorrectly replaced. Replace only with the same or 
equivalent type recommended by the manufacturer. Dispose of
used batteries according to the manufacturer's instructions."

It certainly seems to be a complete waste of time including this,
as it is open to question whether there really is a "danger of 
explosion", and also since we don't provide the manufacturer's 
disposal instructions (which for one manufacturer was 
"dispose of according to local regulations"), there is no guidance 
for disposal.

Looking at a UL report from a well known manufacturer of lithium
batteries, they seem pretty robust. The test record shows:
temperature cycling at -54 and +71 degrees C, short circuit
tests, heating in a sand bath at 180 degrees C, being crushed, 
vibration,forced discharge and charge, drop tests, etc. At no
time was there any any evidence of any "danger of explosion",
so maybe we should argue that there is no need for the above
statement - but it's sometimes easier not argueing with UL !!

Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: Collins, Jeffrey [SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com]
> Sent: 15 November 2000 21:04
> To:   IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum
> Subject:  EPA Hazardous Materials & Lithium Batteries disposal
> 
> 
> Group,
> 
> I've got two general questions regarding hazardous material:
> 
> 1). Any experience with identifying materials defined as hazardous by the
> EPA? (Is there a list somewhere??)  My customer is interested in steps
> that
> should be taken to: 
> 
>  * Avoid exposure
>  * Avoid injury 
>  * Proper disposal of the material
> 
> I took a look at the EPA website but it appears not to be straight forward
> in identifying what is and is not hazardous.
> We are the Mfg of Telecom equipment so there are no chemicals or fumes
> associated with our products. 
> I've also looked at the WEEE Directive but this is a US based customer and
> they are specifically referencing the EPA.
> 
> 2). Do you provide any instructions / processes regarding the disposal of
> Lithium batteries for your customers?
>  If so what documents/standards are you referencing???
> 
> 
> All replies are appreciated..
> 
> 
> 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: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ???

[Lou Aiken]

I am presently faced with a similar concren on a much smaller 50VA switching 
transformer that I have told the vendor to get construction only recognition 
(category XORU2).

My decision is based on how the UL Engineer describes the transformer in MY 
report.

If he calls out the mfg P/N and maybe a physical size, then I am satisfied.

But if he mentions n/turns, wire size, spacings, etc.etc, then I will ask the 
vendor for the construction only recognition.

So, my thinking all starts with my own UL engineer.  rgds, lou



Lou Aiken
27109 Palmetto Drive
Orange Beach, AL
36561 U.S.A.

tel1-334-981-6786 
fax   1-334-981-3054 
mobile  1-334-979-4648
  - Original Message - 
  From: Chris Wells 
  To: 'emc-pstc' 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 7:20 PM
  Subject: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 


  Question - What is the simplest, least expensive,  way to define an isolation 
transformer used in a UL508 (or similar standard) recognized product?  The 
transformer is a custom design made by a magnetics vendor for use in our 
industrial products.
  The product is manufactured under a UL coordinated insulation system or 
recipe.
  Do I need the manufacture to obtain a UL construction file?
  I am concerned about managing our UL inspections since I can not prove the 
construction at our sight.
  What is the best way to handle the inspection issues?
  I run into this issue with some of our switch mode power supply isolation 
transformers. Typically these have a construction file.  But I have been told 
that I don't always need to do this.
  I am confused!
   
  Details  - 
  My latest application is a Current Transformer used in power distributions 
systems.
  A power main transformer steps down the supply current to 0-5 Amp and then 
the CT in my product steps this down again to mA range for measurement 
purposes.  These CTs in my product become referenced safety barriers in the UL 
product file but do not normally have high voltages on the primary.  My 
magnetics vendor says I do not need the construction file but I do not see how 
I can get a split inspection with UL inspecting the CT at the vendor, with out 
this.  
  Is there another way?

  Guidance on this topic would be most appreciated.
  Thank you

  Chris Wells
  Senior Des Eng.
  cdwe...@stargate.net
  Cutler-Hammer
  412 490 6862

RE: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ???

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

Chris,
Per your description, your Current Transformer is in a safety circuit.  The
fact that "normally" you do not have high voltages on the primary side does
not cut it.  (Besides, what is "high" voltage???)  You have several choices
(in order of what my preference would be, and money being no object!).
However, if I misunderstood you, and your transformer is NOT in a safety
circuit, then all you need to do is to prove to UL that this is the case;--
it should be obvious from your schematics.
 
1.   Since the transformer manufacturer already is using a UL
coordinated/approved insulation system, it would not take much more money
for him to submit this particular transformer to UL.  Your company probably
should pay for the UL submittal costs, but the manufacturer should pay for
UL factory inspections.   This way, you are off the hook when he changes
construction;-- he has to maintain compliance at all costs, and you don't
need to know the details as to how he does this.
 
2.   If the manufacturer is very stubborn for some reason, and does not
want to do the above, tell him you will submit the transformer, however, you
will need complete construction details that he will have to provide you.
Since this is a custom design, he should not mind this.   Thus, you pay
directly to UL for this evaluation.   However, you also designate the
manufacturing location the address of your vendor, not your own.  (This is
not the same as split inspection.)   Here, you have more of a headache:  you
pay for UL factory inspections;-- whenever anything is wrong UL writes you
letters about it, since you are the listee and applicant.   Thus, you know
every time your vendor trips up.   Be sure to tell him that now you will
have this knowledge!
 
3.   You submit this transformer to UL as described in 2 above, but do
not designate the vendor as the manufacturing location.   Now you have a
very big headache.   Whenever the vendor changes construction, you don't
know anything about this, and then you get a spiffy UL field inspector who
demands that you saw the transformer in half so that he can measure the
spacings and count the number of windings!   (Don't ever fall for this!
You need a laboratory special saw to do this correctly.)   I would never
never choose this last option!
 
Thus, number 1 is your best choice even if your company has to pay up-front
costs for the UL evaluation-- after all, it is a custom design!   However,
you save money and time down the road.  I hope I have given you some
justifications for your decision.

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com 
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group 
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions 

 
-Original Message-
From: Chris Wells [mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:20 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? 


Question - What is the simplest, least expensive,  way to define an
isolation transformer used in a UL508 (or similar standard) recognized
product?  The transformer is a custom design made by a magnetics vendor for
use in our industrial products.
The product is manufactured under a UL coordinated insulation system or
recipe.
Do I need the manufacture to obtain a UL construction file?
I am concerned about managing our UL inspections since I can not prove the
construction at our sight.
What is the best way to handle the inspection issues?
I run into this issue with some of our switch mode power supply isolation
transformers. Typically these have a construction file.  But I have been
told that I don't always need to do this.
I am confused!
 
Details  - 
My latest application is a Current Transformer used in power distributions
systems.
A power main transformer steps down the supply current to 0-5 Amp and then
the CT in my product steps this down again to mA range for measurement
purposes.  These CTs in my product become referenced safety barriers in the
UL product file but do not normally have high voltages on the primary.  My
magnetics vendor says I do not need the construction file but I do not see
how I can get a split inspection with UL inspecting the CT at the vendor,
with out this.  
Is there another way?
 
Guidance on this topic would be most appreciated.
Thank you
 
Chris Wells
Senior Des Eng.
cdwe...@stargate.net  
Cutler-Hammer
412 490 6862

---
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

UL rec. needed on custom transformer ???

[Chris Wells]

Question - What is the simplest, least expensive,  way to define an isolation 
transformer used in a UL508 (or similar standard) recognized product?  The 
transformer is a custom design made by a magnetics vendor for use in our 
industrial products.
The product is manufactured under a UL coordinated insulation system or recipe.
Do I need the manufacture to obtain a UL construction file?
I am concerned about managing our UL inspections since I can not prove the 
construction at our sight.
What is the best way to handle the inspection issues?
I run into this issue with some of our switch mode power supply isolation 
transformers. Typically these have a construction file.  But I have been told 
that I don't always need to do this.
I am confused!

Details  - 
My latest application is a Current Transformer used in power distributions 
systems.
A power main transformer steps down the supply current to 0-5 Amp and then the 
CT in my product steps this down again to mA range for measurement purposes.  
These CTs in my product become referenced safety barriers in the UL product 
file but do not normally have high voltages on the primary.  My magnetics 
vendor says I do not need the construction file but I do not see how I can get 
a split inspection with UL inspecting the CT at the vendor, with out this.  
Is there another way?

Guidance on this topic would be most appreciated.
Thank you

Chris Wells
Senior Des Eng.
cdwe...@stargate.net
Cutler-Hammer
412 490 6862

RE: Which Antenna?

[Gary McInturff]

I remember a reference in a fairly recent (maybe within a year or
two) reference from the VCCI in which they didn't like the biconilogs unless
they had the ends bent up to prevent loading with the ground plane, or
something of that ilk. Sorry I don't have it anymore but maybe this will jog
someone else's memory and they will have it.
I have used them on my own site and they should reasonable
correlation with tests made on other sites, which used separate antennas.
Didn't do it specifically to make comparisons, but I did look for anomalies
in those instances where could.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Don Rhodes [mailto:don.rho...@infocus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:52 PM
To: 'Tudor, Allen'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Which Antenna?



Allen,
We have used a biconilog for radiated emissions testing in our 3m
semi-anechoic chamber for the past three years. We have done extensive
correlation studies to the biconicals we own and found there to be little
issue with using the biconilog. Its well balanced and therefore, we're not
seeing an issue with coupling to the ground plane. You may recall in years
past, when baluns weren't as well balanced as most are today, antenna
manufacturers would tag the ground side of an antenna so you could point
that side down in a vertical measurement. I've found that to be unnecessary
with our biconilog.
On the other hand, I'm merely an EMC engineer and not an antenna designer
and therefore I can only share our experiences. That being said, I'll buy
another biconilog if I build a second chamber.

Don Rhodes
Principal EMC Engineer
503.685.8588 voice
503.685.7256 fax
don.rho...@infocus.com 


-Original Message-
From: Tudor, Allen [mailto:allen_tu...@pairgain.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 8:36 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Which Antenna?



Greetings,

I am having a fully anechoic pre-compliance test chamber built.  By fully
anechoic, I mean ferrite tiles will be installed on the floor as well as the
walls and ceiling.  The inner dimensions of the chamber will be 24 feet long
by 14 feet wide by 13 feet high.  The chamber will be used for radiated
emissions as well as radiated immunity.  Radiated emissions testing will be
from 30MHz to 1GHz.

I am looking at a biconilog antenna that can be used for emissions and
immunity testing.  However; for emissions measurements, the salesman
recommends that I use separate biconical and log-periodic antennas.  He says
that if I use the biconilog antenna for emissions measurements, there will
be some coupling to the ground plane when the antenna is in the vertical
position.  However, this chamber will have ferrite on the floor, so I don't
know if that is a valid argument.

Aside from the expense of two additional antennas, I have two conflicting
concerns.
1. I would rather not have to work with more than one antenna if I don't
have to due to down time and possible damage to an antenna.
2. On the flip side, I want to make sure that I have repeatable results,
especially at the low end of the spectrum.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

---
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