Leakage current for products certified to EN 60601-1/UL 2601-1

[Andrews, Kurt]

List members,

Could someone please tell me what the maximum leakage current for products
certified to EN 60601-1 and UL 2601-1 is? I know it is 3.5mA for Information
Technology Equipment and it is much lower for medical products but I don't
know what it is.

Thanks,

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/  


---
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: Product Marking - new twist

[WOODS]

I am commenting on a question and reply which is further back in this
continuing conversation.

>   Question: For products with external AC power supplies, would the NRTL
mark need >   to be on the supply and the product?  Or the supply only?

Previous reply: The external ac power supply must be "approved." The product
may or may not need to be approved.  If the rated input voltage exceeds 30 V
rms or 42.4 V dc, then it must be approved (per the NEC).  If the rated
input voltage is less than 30 V rms or 42.4 V dc, then the NEC does not
require it to be "approved;" it is a manufacturer's option whether to seek
third-party certification.

My comment: I agree that the NEC does not require products powered by Class
II sources to be Listed; however, we have found several local jurisdictions,
especially in Oregon, Washington and Florida,  that do require these
products to be Listed. It is not clear that these jurisdictions actually
have local amendments to the NEC or if it is an Code interpretation issue,
but after many discussions with these jurisdictions, we have given up and
now require that all of our Class II powered devices be UL Listed.

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: Product Marking - new twist

[Ned Devine]

Hi,

Just having NRTL accreditation from OSHA is not necessarily enough.  Some
states (i.e. North Carolina and Oregon) and local authorities (i.e. City of
Las Angeles) have there own requirements.  These local regulations can
override the OSHA NRTL program.  The NRTL must have/get approval from these
municipalities.

Ned Devine
Entela, Inc.
Program Manager III
Phone 616 248 9671
Fax  616 574 9752
e-mail  ndev...@entela.com 

-Original Message-
From: Veit, Andy [mailto:andy.v...@mts.com]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 7:06 AM
To: 'Rich Nute'
Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Product Marking - new twist



Rich-
Thanks for the detailed reply to Chris's questions.  
Is it possible that a piece of equipment with an NRTL listing can be
disconnected by a local electrical inspector/electrician enforcing the NEC
because that paticular NRTL is not "approved" in their jurisdiction?

Doesn't the NRTL approval by OSHA take precedence over whether or not the
local authorities accept the NRTL's listing?

Thanks-
-Andy

Andrew Veit
Systems Design Engineer
MTS Systems Corp
Ph: 919.677.2507
Fax: 919.677.2480
1001 Sheldon Drive 
Cary, NC 27513 


-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:39 PM
To: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Product Marking - new twist






Hi Chris:


>   For instance, one of the messages says that the NEC gives an electrician
the
>   right to unplug an un-NRTL-marked piece of equipment.  Another message
>   states that the NRTL's mark is the proof of product safety.  

"NRTL" is a designation issued by OSHA.  

"Approved" is a designation used by the NEC.

An NRTL may or may not be "approved," depending
on the jurisdiction, i.e., the authority 
enforcing the NEC.

The authority enforcing the NEC can disconnect
any equipment that is not "approved."  The
electrician may be delegated (through licensing)
to enforce the NEC, including disconnecting 
equipment that is not "approved."

>   1. Are other certifications from other labs, such as A2LA and/or NVLAP
>   allowed as long as there is a test report?

Under the NEC, equipment must be "approved."
"Approved" is defined as acceptable to the
jurisdiction enforcing the NEC.  The jurisdiction
decides "approved" on a lab-by-lab basis, and
sometimes by standards or equipment type covered 
by that lab.

Ultimately, it boils down to a certification
mark from one of the labs accepted by the
local jurisdiction.  The test report is nothing
more than a record maintained by the certification
house for its own purposes of granting the right
to use the mark on the equipment.

Under the NEC (and OSHA), it is possible to 
install a non-certified product provided it
is tested in place.  In such a situation, the
test report may be highly useful.

(In Europe, the test report is essential, as
Europe relies on the manufacturer proving the
safety of the product.)

>   2.  Does it matter what the voltage rating of the product is?  

No.

Safety certification process almost always requires
the product to be safe (and therefore certified)
in accordance with the product's ratings, including
its input voltage rating.

Although rare, it is possible to certify a multi-
voltage product for one voltage by one lab and 
another voltage by another lab.  This is done by 
agreement between the submittor and the lab.  In
such a case, the voltage for which the certification
applies is specifically related to the certification
mark.

>   3.  For products with external AC power supplies, would the NRTL mark
need
>   to be on the supply and the product?  Or the supply only?

The external ac power supply must be "approved."

The product may or may not need to be approved.  If
the rated input voltage exceeds 30 V rms or 42.4 V
dc, then it must be approved (per the NEC).  If the
rated input voltage is less than 30 V rms or 42.4 V
dc, then the NEC does not require it to be "approved;"
it is a manufacturer's option whether to seek third-
party certification.

>   4.  Does it matter where the product is used? (home, farm, factory ...)

The NEC applies to almost every location (except 
electric utility locations).



Best regards,
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


---
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:
 uns

RE: Lights for 3-meter Chamber

[Ned Devine]

Hi,

Be careful of the hot light bulbs.  I was witness to a "fire" when the foam
tiles on the ceiling came loose and touched the hot flood lamps.  The "fire"
smoldered for a long time till the fire sprinklers activated.  I also
learned that normal sprinklers heads don't spray up.  Because the sprinkler
heads were mounted below the foam tiles, it just sprayed water onto the
floor and not the foam.  The fire department had to come in with hoses and
put out the fire.  

Also, don't forget to put sprinklers above the chamber.  If the fire gets
out of the chamber (say through the vent in the top) you want to put it out.
You don't want the fire department to use their hoses to put it out.

Ned Devine
Entela, Inc.
Program Manager III
Phone 616 248 9671
Fax  616 574 9752
e-mail  ndev...@entela.com 


-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:15 AM
To: Price, Ed; 'marti...@appliedbiosystems.com';
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Lights for 3-meter Chamber



One caveat.  If you are on a budget for a room, fluorescents can be very 
handy in that they don't add nearly to the heat load that needs to be
removed like incandescents.  You need enough incandescents to light the room
sufficiently when the fluorescents are turned off during an RE test.

--
>From: "Price, Ed" 
>To: "'marti...@appliedbiosystems.com'" ,
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: Lights for 3-meter Chamber
>Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 9:23 AM
>

>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
> [mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 PM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Lights for 3-meter Chamber
>
>
>
> We are setting up a 3-meter chamber to do some pre-compliance
measurements.
> What are the best low emissions lights to purchase for this chamber.
> Please be specific as to manufacturer and models.
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe Martin
> Applied Biosystems
>
>
> ---
>
> The choice for internal chamber lighting is still simply incandescent
bulbs.
> Avoid anything that uses fluorescent lights, and also avoid any electronic
> ballast or driver circuitry.
>
> Incandescent lamps within chambers have a reputation for burning out
> quickly. This is because they are turned on and off so much (I turn mine
off
> whenever I close the chamber door), and also because the lights are
operated
> off of filtered power. When the lights are off, there is often very little
> load on the output side of the room filters, causing a slight voltage
rise.
> Thus, the lights are turned on usually with a slightly high nominal
voltage
> condition.
>
> You can use expensive "traffic light" lamps, or you may find some
industrial
> bulbs rated for 130V or so. My position is ordinary light bulbs are cheap.
I
> just keep a case handy, and I bought one of those extension wands so that
I
> can change a bulb without even getting a ladder.
>
> I also installed a couple of 150W floodlights, so that I can switch them
on
> to help my digital camera's flash when I take pictures. (The anechoic wall
> treatment really soaks up the available light; I usually force the camera
up
> the equivalent of two "f-stops", even with the floodlights.)
>
> 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
>
> ---
> 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...@

RE: IPX4 TESTERS

[Andrews, Kurt]

Ken,

Contact Educated Design & Development at 800-806-6236. They sell a Hand Held
Spray Tester and various models of an Oscillating Spray Tester. According to
their catalog these would both satisfy the test requirements for IPX4.

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:   Matsuda, Ken [SMTP:matsu...@curtisinst.com]
Sent:   Friday, January 26, 2001 1:21 PM
To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
Subject:IPX4 TESTERS


Would anyone know where I would be able to purchase an IPX4 tester?

 
Thanks,
 
Ken

---
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

Job opportunity - Product Safety

[peter . tarver]

Job Title:  Product Safety Engineer

Job Location:   San Jose, CA

Company Description:Sanmina is a "Tier-1" electronics manufacturing
services (EMS) company with over 50 world class manufacturing facilities.
Sanmina provides a full spectrum of integrated, value-added services that
includes:

*   Production of complex printed circuit board assemblies
*   Custom-designed backplane assemblies and subassemblies
*   Multi-layered printed circuit boards
*   Cable and wiring harness assemblies
*   Assembly and testing of electronics and precision systems
and subsystems.

Sanmina provides these services to a diversified base of leading OEMs in the
communications, industrial and medical instrumentation, and high-speed
computer technology sectors of the electronics industry.

The Global Design Services group is looking for candidates to fill available
positions in the Homologation Services dept.

Qualifications:

BS/EE and strong knowledge of UL1459, UL1950, CSA22.2, and Nos. 225,
950. IEC/EN60950 
and National variants required.  Familiarity with medical/dental,
test and measurement 
standards a plus.

Job Description:

Evaluation of product construction and performance in accordance
with national and 
international product safety standards.  Up front consulting with
design teams to design for compliance.  Troubleshooting/consulting
for non-compliant designs, factory 
production line testing and regular production follow up audits.

Contact: 

George  Rodriguez
Human Resources / Recruiter
Sanmina Corp.
V:  408-964-3704
F:  408-964-3799
george.rodrig...@sanmina.com

Job opportunity - Product Integrity

[peter . tarver]

Job Title:  Product Integrity Engineer

Job Location:   San Jose, CA

Company Description:Sanmina is a "Tier-1" electronics manufacturing
services (EMS) company with over 50 world class manufacturing facilities.
Sanmina provides a full spectrum of integrated, value-added services that
includes:

*   Production of complex printed circuit board assemblies
*   Custom-designed backplane assemblies and subassemblies
*   Multi-layered printed circuit boards
*   Cable and wiring harness assemblies
*   Assembly and testing of electronics and precision systems and
subsystems.

Sanmina provides these services to a diversified base of leading OEMs in the
communications, industrial and medical instrumentation, and high-speed
computer technology sectors of the electronics industry.

Qualifications:

BSEE/BSME and familiarity with high technology design, manufacturing

environment.  Knowledge of statistical analysis techniques for
calculating fits and 
MTBF at board and system levels, experience in failure analysis,
vibration, 
transportation, thermal management, dependability preferred.
Knowledge of and 
experience with NEBS requirements preferred.  Familiar with IEC
60950 and its 
variants, CSA22.2 and 225, UL 1459, ISO guide 25 and IEC guide 105 a
plus.


Job Description:

Work closely with product development teams on a wide variety of
ITE, 
telecommunications and other high technology products to "Design-in"
reliability and 
ensure compliance with national, international industry and customer
standards.
Development of test plans and procedures, working with internal
development of test 
plans and procedures, working with internal and external test labs
to obtain
compliance certifications.  Conduct and coordinate product integrity
testing to
induce thermal, environmental simulation, structural, NEBS and
statistical analysis.

Contact: 

George  Rodriguez
Human Resources / Recruiter
Sanmina Corp.
V:  408-964-3704
F:  408-964-3799
george.rodrig...@sanmina.com

Shipping within Sweden

[Brent Pahl]

Does anybody know what the regulatory requirements are for ITE equipment
shipping from one company within Sweden to another company within Sweden?
Are they any different than the normal European Union requirements?  Is
there any difference in timing (i.e. testing, reports, shipping, etc...)?  I
am pretty sure I know the answer, but I would hate to miss something by not
asking the question.

Thanks,
Brent


---
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: Product Marking - new twist

[Rich Nute]

Hi Andy:


>   Is it possible that a piece of equipment with an NRTL listing can be
>   disconnected by a local electrical inspector/electrician enforcing the NEC
>   because that paticular NRTL is not "approved" in their jurisdiction?

Yes.

Please recognize:

   "NRTL" is an OSHA program governing electrical
   products used by employees in the workplace.

   Requirements for NRTL are imposed on employers,
   and enforced by OSHA inspectors.

   NRTL is determined solely by OSHA for OSHA
   purposes.

   "Approved" is an NEC requirement for equipment
   and appliances used in electrical installations.

   Requirements for "approved" electrical devices
   are imposed by local electrical inspectors 
   enforcing the electrical code.  Licensed
   electricians are expected to only install 
   "approved" electrical devices.

   "Approved" is determined by the local
   jurisdiction enforcing the code (i.e. a
   branch of the local building code 
   administration).

>   Doesn't the NRTL approval by OSHA take precedence over whether or not the
>   local authorities accept the NRTL's listing?

No.

These are separate and independent requirements.  We
cannot make a generalization that all NRTLs are also
"approved" in every jurisdiction.  Some NRTLs (e.g.,
UL, CSA, ITS) are indeed "approved" in every 
jurisdiction (because they make it their business to
be so approved).

Likewise, we cannot make a generalization that all
"approved" electrical devices are also NRTL-certified.

Determining an NRTL is easy by going to the OSHA-NRTL
web page.

Determining an "approved" product is not easy as each
jurisdiction makes its own determination.  However, 
each safety certification house knows which jurisdictions
have approved its certifications.  So, determining 
whether a product is "approved" in a particular 
jurisdiction is a simple matter of asking the 
certification house.

Having said all this... products installed after the
electrical construction is complete and signed off
by the local electrical inspector are rarely inspected.
Thus, manufacturers of such products rarely get any
feedback regarding "approval" of their products.  So,
it appears that NRTL certification also satisfies 
local "approval" whereas in fact such products are
never inspected.  

Anecdote:  Some years ago, our equipment was installed
in the finished basement of a multi-story building 
that was still under construction.  The electrical 
inspector, during his normal inspection round, returned
to the basement and saw all the various products that
had been installed (plugged in) after he had signed
off the floor.  He inspected the products, and found 
a number of them without any safety certification.
These were disconnected and red-tagged.  The basement
operations were shut down.  The customer was irate.

I hope this explains the difference between NRTL and
"approved."


Best regards,
Rich


ps:  For our colleagues not familiar with the USA...

 NRTL  =  Nationally Recognised Testing Laboratory
 OSHA  =  Occupational Safety and Health Administration
 NEC   =  National Electrical Code




---
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: Decoupling Capacitors

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

A moving and passionate tale with a moral:

DO NOT let anyone screw with your PC boards!  Every one of these stories,
from internal tracks that break, to creepage failures due to copper thieving
squares, to bypass capacitors disappearing because "they don't matter all
that much anyway" trace back to someone further down the line screwing with
the DESIGN of a PC board.  I have similar stories.  The PC board is not just
a green thing onto which your components go!  It is as much a part of the
design as anything else, and as the frequencies go up and up and up, they
will be ever more so!  Would you casually let the board stuffing house
substitute an HC for an LS, or put a bipolar transistor in place of a FET
because they come in the same package?  Of course not!

The best thing to do is to have your PC fab house and board-stuffing house
review the design (and do all the point-to-point checks), locate all the
potential fab problems, and then incorporate these into a final design.
Past that point, the board cannot change one molecule's worth without an ECO
that you know about.

It is ENGINEERS that spend the late nights and get called on the carpet when
things get screwed with.  Don't let it happen to YOU.

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

---
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

IPX4 TESTERS

[Matsuda, Ken]

Would anyone know where I would be able to purchase an IPX4 tester?  
 
Thanks,
 
Ken

---
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: Fire alarm equipment - EU approval regime

[Kevin Harris]

Hello Amund,

Frustrating isn't it. Here we have European Norms but the individual
countries are insisting on doing their own testing to the same standard.
There was a meeting in October in Madrid of  EFSAC (European  Fire and
Security Advisory Council) on this very subject. Go to http://efsac.org
 to see a PDF of the proceeding. I don't see resolution of
this problem any time soon


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  

-Original Message-
From:   am...@westin.org [mailto:am...@westin.org]
Sent:   Friday, January 26, 2001 2:56 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Fire alarm equipment - EU approval regime


Hi members

My questions are related to Fire alarm equipment (panels,
detectors, etc) and 
the approval regime in Europe. Today the EN54-series are
mandatory in most/all 
countries within EU. But as a manufacturer you have no
chance to carry out a 
one-stop-shopping/testing for all national approvals. That
means, if you want a 
Belgian approval, you have to visit a national lab in
Belgium and make all the 
tests. If you also want to have an UK approval, you have to
visit a national 
lab in UK and full testing, and so on …. Well, some of
these labs might have 
agreements that they accept test reports from other foreign
labs and the 
certification bodies might also accept foreign test report.

1. So, when will it be possible to carry out testing
according to EN54-series 
at an accredited lab and thereafter have full access to the
EU market?

2. Which legislation makes it possible to operate like this
today in EU? Where 
is the common market?

Thanks for you help.

Best regards
Amund Westin, Oslo, Norway

-- 
Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at
http://Nameplanet.com/?su

---
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:markings

[brian_kunde]

Brian,

Check out the following web site:

http://w3.hike.te.chiba-u.ac.jp/iec417/ver2.0/html/index.html

It has the IEC417 on-line.

I think the AC symbol you are referring to is No. 417-IEC-5032

Brian

Reply Separator
Subject:markings 
Author: Brian O'Connell  
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   1/26/01 7:42 AM


A copy of IEC417 is not avail to me. Could some pls advise if there are
requirments to mark input and output Vs on component power supplies with the
graphical symbols for AC and DC?

Note that 60950 (Clause 1.7) only requires symbols if the input is DC; but a
respected agency engineer says the symbol is required. Also, 60601 (Apdx D)
recommends, but does not requre, symbols in lieu of "words with the
intention of obviating language differences.." 

Perhaps this is just an EC "marketing" requirement?


Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.


---
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: Plastic Bezel Safety Requirements

[Andrews, Kurt]

Sharon,

>From EN 60950 clause 4.4.4 Materials for enclosures and for decorative parts

Materials used for ENCLOSURES of equipment shall be such that the risk of
ignition and the spread of fire or flames is minimized.

Metals, ceramic materials, and glass which is heat-resistant tempered, wired
or laminated, are considered to comply without test.

MECHANICAL ENCLOSURES, ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURES, and parts for such ENCLOSURES,
if located externally to FIRE ENCLOSURES, and DECORATIVE PARTS shall be of
FLAMMABILITY CLASS HB or better, except that small external DECORATIVE parts
that would contribute negligible fuel to a fire, such as nameplates,
mounting feet, key caps, knobs and the like, shall be exempt from this
requirement. 


Your bezel should be considered a decorative part outside of a fire
enclosure (metal chassis) as in the third paragraph. So therefore it should
be rated HB or better.

Hope this answers your question,

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:   Sharon Andrus [SMTP:sha...@pathlight.com]
Sent:   Friday, January 26, 2001 9:32 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Plastic Bezel Safety Requirements


Hello Group,

I have been informed and entertained for many seasons by following
the
various safety and EMI/EMC threads of this group.  Now it is my turn
to ask
for assistance.

What are the safety requirements ( UL 1950, CSA 950, EN 60950 ) for
a
plastic bezel on the outside of a metal chassis for ITE equipment ?
The
specific material of this bezel would be either polycarbonate or a
polycarbonate/ABS blend.  Would this bezel be required to have a UL
94V0
flammability rating ?

Thank you in advance for any help proferred,


=== =   Sharon A. Andrus
=  ==   Engineering Support
===   ===   and Certification Specialist
=
=== =   Pathlight Technology Inc.
=  ==   9 Brown Road, Ithaca, NY 14850
===   ===   Phone: (607) 266-4000 Ext 409
P A T H L I G H T   Fax: (607) 266-0352
=   Email: sha...@pathlight.com
   ==   Web Site: www.pathlight.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

[Fwd: Plastic Bezel Safety Requirements]

[Andrew Carson]

--

Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer
Xyratex Engineering Laboratory
Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014

--- Begin Message ---
Sharon

If the plastic part is outside the Fire Enclosure and there are no sources of
ignition next to it. (Limited power source). Then the standard regards it as
"decorative cover" and you only need to meet the HB flammability
classification.

Hope that helps

Sharon Andrus wrote:

> Hello Group,
>
> I have been informed and entertained for many seasons by following the
> various safety and EMI/EMC threads of this group.  Now it is my turn to ask
> for assistance.
>
> What are the safety requirements ( UL 1950, CSA 950, EN 60950 ) for a
> plastic bezel on the outside of a metal chassis for ITE equipment ?  The
> specific material of this bezel would be either polycarbonate or a
> polycarbonate/ABS blend.  Would this bezel be required to have a UL 94V0
> flammability rating ?
>
> Thank you in advance for any help proferred,
>
> === =   Sharon A. Andrus
> =  ==   Engineering Support
> ===   ===   and Certification Specialist
> =
> === =   Pathlight Technology Inc.
> =  ==   9 Brown Road, Ithaca, NY 14850
> ===   ===   Phone: (607) 266-4000 Ext 409
> P A T H L I G H T   Fax: (607) 266-0352
> =   Email: sha...@pathlight.com
>==   Web Site: www.pathlight.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

--

Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer
Xyratex Engineering Laboratory
Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014


--- End Message ---

Re: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Andrew Carson]

A little home experiment to demonstrate the effect of Cell phones on signal
lines.

Take you old fashioned analogue land line and make a phone call.
Switch on your Cell Phone and hold it say, 0.5m form the phone.
Every time the Cell Phone sends out a signal to handshake with the base station,
you can hear a a serious of short pulses on the land line.

It works on Analogue lines, but I have noticed the effect on a digital land
line.

As a side note to put the risk of interfering with aircraft navigation systems
into perspective. Some of our goods are fabricated form welded steel frames, and
posses a residual magnetic field. So we have to follow the IATA Dangerous good
regs to ship these things by air. The absolute limit for air transportation is a
magnetic field strength of less than 5.25mG. The Earths magnetic field is 450 to
550mG.


Don House wrote:

> I have alsways thought this... however there is a man serving a year prison
> sentence in England for interfering with a planes navigation system.  There
> is also a plane crash now attributed to a man who refused to stop using his
> cell phone.  This is out of my area but one of my fellow engineers says it
> has to do with antenna placement on the aircraft.
>
> Don
>
> -Original Message-
> From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:26 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>
> I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
> make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
> of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
> To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>
> My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
> agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
> phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
> by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
> planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
> are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
> different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
> made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
> the ground.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brent DeWitt
>
> "Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
> Of Mike Hopkins
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
> To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>
> As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
> in a few comments:
>
> It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
> electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
> finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
> communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
> if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
> electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
> use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.
>
> On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
> top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
> Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
> players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
> in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
> large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
> and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
> a general problems for aircraft electronics.
>
> HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
> believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
> least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
> personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
> interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
> certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
> (VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
> that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
> anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
> antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).
>
> My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
> a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
> be primary) in most aircraft, a f

RE: Decoupling Capacitors

[Mark Gill]

Hey Chris - Great story, and speaks well to Signal Integrity Engineering,
the offshoot of EMC.

Regards,

Mark Gill
EMC/Safety/NEBS Design & Compliance
C-MAC Design Corporation

-Original Message-
From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 9:38 AM
To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
Subject: Decoupling Capacitors



Just a little personal experience I want to relate.  The EMC people can
really appreciate this.  Sorry about the long, conversational tone, but I
think it will help people appreciate how much effort could have been
prevented by following simple EMC design rules.

One of our products has a motherboard with an ISA bus with 7 standard
connectors.   Over the past 7 years or so, we have taken advantage of this
flexibility to use processor, VGA, ethernet and serial extender cards from
numerous third party vendors with quite a bit of success.

About a month ago, we started having troubles with an 8 port serial
expansion card that we buy from a third party vendor.  Some of the units
would fail the serial comm test during the final quality test before
shipping the units.  We started testing samples extensively and set up some
overnight tests to exercise the cards.  We found that some cards would run
indefinitely, others would fail.  Sometimes they would fail after 1 minute,
sometimes after 10 hours.  We considered interrupt servicing (software)
problems, bad chips, faulty connectors ...

We then did about two weeks' worth of "isolation" testing, where we would
shift boards between units, trying different software, firmware, hardware,
processors (cookware?) configurations.  We found only one common thread.
That was, "bad" boards would always fail, although the time to failure was
random.  "Good" boards were always good.  

We then started swapping chips between "good" boards and "bad" boards.  We
swapped RS-232 drivers... no change.  Uarts... no change.  Processors ... no
change.  Memory... no change. Firmware... no change.  We then swapped 3each
74LS374's and 2each 74LS373's all at once Aha!  the "bad" board became
good and the "good" board became bad.  

We thought we were narrowing in.  So, we put the 373's back so that only the
374's were swapped.  Suddenly, neither board would fail after an entire
day's testing.  Both boards became good?   This brought our isolation
testing to a screeching halt.  We thought we  were on the trail of finding a
bad chip either by date code, manufacturer ... something.  But when both
boards went "good" this hypothesis went out the window.  (For those who are
curious, we did put the chips back so that all 5 were swapped and got our
"good" and "bad" boards back.)

We then sent one "good" and one "bad" board back to the manufacturer.  They
couldn't duplicate the problem.  Their owner talked to our software guy and
suggested changes in interrupt handling, handshaking, initialization ...
None of this worked.  

About three weeks ago, my boss was sitting down with us evaluating the
boards, we were looking for differences in manufacturers, date codes, bad
solder joints ...  He made a casual comment that the board didn't have many
decoupling caps. ( You know, those $1 per ton, ubiquitous, little yellow
gumdrop, 0.1 uF capacitors).  At the time, we all agreed, but thought
nothing of it.

This product has been "stop-ship" for about a month.  We have customers
screaming, marketing is asking for daily updates.  The guys in manufacturing
are renting hotel rooms to store backed up units (that part's just a joke).
You get the picture.

We were at the end of our rope.  My boss suggested to take a "bad" board and
solder on 0.1uF cap across each of the 5 chips in question.  I had nothing
to lose.

As I'm writing this email today, the "bad" board with those 5 capacitors (of
which we probably have 10,000 in stock) is happily running through test
after test.  

What's the moral of the story.  If you EVER think you can save money by
skimping on decoupling caps.  Think again.  If you ever think that good EMC
design is only for EMC's sake.  Think again.  If you ever put EMC problems
on the side and don't consider them a possible failure mode.  Think again.
I've learned my lesson and I'm going to relay this message to our supplier
for these boards.

My fingers are crossed.   I'm now praying to the EMC Gods. (It might help)
I'm hoping that a weekend long test will prove that we can end a month-long
stop ship on a quarter of a million dollars in product with one dollar's
worth of well placed capacitance.  I'm hoping that this same $1 worth of
capacitance will let us and our board vendor sleep easy for the first time
in quite a while.

Please don't respond to this via the forum.  I feel guilty enough about
tying it up, but I thought the moral of the story and the validation of why
EMC design is worth doing  was worth it.

Chris






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Comm

RE: Plastic Bezel Safety Requirements

[Lyons, Jim]

If you removed the plastic piece and still had a complete fire enclosure as
defined by the standards, then the plastic piece is decorative and can be
rated HB. If the plastic piece is a functional part of the enclosure, it
would be V1 or 5V depending on the classification of the equipment.

Jim

-Original Message-
From: Sharon Andrus [mailto:sha...@pathlight.com]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 9:32 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Plastic Bezel Safety Requirements



Hello Group,

I have been informed and entertained for many seasons by following the
various safety and EMI/EMC threads of this group.  Now it is my turn to ask
for assistance.

What are the safety requirements ( UL 1950, CSA 950, EN 60950 ) for a
plastic bezel on the outside of a metal chassis for ITE equipment ?  The
specific material of this bezel would be either polycarbonate or a
polycarbonate/ABS blend.  Would this bezel be required to have a UL 94V0
flammability rating ?

Thank you in advance for any help proferred,


=== =   Sharon A. Andrus
=  ==   Engineering Support
===   ===   and Certification Specialist
=
=== =   Pathlight Technology Inc.
=  ==   9 Brown Road, Ithaca, NY 14850
===   ===   Phone: (607) 266-4000 Ext 409
P A T H L I G H T   Fax: (607) 266-0352
=   Email: sha...@pathlight.com
   ==   Web Site: www.pathlight.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

markings

[Brian O'Connell]

A copy of IEC417 is not avail to me. Could some pls advise if there are
requirments to mark input and output Vs on component power supplies with the
graphical symbols for AC and DC?

Note that 60950 (Clause 1.7) only requires symbols if the input is DC; but a
respected agency engineer says the symbol is required. Also, 60601 (Apdx D)
recommends, but does not requre, symbols in lieu of "words with the
intention of obviating language differences.." 

Perhaps this is just an EC "marketing" requirement?


Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc.


---
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

Decoupling Capacitors

[Chris Maxwell]

Just a little personal experience I want to relate.  The EMC people can
really appreciate this.  Sorry about the long, conversational tone, but I
think it will help people appreciate how much effort could have been
prevented by following simple EMC design rules.

One of our products has a motherboard with an ISA bus with 7 standard
connectors.   Over the past 7 years or so, we have taken advantage of this
flexibility to use processor, VGA, ethernet and serial extender cards from
numerous third party vendors with quite a bit of success.

About a month ago, we started having troubles with an 8 port serial
expansion card that we buy from a third party vendor.  Some of the units
would fail the serial comm test during the final quality test before
shipping the units.  We started testing samples extensively and set up some
overnight tests to exercise the cards.  We found that some cards would run
indefinitely, others would fail.  Sometimes they would fail after 1 minute,
sometimes after 10 hours.  We considered interrupt servicing (software)
problems, bad chips, faulty connectors ...

We then did about two weeks' worth of "isolation" testing, where we would
shift boards between units, trying different software, firmware, hardware,
processors (cookware?) configurations.  We found only one common thread.
That was, "bad" boards would always fail, although the time to failure was
random.  "Good" boards were always good.  

We then started swapping chips between "good" boards and "bad" boards.  We
swapped RS-232 drivers... no change.  Uarts... no change.  Processors ... no
change.  Memory... no change. Firmware... no change.  We then swapped 3each
74LS374's and 2each 74LS373's all at once Aha!  the "bad" board became
good and the "good" board became bad.  

We thought we were narrowing in.  So, we put the 373's back so that only the
374's were swapped.  Suddenly, neither board would fail after an entire
day's testing.  Both boards became good?   This brought our isolation
testing to a screeching halt.  We thought we  were on the trail of finding a
bad chip either by date code, manufacturer ... something.  But when both
boards went "good" this hypothesis went out the window.  (For those who are
curious, we did put the chips back so that all 5 were swapped and got our
"good" and "bad" boards back.)

We then sent one "good" and one "bad" board back to the manufacturer.  They
couldn't duplicate the problem.  Their owner talked to our software guy and
suggested changes in interrupt handling, handshaking, initialization ...
None of this worked.  

About three weeks ago, my boss was sitting down with us evaluating the
boards, we were looking for differences in manufacturers, date codes, bad
solder joints ...  He made a casual comment that the board didn't have many
decoupling caps. ( You know, those $1 per ton, ubiquitous, little yellow
gumdrop, 0.1 uF capacitors).  At the time, we all agreed, but thought
nothing of it.

This product has been "stop-ship" for about a month.  We have customers
screaming, marketing is asking for daily updates.  The guys in manufacturing
are renting hotel rooms to store backed up units (that part's just a joke).
You get the picture.

We were at the end of our rope.  My boss suggested to take a "bad" board and
solder on 0.1uF cap across each of the 5 chips in question.  I had nothing
to lose.

As I'm writing this email today, the "bad" board with those 5 capacitors (of
which we probably have 10,000 in stock) is happily running through test
after test.  

What's the moral of the story.  If you EVER think you can save money by
skimping on decoupling caps.  Think again.  If you ever think that good EMC
design is only for EMC's sake.  Think again.  If you ever put EMC problems
on the side and don't consider them a possible failure mode.  Think again.
I've learned my lesson and I'm going to relay this message to our supplier
for these boards.

My fingers are crossed.   I'm now praying to the EMC Gods. (It might help)
I'm hoping that a weekend long test will prove that we can end a month-long
stop ship on a quarter of a million dollars in product with one dollar's
worth of well placed capacitance.  I'm hoping that this same $1 worth of
capacitance will let us and our board vendor sleep easy for the first time
in quite a while.

Please don't respond to this via the forum.  I feel guilty enough about
tying it up, but I thought the moral of the story and the validation of why
EMC design is worth doing  was worth it.

Chris






---
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 Nut

Plastic Bezel Safety Requirements

[Sharon Andrus]

Hello Group,

I have been informed and entertained for many seasons by following the
various safety and EMI/EMC threads of this group.  Now it is my turn to ask
for assistance.

What are the safety requirements ( UL 1950, CSA 950, EN 60950 ) for a
plastic bezel on the outside of a metal chassis for ITE equipment ?  The
specific material of this bezel would be either polycarbonate or a
polycarbonate/ABS blend.  Would this bezel be required to have a UL 94V0
flammability rating ?

Thank you in advance for any help proferred,


=== =   Sharon A. Andrus
=  ==   Engineering Support
===   ===   and Certification Specialist
=
=== =   Pathlight Technology Inc.
=  ==   9 Brown Road, Ithaca, NY 14850
===   ===   Phone: (607) 266-4000 Ext 409
P A T H L I G H T   Fax: (607) 266-0352
=   Email: sha...@pathlight.com
   ==   Web Site: www.pathlight.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: Product Marking - new twist

[Veit, Andy]

Rich-
Thanks for the detailed reply to Chris's questions.  
Is it possible that a piece of equipment with an NRTL listing can be
disconnected by a local electrical inspector/electrician enforcing the NEC
because that paticular NRTL is not "approved" in their jurisdiction?

Doesn't the NRTL approval by OSHA take precedence over whether or not the
local authorities accept the NRTL's listing?

Thanks-
-Andy

Andrew Veit
Systems Design Engineer
MTS Systems Corp
Ph: 919.677.2507
Fax: 919.677.2480
1001 Sheldon Drive 
Cary, NC 27513 


-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:39 PM
To: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Product Marking - new twist






Hi Chris:


>   For instance, one of the messages says that the NEC gives an electrician
the
>   right to unplug an un-NRTL-marked piece of equipment.  Another message
>   states that the NRTL's mark is the proof of product safety.  

"NRTL" is a designation issued by OSHA.  

"Approved" is a designation used by the NEC.

An NRTL may or may not be "approved," depending
on the jurisdiction, i.e., the authority 
enforcing the NEC.

The authority enforcing the NEC can disconnect
any equipment that is not "approved."  The
electrician may be delegated (through licensing)
to enforce the NEC, including disconnecting 
equipment that is not "approved."

>   1. Are other certifications from other labs, such as A2LA and/or NVLAP
>   allowed as long as there is a test report?

Under the NEC, equipment must be "approved."
"Approved" is defined as acceptable to the
jurisdiction enforcing the NEC.  The jurisdiction
decides "approved" on a lab-by-lab basis, and
sometimes by standards or equipment type covered 
by that lab.

Ultimately, it boils down to a certification
mark from one of the labs accepted by the
local jurisdiction.  The test report is nothing
more than a record maintained by the certification
house for its own purposes of granting the right
to use the mark on the equipment.

Under the NEC (and OSHA), it is possible to 
install a non-certified product provided it
is tested in place.  In such a situation, the
test report may be highly useful.

(In Europe, the test report is essential, as
Europe relies on the manufacturer proving the
safety of the product.)

>   2.  Does it matter what the voltage rating of the product is?  

No.

Safety certification process almost always requires
the product to be safe (and therefore certified)
in accordance with the product's ratings, including
its input voltage rating.

Although rare, it is possible to certify a multi-
voltage product for one voltage by one lab and 
another voltage by another lab.  This is done by 
agreement between the submittor and the lab.  In
such a case, the voltage for which the certification
applies is specifically related to the certification
mark.

>   3.  For products with external AC power supplies, would the NRTL mark
need
>   to be on the supply and the product?  Or the supply only?

The external ac power supply must be "approved."

The product may or may not need to be approved.  If
the rated input voltage exceeds 30 V rms or 42.4 V
dc, then it must be approved (per the NEC).  If the
rated input voltage is less than 30 V rms or 42.4 V
dc, then the NEC does not require it to be "approved;"
it is a manufacturer's option whether to seek third-
party certification.

>   4.  Does it matter where the product is used? (home, farm, factory ...)

The NEC applies to almost every location (except 
electric utility locations).



Best regards,
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


---
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: Fuse Markings

[James, Chris]

If the power brick is only intended for removal by a qualified service
Engineer, the marking need only be applied to the external rear panel
visible to the user - based on my experience of having units qualified to EN
60065. 

Chris

-Original Message-
From: Davis, Mike [mailto:mike_da...@adc.com]
Sent: 25 January 2001 20:16
To: EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject: Fuse Markings



Thanks to all who responded to my question of what are the letter
designations for blow open speeds of fuses.

The consensus of responses were the following:

N 60127-1 1991 Clause 6.1d

FF: denoting very quick acting
F: denoting quick acting
M: denoting medium time-lag
T: denoting time-lag
TT: denoting long time-lag

I have another question. 

A slide in power supply module has an externally accessible and replaceable
fuse located at the rear panel of the module.  When the power supply module
is inserted into the chassis, the fuse is then only is accessible through a
slot in the rear panel of the chassis. Where is the appropriate place to
locate the power ratings; on the chassis rear panel, the module rear panel
or both. 
Service personnel has a choice to either replace the fuse from the rear of
the chassis or merely remove the power supply module, then replace the fuse.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com  


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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

Fire alarm equipment - EU approval regime

[amund]

Hi members

My questions are related to Fire alarm equipment (panels, detectors, etc) and 
the approval regime in Europe. Today the EN54-series are mandatory in most/all 
countries within EU. But as a manufacturer you have no chance to carry out a 
one-stop-shopping/testing for all national approvals. That means, if you want a 
Belgian approval, you have to visit a national lab in Belgium and make all the 
tests. If you also want to have an UK approval, you have to visit a national 
lab in UK and full testing, and so on …. Well, some of these labs might 
have 
agreements that they accept test reports from other foreign labs and the 
certification bodies might also accept foreign test report.

1. So, when will it be possible to carry out testing according to EN54-series 
at an accredited lab and thereafter have full access to the EU market?

2. Which legislation makes it possible to operate like this today in EU? Where 
is the common market?

Thanks for you help.

Best regards
Amund Westin, Oslo, Norway

-- 
Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su

---
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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Ken Javor]

No.  It has to do, like the other gentleman said, with confusing the system
by having one cell phone talking to two or more towers at the same time.

--
>From: rbus...@es.com
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 11:26 AM
>

>
> I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
> make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
> of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
> To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>
>
>
> My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
> agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
> phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
> by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
> planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
> are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
> different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
> made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
> the ground.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brent DeWitt
>
> "Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
> Of Mike Hopkins
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
> To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>
>
>
> As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
> in a few comments:
>
> It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
> electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
> finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
> communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
> if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
> electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
> use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.
>
> On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
> top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
> Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
> players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
> in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
> large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
> and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
> a general problems for aircraft electronics.
>
> HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
> believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
> least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
> personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
> interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
> certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
> (VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
> that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
> anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
> antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).
>
> My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
> a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
> be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication would likely be caught
> before it was a problem (NOT so if you're on an ILS approach in IMC
> (Instrument meteorological conditions) where a faulty indication can run you
> into terrain -- this is why no electronics should be operated on the
> aircraft below 10,000 feet on take-off or approach).
>
> I doubt a cell phone caused the Saab to crash -- most airplanes will still
> fly even with all electronics blocked out (don't know if the Saab is fly by
> wire or not, but I don't think so). Horizontal situation indicators and
> gyro's are driven by vacuum and in larger airplanes, there's back-up vacuum,
> red flashlights in the cockpit, etc... Upsetting autopilot controls might
> cause the airplane to do something erratic, but that sort of thing should be
> recoverable as long as someone in the cockpit is paying attention.
>
> Enough of that -- need to get back to my real job
>
> Mike Hopkins
> KeyTek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 AM
> To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject: consu

Re: MIL-STD-461E

[Ken Javor]

RS105 is the HAEMP requirement.  It is 50 kV/m double-exponential type 
waveform generated with a parallel plate.  This is obviously an unclassified
requirement.  There is a somewhat subtle change between D and E.  D shows
the peak at less than or equal to 10 ns.  E shows the peak at 5 ns.  Other
than that, the waveforms appear equivalent.

Ken Javor

--
>From: Darrell Locke 
>To: "'EMC-PSTC - forum' (E-mail)" 
>Subject: MIL-STD-461E
>Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 10:51 AM
>

>
> Dear Members,
>
> I have received the new revision of MIL-STD-461 revision E.  It contains
> much more detail on testing to the existing requirements.  I have also been
> told by another source that it contains unclassified sections for HAEMP
> testing and parameters.  However, I do not see any reference to HAEMP in the
> E revision.  Can any of you military experts help me out here.
>
> 1.  What are the differences between 461D and 461E?
>
> 2.  Are there HAEMP requirements buried in the E revisions somewhere?
>
> Thanks
>
> Darrell Locke
> Advanced Input Devices
>
> ---
> 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: Lights for 3-meter Chamber

[Ken Javor]

One caveat.  If you are on a budget for a room, fluorescents can be very 
handy in that they don't add nearly to the heat load that needs to be
removed like incandescents.  You need enough incandescents to light the room
sufficiently when the fluorescents are turned off during an RE test.

--
>From: "Price, Ed" 
>To: "'marti...@appliedbiosystems.com'" ,
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: Lights for 3-meter Chamber
>Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 9:23 AM
>

>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
> [mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 PM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Lights for 3-meter Chamber
>
>
>
> We are setting up a 3-meter chamber to do some pre-compliance measurements.
> What are the best low emissions lights to purchase for this chamber.
> Please be specific as to manufacturer and models.
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe Martin
> Applied Biosystems
>
>
> ---
>
> The choice for internal chamber lighting is still simply incandescent bulbs.
> Avoid anything that uses fluorescent lights, and also avoid any electronic
> ballast or driver circuitry.
>
> Incandescent lamps within chambers have a reputation for burning out
> quickly. This is because they are turned on and off so much (I turn mine off
> whenever I close the chamber door), and also because the lights are operated
> off of filtered power. When the lights are off, there is often very little
> load on the output side of the room filters, causing a slight voltage rise.
> Thus, the lights are turned on usually with a slightly high nominal voltage
> condition.
>
> You can use expensive "traffic light" lamps, or you may find some industrial
> bulbs rated for 130V or so. My position is ordinary light bulbs are cheap. I
> just keep a case handy, and I bought one of those extension wands so that I
> can change a bulb without even getting a ladder.
>
> I also installed a couple of 150W floodlights, so that I can switch them on
> to help my digital camera's flash when I take pictures. (The anechoic wall
> treatment really soaks up the available light; I usually force the camera up
> the equivalent of two "f-stops", even with the floodlights.)
>
> 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
>
> ---
> 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