RE: Public Health and Safety Signs - Tomfoolery so delete if you don't have the time.
Here in the US, awhile back, a woman was suing the liquor industry because she gave birth to a fetal alcohol syndrome child. Apparently, nobody in their right mind would assume that consuming a fifth of whiskey a day could be harmful to a developing fetus making the liquor industry patiently and damnably negligent in not putting warning labels on the bottles. (We got them now thank God!) During the coverage of the trial, and I don't remember the context, but the issue of passing nastiness to infants who were being breast fed was also brought up. While I didn't hear the end of this I often have wondered that if that was true, and this woman's case had merit (her lawyer took it up didn't he?) then the logical extension would be that mothers milk should come with a warning. Soo Just what the heck will this label look like, and even more importantly, just where are they going to put it so that people, can easily read it! Gary -Original Message- From: Michael Mertinooke [mailto:mertino...@skyskan.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:37 PM To: wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Public Health and Safety Signs signs at work. Is there a similar Directive for health and safety signs for the general public? Whoo! The mind boggles! You mean with like people with exclamation point in triangle tattoos on various portions of the anatomy? Or biohazard labels on the door of the kids' rooms? Judging from some of the ANSI Z535 safety labels I see in the catalogs, the Human Warning Labels would be interesting indeed. =] Cheers! Mike --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Li-ion Batteries
Well, I haven't seen anybody weigh in on this yet, so here goes. First of all, Li-Ion batteries have tremendous energy density. I recently watched some videos of Li-Ion cells failing an overcharge test, and it was really impressive. These things looked like a roman candle going off ! They would make great highway flares. So here's my advice and hopefully I can answer some of your questions. 1. Vent. Period. If a cell vents inside your device, the pressure build up inside your battery pack enclosure could be tremendous if an adequate venting mechanism is not provided. 2. In addition to providing reliable overcharge, overvoltage, reverse polarity protection, consider controlling the maximum discharge current as well. With today's cells, most (probably all) incorporate a PTC device built into the cell to interrupt excessive current. I personally would not recommend relying solely on this protective device alone. However, that built-in device will allow you to pass the rapid discharge test of clause 4.3.21 (UL1950 3rd Ed. reference), where you must defeat any current or voltage limiting device in the battery load circuit. 3. Protection circuits for Li-Ion are typically based on an IC controller along with some discreet components making up the circuit. Last time I dealt with getting a Li-Ion pack approved, that IC is not UL recognized, and we could not find any control chips that are. Expect to be asked by the test house to provide technical assistance in determining worst-case faults in that circuit, so that they can ensure the safety of that control circuit under any conceivable single fault condition. Expect the test house to focus more on the battery and associated control circuits than anything else in your portable device, just as they might focus more on the primary side of an AC supply. The greatest energy source, and greatest safety hazard, in your product will be the battery. What standards must these Li-ion batteries needs to comply before we purchase them? UL2054 or UL1642 standards or both ? What about European standards ? 4. UL 1642 is the applicable U.S. standard for cells. UL 2054 could be applied as well to a Li-Ion battery pack as well, but in your case, the requirements within the overall product standard (60950?) should apply. Not sure about the equivalent CENELEC standard. 5. When discussing battery issues, please refer to them as cells or battery packs, so that we all know whether you mean an individual cell or a pack made up of two or more connected cells. I am making assumptions that when you say battery, what you mean is, a removable battery pack, but I guess it's conceivable to have a widget that the cells are permanently mounted inside of, although I can't conceive why anyone would do that, since the typical life of a Li-Ion is going to be around 500 charge-discharge cycles. In the case of a Li-Ion battery pack, the only information required on the pack is the voltage and the IEC symbol referring the user to the operator's manual, where you will be required to have statements regarding the proper replacement of the battery, statements telling the operator not to disassemble, crush, or incinerate the battery pack, and not to operate above a certain temperature (usually around 200 C - this is very important, since people are always using their ITE devices in a friggin walk-in oven at 392 F to crush, disassemble, or incinerate their Li-Ion battery packs). This max temperature comes from the conditions of acceptability for the cell itself, and will vary between brands. Alternately, all of this info can be on the battery pack itself, but it's a lot of text that you may not be able to fit - 60950 does allow the warnings to be in the operator's service guides. We might want the supplier to put our company name on the battery, what can we do (or request from the supplier) to protect ourself on liability issue? If you figure out a way to get your company excused from any liability resulting from use of a product that your company produces, please let me know. Name or no name on it, if you sell that product, you could be liable for any damages. As always, independent third party evaluation of your product's compliance to the accepted national safety standards of the country in which you are marketing the product, along with diligent demonstratable product and process control in the manufacturing of said product is your best defense against product liability. But all that still doesn't ultimately relieve you of liability. Hope this helped. Please note that the opinions expressed above are my own opinions and not neccessarily that of my employer. Doug Massey LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: Koh N. G. [mailto:koh...@cyberway.com.sg] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 10:07 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Li-ion Batteries Greeting everyone, Can anyone advice on the requirement for Li-ion batteries? We are currently designing a prototable device which has Li-ion batteries built
RE: Public Health and Safety Signs
signs at work. Is there a similar Directive for health and safety signs for the general public? Whoo! The mind boggles! You mean with like people with exclamation point in triangle tattoos on various portions of the anatomy? Or biohazard labels on the door of the kids' rooms? Judging from some of the ANSI Z535 safety labels I see in the catalogs, the Human Warning Labels would be interesting indeed. =] Cheers! Mike --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
NEC - 1990 version
I'm trying to make a decision on this issue right at the moment and here is my thoughts so far. Going through this old copy of the NEC index and looking for Disconnecting means I have a couple of interesting options. Electronic computer/data processing equipment, 645-2(1) and 645-10. The first paragraph literally says go to the second paragraph. 645-10 says that a means shall be provided to disconnect power to all electronic equipment in the same roomthey shall be grouped and identified and controlled from locations readily accessible at the principal exit doors. No reference to voltages, although I would assume that they are talking branch circuits. - Tania's note says annex NAB.2 says to treat dc power systems the same. Section 2.3 (UL 1950) allows for a manual statement that requires disconnect device be provided during installation. This matches my experiences with Telecom equipment, that has been accepted and installed. The installations that I have been in have at the top of each equipment rack some sort of power distribution system, that is a series of fuses and/or breakers. They do it for some very practical reasons - there is just a whole lot less chance of the crafts person hitting the wrong switch and bringing down the entire frame. That obviously, would also mean that the craftsperson has less chance of having someone else flip the disconnect back on line while they have their hands inside the equipment. My cynical side says this is only a secondary concern but Further down in this section the NEC refers to sections 705-20 and 705-21 Interconnected electric power production sources. While they don't reference it in the index the next section 705-22 (1) is, in my opinion, very pertinent. 705-20 Disconnecting Means, Sources disconnect all ungrounded conductors 705-21 Disconnecting Means, Equipment from all ungrounded conductors of all sources of supply This would seem to imply having them at both ends !!!?? 705-22 Disconnect device manually or power-operable swtich(es) 705-22(1) Located where accessible. Given the other paragraphs this little modifier looks like a pretty interesting gottcha. I have a couple of interesting locations, tacked onto the outside wall of a building, and on top of a power pole. So this little note convinces me that I will need to provide the disconnect right next to the equipment, and I won't be allowed to rely on the upstream stuff - regardless of a warning in the manual. However, for CO's and NOC's you probably could just put it in the manual. Just ask yourself - beyond the standards allow are you really protecting you users? Gary Please remember that I am using a very old NEC, but I doubt these areas have change much. (The copy I have just has ton's of annotations and page/section markers all carefully put in by the guy I stole this copy from) --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: UL P.A.G.
Absolutely true but it sure provides leveage (and a good deal of fun) when you beat folks up with their own written interpretations. Gary (I use dissappearing ink alot to avoid this problem with my advice) -Original Message- From: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com [mailto:kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:43 AM To: masse...@ems-t.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: UL P.A.G. I guess that one thing to keep in mind is that the PAG is exactly that...a guideline based on interpretation, it is not the standard. My opinion and not that of my employer. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:52 AM To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: RE: UL P.A.G. I really didn't feel that I should pay for a subscription to the PAG's to clarify points in the standard, until a situation arose where the UL engineer on my project referred to a PAG note, and of course, I had to buy a subscription to verify what I was being told. I still don't think it should be a fee based service - if a standard is so unclear or incomplete that it needs clarification, ANYONE who has purchased the standard should have access to any clarifications. However, I feel I have gotten my $$ worth from three or four of the PAG's. For my money, anytime I can get a clarification to a standard clause, and it's in writing so I know it's more than an individual's opinion, I figure it will be worth its weight in gold one day. Doug Massey LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL P.A.G. I would welcome opinions on the usefulness of a subscription to the UL Practical Application Guidelines. I speak only for myself. thnx mucho Brian --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Public Health and Safety Signs
EU Directive 92/58/EEC specifies the requirements for health and safety signs at work. Is there a similar Directive for health and safety signs for the general public? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Korean EMC Standards
Greetings, I need to find a place to order the KSC 5858, Korean EMC Standard. I have tried Global Engineering Documents, however they do not have it in stock and are now charging a minimum $100 order. I would like to find an alternate, and have heard others address this in the past. I appreciate any help you can give me. Sincerely, Mat Aschenberg --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Protective Bonding-UL 60950 (replacement for UL 1950)
John, This panel contains the IEC Inlet and fuse for the system. This is of course at a Hazardous voltage level as the system is rated for an input of 100-240 VAC. The wiring is close enough to the panel that if something came loose it could conceivably touch the panel. We feel it is better to err on the side of safety, that is why we plan on grounding the panel. Kurt Andrews -Original Message- From: Crabb, John [SMTP:jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 9:52 AM To: 'Andrews, Kurt'; EMC-PSTC Subject:RE: Protective Bonding-UL 60950 (replacement for UL 1950) As a previous reply has suggested, but not in the same words, surely one question that has to be considered is whether this hinged panel is required to be earthed. The requirement in UL60950 2.6.1 a) refers to accessible conductive parts that might assume a HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE in the event of a single fault. I would suggest that if there are no single insulated hazardous voltages (typically wiring) touching this panel, or close to it, then why go to the trouble of earthing it. If a single fault caused a hazardous voltage to touch your metal enclosure, this should be taken care of by the protection you have built in. You could even consider that in such a case, it would be better if the hinged panel was isolated from the rest of the enclosure. I will be interested to see what comments this brings out - I can only make the point that I got both UL and CSA to agree that I don't have to ground the doors of the safes in our Automated Teller Systems, based on the above arguments. 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: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: 16 May 2001 19:18 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Protective Bonding-UL 60950 (replacement for UL 1950) Hi group, We are designing a new piece of class I equipment to be evaluated under UL 60950 (replaced UL 1950). The equipment has a metal enclosure. It has a metal access panel that is hinged at the bottom with a piano type hinge. It is secured at the top by two screws. This panel is hinged so that the customer's service personnel can have access to a PC board for configuration purposes. There are hazardous (AC mains) voltages behind this panel. We are concerned that this panel may not make a reliable earth connection to the rest of the metal enclosure, especially if the customer fails to fully tighten the two screws. We are planning on adding a wire from this panel to a side panel of the enclosure to reliably ground the panel to the rest of the enclosure. This wire will be on the inside of the unit. According to UL 60950 this wire would be considered a Protective Bonding Conductor. We are planning on using a stranded 14 AWG wire with ring terminals on both ends for this Protective Bonding Conductor. It would be fastened to the two panels via threaded studs mounted in the panels. We plan on placing the ring terminals on the studs and securing them with toothed lock washers and nuts. I have a question about the requirements for this Protective Bonding Conductor. According to UL 60950, clause 2.6.5.7, at least two screws must be used for each connection. Does this clause apply in a case such as this? Or is it meant to be used in cases where two metal panels are fastened together with screws to provide Protective Bonding between the panels. I don't really see how we can use two screws for each connection when using a wire for this purpose unless there is a crimp terminal that has two rings on it which I haven't seen. I have copied the clause from UL 60950 below for your reference. Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ 2.6.5.7 Screws for protective bonding NOTE -The following requirements are additional to those in 3.1.6. Self-tapping (thread-cutting and thread-forming) and spaced thread (sheet metal) screws are permitted to provide protective
RE: UL P.A.G.
I guess that one thing to keep in mind is that the PAG is exactly that...a guideline based on interpretation, it is not the standard. My opinion and not that of my employer. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:52 AM To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: RE: UL P.A.G. I really didn't feel that I should pay for a subscription to the PAG's to clarify points in the standard, until a situation arose where the UL engineer on my project referred to a PAG note, and of course, I had to buy a subscription to verify what I was being told. I still don't think it should be a fee based service - if a standard is so unclear or incomplete that it needs clarification, ANYONE who has purchased the standard should have access to any clarifications. However, I feel I have gotten my $$ worth from three or four of the PAG's. For my money, anytime I can get a clarification to a standard clause, and it's in writing so I know it's more than an individual's opinion, I figure it will be worth its weight in gold one day. Doug Massey LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL P.A.G. I would welcome opinions on the usefulness of a subscription to the UL Practical Application Guidelines. I speak only for myself. thnx mucho Brian --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: VCCI - is it voluntary?
Agree, our company only recently became VCCI registered. The reason, the company we supply was already a member and required us to demonstrate compliance. John Juhasz wrote: On another note, many companies (both US and Japanese) belong to VCCI. As a member of VCCI, they pledge that the products that they market will be evaluated for compliance with the specifications, and be marked as such. So if you are planning on doing business with a VCCI member, you will be asked to demonstrate compliance. http://www.vcci.or.jp/vcci/vcci_e/faq/index.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Mowbray, John H [mailto:jm134...@exchange.canada.ncr.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:11 AM To: 'George Stults'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: VCCI - is it voluntary? VCCI is a voluntary organization in that it is self-policing the ITE industry, and is not mandatory in a legal sense (you can't be dragged into court for non-compliance), BUT the Japanese consumers are aware of the mark and look for it. On the other side the failure to comply when you have attached the mark can result in the details being published in the popular press -- then try to sell ANYTHING there. John Mowbray, P. Eng. Senior EMC Engineer NCR Canada, Waterloo 580 Weber St. N. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 4G5 519 884 1710 X5371 FAX: 519 884 0610 email: john.mowb...@ncr.com -- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014
re It is not true
Apologies all, sent to wrong distribution list. -- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: UL P.A.G.
I really didn't feel that I should pay for a subscription to the PAG's to clarify points in the standard, until a situation arose where the UL engineer on my project referred to a PAG note, and of course, I had to buy a subscription to verify what I was being told. I still don't think it should be a fee based service - if a standard is so unclear or incomplete that it needs clarification, ANYONE who has purchased the standard should have access to any clarifications. However, I feel I have gotten my $$ worth from three or four of the PAG's. For my money, anytime I can get a clarification to a standard clause, and it's in writing so I know it's more than an individual's opinion, I figure it will be worth its weight in gold one day. Doug Massey LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL P.A.G. I would welcome opinions on the usefulness of a subscription to the UL Practical Application Guidelines. I speak only for myself. thnx mucho Brian --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Protective Bonding-UL 60950 (replacement for UL 1950)
As a previous reply has suggested, but not in the same words, surely one question that has to be considered is whether this hinged panel is required to be earthed. The requirement in UL60950 2.6.1 a) refers to accessible conductive parts that might assume a HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE in the event of a single fault. I would suggest that if there are no single insulated hazardous voltages (typically wiring) touching this panel, or close to it, then why go to the trouble of earthing it. If a single fault caused a hazardous voltage to touch your metal enclosure, this should be taken care of by the protection you have built in. You could even consider that in such a case, it would be better if the hinged panel was isolated from the rest of the enclosure. I will be interested to see what comments this brings out - I can only make the point that I got both UL and CSA to agree that I don't have to ground the doors of the safes in our Automated Teller Systems, based on the above arguments. 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: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: 16 May 2001 19:18 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Protective Bonding-UL 60950 (replacement for UL 1950) Hi group, We are designing a new piece of class I equipment to be evaluated under UL 60950 (replaced UL 1950). The equipment has a metal enclosure. It has a metal access panel that is hinged at the bottom with a piano type hinge. It is secured at the top by two screws. This panel is hinged so that the customer's service personnel can have access to a PC board for configuration purposes. There are hazardous (AC mains) voltages behind this panel. We are concerned that this panel may not make a reliable earth connection to the rest of the metal enclosure, especially if the customer fails to fully tighten the two screws. We are planning on adding a wire from this panel to a side panel of the enclosure to reliably ground the panel to the rest of the enclosure. This wire will be on the inside of the unit. According to UL 60950 this wire would be considered a Protective Bonding Conductor. We are planning on using a stranded 14 AWG wire with ring terminals on both ends for this Protective Bonding Conductor. It would be fastened to the two panels via threaded studs mounted in the panels. We plan on placing the ring terminals on the studs and securing them with toothed lock washers and nuts. I have a question about the requirements for this Protective Bonding Conductor. According to UL 60950, clause 2.6.5.7, at least two screws must be used for each connection. Does this clause apply in a case such as this? Or is it meant to be used in cases where two metal panels are fastened together with screws to provide Protective Bonding between the panels. I don't really see how we can use two screws for each connection when using a wire for this purpose unless there is a crimp terminal that has two rings on it which I haven't seen. I have copied the clause from UL 60950 below for your reference. Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ 2.6.5.7 Screws for protective bonding NOTE -The following requirements are additional to those in 3.1.6. Self-tapping (thread-cutting and thread-forming) and spaced thread (sheet metal) screws are permitted to provide protective bonding but it shall not be necessary to disturb the connection during servicing. In any case, the thickness of the metal part at the point where a screw is threaded into it shall be not less than twice the pitch of the screw thread. It is permitted to use local extrusion of a metal part to increase the effective thickness. At least two screws shall be used for each connection. However, it is permitted to use a single self-tapping screw provided that the thickness of the metal part at the point where the screw is threaded into it is a minimum of 0,9 mm for a screw of the thread-forming type and 1,6 mm for a screw of the thread-cutting type. Compliance is checked by inspection. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send
RE: Disconnect Devices for Telecom Equipment
The definition of SELV in IEC 60950 contains no restrictions on energy; rather, voltage is the only issue. A note in clause 1.2.8.6 indicates that IEC364 has a different definition of SELV. Is SELV defined to include energy restrictions in some other standards? Richard Woods -- From: Rob Legg [SMTP:r...@potentia.ca] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:49 AM To: Richard Meyette; 'Tania Grant'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Disconnect Devices for Telecom Equipment Group, Continual reference to centralized DC power systems as SELV is in error. Although these systems may be ELV (isolated from hazardous voltages), they are not SELV unless energy limited at the terminals so labeled. This is typically by means of fuse, breaker or other suitable disconnect device. Rob Legg Potentia Telecom Power 200Katimavik Rd Kanata K2L 4A2 Canada r...@potentia.ca mailto:r...@potentia.ca -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Richard Meyette Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 1:22 PM To: 'Tania Grant'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Disconnect Devices for Telecom Equipment Tania, The -48V centralized DC power systems used in the central offices of telecommunications companies are limited to 60 VDC or less under normal operating conditions, including during charging of the batteries, and are therefore considered to be SELV by definition. See 3.6 of UL 60950. Annex NAB clearly specifies that the connections to the centralized DC power system must meet the requirements for primary circuits as specified in section 3.2, however there are no requirements for disconnect devices or overcurrent protection specified in this annex. This equipment has operator replaceable fuses for over current protection on the power inputs and has numerous overcurrent devices in the PC assemblies. However, it does not have a disconnect device since it is intended for installation into telecom racks with other equipment that is similarly connected. A disconnect device is required for equipment connected to the AC mains, as specified in 2.7 of UL 60950, however there no requirements for disconnect devices for equipment connected to a secondary SELV source. The centralized DC power systems installed in these restricted access locations are provided with disconnect devices for overcurrect and fire protection. I'm not sure how you would specify the short circuit protection requirements for these systems, since they are not branch circuits covered under Article 240 of the National Electrical Code. Rick Meyette -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 7:18 PM To: Richard Meyette; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Re: Disconnect Devices for Telecom Equipment Rick, A -48 volt source is considered a secondary circuit, but that does not necessarily make it a SELV circuit. I also don't believe that even if your equipment installation should be proven to be powered by a SELV circuit that the disconnect requirements of Section 2.6 do not apply. Here is why. Note that UL 60950 plainly states that connections to - and overcurrent protection for -d.c. powered equipment needs to meet the same sections as for a.c. main powered equipment. It stands to reason, therefore, that disconnection from whatever mains should also meet Section 3.4.3 (UL 60950) or 2.6 (I presume UL1950. 3rd edition). Annex NAB.2 states that ... connections to the centralized d.c. power system are subject to the requirements for PRIMARY CIRCUITS and shall be in accordance with 3.2 (AC MAINS SUPPLIES). Sections 2.7.1 and 3.2.1 in Annex NAE which address requirements for d.c. powered equipment refer you back to a.c. mains powered equipment. Also, reading the standard as a whole, Permanently connected equipment, whether a.c. or d.c., needs to meet the stated requirements. (All my references are to the UL 60950 edition.) There are many reasons why it can be considered unsafe not to have immediate access to a disconnect device for any equipment;-- a
RE: VCCI - is it voluntary?
On another note, many companies (both US and Japanese) belong to VCCI. As a member of VCCI, they pledge that the products that they market will be evaluated for compliance with the specifications, and be marked as such. So if you are planning on doing business with a VCCI member, you will be asked to demonstrate compliance. http://www.vcci.or.jp/vcci/vcci_e/faq/index.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Mowbray, John H [mailto:jm134...@exchange.canada.ncr.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:11 AM To: 'George Stults'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: VCCI - is it voluntary? VCCI is a voluntary organization in that it is self-policing the ITE industry, and is not mandatory in a legal sense (you can't be dragged into court for non-compliance), BUT the Japanese consumers are aware of the mark and look for it. On the other side the failure to comply when you have attached the mark can result in the details being published in the popular press -- then try to sell ANYTHING there. John Mowbray, P. Eng. Senior EMC Engineer NCR Canada, Waterloo 580 Weber St. N. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 4G5 519 884 1710 X5371 FAX: 519 884 0610 email: john.mowb...@ncr.com
RE: Disconnect Devices for Telecom Equipment
Group, Continual reference to centralized DC power systems as SELV is in error. Although these systems may be ELV (isolated from hazardous voltages), they are not SELV unless energy limited at the terminals so labeled. This is typically by means of fuse, breaker or other suitable disconnect device. Rob Legg Potentia Telecom Power 200Katimavik Rd Kanata K2L 4A2 Canada r...@potentia.ca -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Richard Meyette Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 1:22 PM To: 'Tania Grant'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Disconnect Devices for Telecom Equipment Tania, The -48V centralized DC power systems used in the central offices of telecommunications companies are limited to 60 VDC or less under normal operating conditions, including during charging of the batteries, and are therefore considered to be SELV by definition. See 3.6 of UL 60950. Annex NAB clearly specifies that the connections to the centralized DC power system must meet the requirements for primary circuits as specified in section 3.2, however there are no requirements for disconnect devices or overcurrent protection specified in this annex. This equipment has operator replaceable fuses for over current protection on the power inputs and has numerous overcurrent devices in the PC assemblies. However, it does not have a disconnect device since it is intended for installation into telecom racks with other equipment that is similarly connected. A disconnect device is required for equipment connected to the AC mains, as specified in 2.7 of UL 60950, however there no requirements for disconnect devices for equipment connected to a secondary SELV source. The centralized DC power systems installed in these restricted access locations are provided with disconnect devices for overcurrect and fire protection. I'm not sure how you would specify the short circuit protection requirements for these systems, since they are not branch circuits covered under Article 240 of the National Electrical Code. Rick Meyette -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 7:18 PM To: Richard Meyette; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Re: Disconnect Devices for Telecom Equipment Rick, A -48 volt source is considered a secondary circuit, but that does not necessarily make it a SELV circuit. I also don't believe that even if your equipment installation should be proven to be powered by a SELV circuit that the disconnect requirements of Section 2.6 do not apply. Here is why. Note that UL 60950 plainly states that connections to - and overcurrent protection for -d.c. powered equipment needs to meet the same sections as for a.c. main powered equipment. It stands to reason, therefore, that disconnection from whatever mains should also meet Section 3.4.3 (UL 60950) or 2.6 (I presume UL1950. 3rd edition). Annex NAB.2 states that ... connections to the centralized d.c. power system are subject to the requirements for PRIMARY CIRCUITS and shall be in accordance with 3.2 (AC MAINS SUPPLIES).Sections 2.7.1 and 3.2.1 in Annex NAE which address requirements for d.c. powered equipment refer you back to a.c. mains powered equipment. Also, reading the standard as a whole, Permanently connected equipment, whether a.c. or d.c., needs to meet the stated requirements. (All my references are to the UL 60950 edition.) There are many reasons why it can be considered unsafe not to have immediate access to a disconnect device for any equipment;-- a shock hazard being just one of them. Thus, equipment powered from a SELV circuit is still subject to fire and/or an energy hazard. For fixed equipment, the presumption is that the disconnect device is in the building installation accessible to trained service personnel and, therefore, the relaxed requirement to provide this information in the installation manual. However, I have a larger concern. If you don't have a MAIN disconnect device in your d.c. powered equipment, something tells me that you probably don't have a circuit breaker for overcurrent protection. Annex NAE refers you back to Section 2.7.1 which states that ... If...PERMANENTLY CONNECTED EQUIPMENT relies on protective devices in the building installation for protection, the equipment installation instructions shall so state and shall also specify the requirements for short-circuit protection or overcurrent protection, or, where necessary, for both. I strongly recommend a good read of the complete Annex NAE. Note that UL 60950 has renumbered or reassigned the Section references; the content, however, has not changed from UL 1950 that I have noticed. Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Richard Meyette Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 4:35 PM To:
RE: VCCI - is it voluntary?
George, My understanding is that if anyone in the distribution chain is registered with the VCCI, then they are obliged to distribute VCCI compliant products. So you should check you distribution to chain, mfg.-wholesaler-distributor-customer, to see if any is registered with the VCCI. In summary, if anyone in the chain is VCCI registered, that is when it becomes involuntary, and your device, being the mfg., must be compliant to the standard and labeled properly. ~ Sam Wismer Lead Regulatory Engineer/ Radio Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.ems-t.com -Original Message- From: acar...@uk.xyratex.com [mailto:acar...@uk.xyratex.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:20 AM To: George Stults Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Re: VCCI - is it voluntary? George VCCI registration is voluntary. You do not need it to sell in Japan. BUT like so many other things, the VCCI mark is now seen as a sign of quality and you may find it hard to sell products in Japan without the mark. George Stults wrote: Hi All, Just a basic question here about VCCI, hopefully it hasn't been done recently. In the acronym VCCI, (Voluntary Control Council for Interference) the first word is 'Voluntary.' I have assumed that VCCI is a defacto standard in spite of being called 'Voluntary,' but I don't know how to prove it - and of course I could be wrong. Does anyone know of a specific document or clause or line of argument that clearly spells out whether or not VCCI is a requirement to sell ITE products in Japan? Thanks in advance for comments. George Stults --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, -- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, attachment: Sam_Wismer.vcf
RE: VCCI - is it voluntary?
VCCI is a voluntary organization in that it is self-policing the ITE industry, and is not mandatory in a legal sense (you can't be dragged into court for non-compliance), BUT the Japanese consumers are aware of the mark and look for it. On the other side the failure to comply when you have attached the mark can result in the details being published in the popular press -- then try to sell ANYTHING there. John Mowbray, P. Eng. Senior EMC Engineer NCR Canada, Waterloo 580 Weber St. N. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 4G5 519 884 1710 X5371 FAX: 519 884 0610 email: john.mowb...@ncr.com -Original Message- From: George Stults [mailto:george.stu...@watchguard.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:15 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: VCCI - is it voluntary? Hi All, Just a basic question here about VCCI, hopefully it hasn't been done recently. In the acronym VCCI, (Voluntary Control Council for Interference) the first word is 'Voluntary.' I have assumed that VCCI is a defacto standard in spite of being called 'Voluntary,' but I don't know how to prove it - and of course I could be wrong. Does anyone know of a specific document or clause or line of argument that clearly spells out whether or not VCCI is a requirement to sell ITE products in Japan? Thanks in advance for comments. George Stults --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: EN54-7; Impact - swinging hammer
Hi Amund, I would contact Factory Mutual, because they do world wide testing for fire equipment. Their URL is: http://www.fmglobal.com/ http://www.fmglobal.com/ Good luck, Ron Baugh -Original Message- From: am...@westin.org [SMTP:am...@westin.org] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:EN54-7; Impact - swinging hammer Hi all, The European standard EN54-7 specifies requirements and test methods for smoke detectors for use in fire alarm systems for buildings. Chapter 5.14 is the Impact test. A swinging hammer is required to carry out the test and the following conditions applies : Impact enery = 1.9J and velocity=1.5m/s Where can I find a EU laboratory who can do this test and in addition is accredited for this specific test ? 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. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
[Fwd: It's not true!]
-- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 ---BeginMessage--- -- Jennie Loft Science Technology Group Leader Teleplan Tel: +44 (0)23 9244 4355; Fax: +44 (0)23 9249 9315 jl...@teleplan-uk.com This e-mail is private and confidential and is for the addressee only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone, confirming that it has been deleted from your system and any hard copies destroyed. You are strictly prohibited from using, printing, distributing or disseminating it or any information contained in it save to the intended recipient. ---BeginMessage--- ---BeginMessage--- -- Ben Skyrme tel +44 (0)23 9249 6562 fax +44 (0)23 9249 6005 ben_sky...@havantinternational.com---BeginMessage--- ** This email transmission is confidential and intended for the addressee only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the person or organisation to whom it is addressed, you must not copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance upon it. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by email to postmas...@carillionplc.com and return it. Carillion PLC Registered in England No. 3782379 Registered Office: Birch Street Wolverhampton WV1 4HY ** attachment: Girls Are Evil.jpg---End Message--- ---End Message--- attachment: sallen.vcf---End Message--- ---End Message---
RTTE Harm Std
Hi all, On 5 April 2001 a new OJ version of RTTE harmonized standards was released. Regarding VSAT-equipment, EN 301 428 (5-2000) applies and it describes that Reference of the superseded Standard is TBR 28 (12-1997) and the Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of the superseded standard was 31.01.2001. Anyway, further down in the document the TBR 28 (12-1997) is still stated as a harmonised standard. What am I missing here, I thought that TBR 28 was replaced by EN 301 428 on 31.01.2001. Why is it still a reference to TBR 28 in the RTTE Harm Std? 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. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: VCCI - is it voluntary?
George VCCI registration is voluntary. You do not need it to sell in Japan. BUT like so many other things, the VCCI mark is now seen as a sign of quality and you may find it hard to sell products in Japan without the mark. George Stults wrote: Hi All, Just a basic question here about VCCI, hopefully it hasn't been done recently. In the acronym VCCI, (Voluntary Control Council for Interference) the first word is 'Voluntary.' I have assumed that VCCI is a defacto standard in spite of being called 'Voluntary,' but I don't know how to prove it - and of course I could be wrong. Does anyone know of a specific document or clause or line of argument that clearly spells out whether or not VCCI is a requirement to sell ITE products in Japan? Thanks in advance for comments. George Stults --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, -- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing
Thank you, Rich, Serves me right for throwing out the old UL478 once our products were updated to UL1950 and relying on memory as to what was inside 478! Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Rich Nute Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 7:04 PM To: taniagr...@msn.com Cc: john.al...@uk.thalesgroup.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing Hi Tania: I hate to call you an old-timer;-- I would rather state that you might be thinking of UL 114 and UL478 standards that are no longer in force. B ut I don't believe that even they allowed a willy-nilly change from groun ded equipment to one that is ungrounded, unless provided with a special g rounding plug adapter. Well... I *AM* an old-timer! And you can call me that! Back in the days of UL 114 and UL 478, there were no classifications (in North America) equivalent to Class I and Class II, and the concept of double-insulation was barely touched upon in UL 114. Likewise, (in North America) there were no insulation designations equivalent to Basic, Supplementary, and Reinforced. The rule was simply that all insulations must be UL-recognized insulations, and that all components must be UL-recognized components. If you submitted a product with a ground wire, it was tested as if it did not have a ground wire. The justification was that, even though the NEC mandated grounded outlets for all new electrical installations, there were still many installations with 2-wire sockets. Insulations were tested by a hi-pot test. The hi-pot test voltage was 1000 volts. During the time of UL 114 and UL 478, the test voltage was changed to 2V + 1000, where V is the maximum rated voltage of the equipment. The spacings (not clearance or creepage) were HUGE by comparison to today. I believe they were based on a wire strand escaping from a screwed connection. But, I digress. My point is that under UL 114 and UL 478, certified two-wire products used a single insulation just as we do today for grounded products. They did not use double or reinforced insulation. The ground was something nice, but not necessary. But, if you used a ground, it had to meet all the electrical and constructional requirements! Best regards, Rich From owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Thu May 17 16:09:50 PDT 2001 Received: from sanrel1.sdd.hp.com (sanrel1.sdd.hp.com [15.80.36.45]) by hpsdlfsa.sdd.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18546)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02 sdd epg) with ESMTP id QAA18862 for ri...@hpsdlfsa.sdd.hp.com; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by sanrel1.sdd.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.8.5btis+epg) with ESMTP id QAA28864 for ri...@sdd.hp.com; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (Switch-2.1.0/Switch-2.1.0) id f4HMvZe00995 for emc-pstc-resent; Thu, 17 May 2001 18:57:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [63.25.206.200] From: Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com To: Allen, John john.al...@uk.thalesgroup.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:58:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MSN Explorer 6.00.0010.0912 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_001_0001_01C0DEEA.26E613E0 Message-ID: oe344zadtmvwvn20lbhb...@hotmail.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2001 22:57:27.0434 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE815EA0:01C0DF24] Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org --=_NextPart_001_0001_01C0DEEA.26E613E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, I hate to call you an old-timer;-- I would rather state that you might be= thinking of UL 114 and UL478 standards that are no longer in force. B= ut I don't believe that even they allowed a willy-nilly change from groun= ded equipment to one that is ungrounded, unless provided with a special g= rounding plug adapter. The equipment adhering to these standards may sti= ll be allowed to be shipped until 2005, I believe, provided that no major= changes are being made to this equipment;-- at which point, the new sta= ndard (UL/CSA 60950) applies. =20 However, UL no longer allows new equipment to be submitted to these older= standards. I forget exactly the cut-off date when that happened. =20 The key point is that equipment defined as Class I under IEC/EN 60950 wou= ld be defined the same under the UL/Canadian 60950 standard and require a= n earthed connection. Thus,
Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing
Hi Tania: I hate to call you an old-timer;-- I would rather state that you might be thinking of UL 114 and UL478 standards that are no longer in force. B ut I don't believe that even they allowed a willy-nilly change from groun ded equipment to one that is ungrounded, unless provided with a special g rounding plug adapter. Well... I *AM* an old-timer! And you can call me that! Back in the days of UL 114 and UL 478, there were no classifications (in North America) equivalent to Class I and Class II, and the concept of double-insulation was barely touched upon in UL 114. Likewise, (in North America) there were no insulation designations equivalent to Basic, Supplementary, and Reinforced. The rule was simply that all insulations must be UL-recognized insulations, and that all components must be UL-recognized components. If you submitted a product with a ground wire, it was tested as if it did not have a ground wire. The justification was that, even though the NEC mandated grounded outlets for all new electrical installations, there were still many installations with 2-wire sockets. Insulations were tested by a hi-pot test. The hi-pot test voltage was 1000 volts. During the time of UL 114 and UL 478, the test voltage was changed to 2V + 1000, where V is the maximum rated voltage of the equipment. The spacings (not clearance or creepage) were HUGE by comparison to today. I believe they were based on a wire strand escaping from a screwed connection. But, I digress. My point is that under UL 114 and UL 478, certified two-wire products used a single insulation just as we do today for grounded products. They did not use double or reinforced insulation. The ground was something nice, but not necessary. But, if you used a ground, it had to meet all the electrical and constructional requirements! Best regards, Rich From owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Thu May 17 16:09:50 PDT 2001 Received: from sanrel1.sdd.hp.com (sanrel1.sdd.hp.com [15.80.36.45]) by hpsdlfsa.sdd.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18546)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02 sdd epg) with ESMTP id QAA18862 for ri...@hpsdlfsa.sdd.hp.com; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by sanrel1.sdd.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.8.5btis+epg) with ESMTP id QAA28864 for ri...@sdd.hp.com; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (Switch-2.1.0/Switch-2.1.0) id f4HMvZe00995 for emc-pstc-resent; Thu, 17 May 2001 18:57:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [63.25.206.200] From: Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com To: Allen, John john.al...@uk.thalesgroup.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:58:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MSN Explorer 6.00.0010.0912 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_001_0001_01C0DEEA.26E613E0 Message-ID: oe344zadtmvwvn20lbhb...@hotmail.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2001 22:57:27.0434 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE815EA0:01C0DF24] Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org --=_NextPart_001_0001_01C0DEEA.26E613E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, I hate to call you an old-timer;-- I would rather state that you might be= thinking of UL 114 and UL478 standards that are no longer in force. B= ut I don't believe that even they allowed a willy-nilly change from groun= ded equipment to one that is ungrounded, unless provided with a special g= rounding plug adapter. The equipment adhering to these standards may sti= ll be allowed to be shipped until 2005, I believe, provided that no major= changes are being made to this equipment;-- at which point, the new sta= ndard (UL/CSA 60950) applies. =20 However, UL no longer allows new equipment to be submitted to these older= standards. I forget exactly the cut-off date when that happened. =20 The key point is that equipment defined as Class I under IEC/EN 60950 wou= ld be defined the same under the UL/Canadian 60950 standard and require a= n earthed connection. Thus, short of redesigning completely the stated = equipment and making it Class II, there is no way that a 2-pin plug would= be legal (or sane). taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Allen, John Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 8:13 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: US
Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing
John, I hate to call you an old-timer;-- I would rather state that you might be thinking of UL 114 and UL478 standards that are no longer in force. But I don't believe that even they allowed a willy-nilly change from grounded equipment to one that is ungrounded, unless provided with a special grounding plug adapter. The equipment adhering to these standards may still be allowed to be shipped until 2005, I believe, provided that no major changes are being made to this equipment;-- at which point, the new standard (UL/CSA 60950) applies. However, UL no longer allows new equipment to be submitted to these older standards. I forget exactly the cut-off date when that happened. The key point is that equipment defined as Class I under IEC/EN 60950 would be defined the same under the UL/Canadian 60950 standard and require an earthed connection. Thus, short of redesigning completely the stated equipment and making it Class II, there is no way that a 2-pin plug would be legal (or sane). taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: Allen, John Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 8:13 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: US Mains Plug/Earthing Hi Folks From my days (about 10 years ago) of dealing with UL on this issue, I seem to remember that pluggable Listed products had to a power cord and that power cord had to have a fitted plug that was suitable and legal for the country in which the product was to be used - and that certainly included the USA. Taking on board some of the comments from other respondents,it is difficult/impossible to use, or sometimes to even sell, a product that is not Listed by UL or another NRTL - and they will only List if it complies with the appropriate standard. Most of these standards are now harmonized with Canada - and fairly much with the rest of the World However,there used to be (and I suspect that a few are still around)a number of very old US/Canadian standards which had much less stringent requirements for insulation sizing and dielectric withstand, and often did not require either a Class I earth connnection or proper double insulation for types of products where the equivalent IEC/EN standards did/do require one or the other. Possibly, this is where the orginal correspondent's customer probably got his idea that a 2-pin plug would be adequate! Nevertheless if there is an appropriate old style standard still valid for the product, and the product meets the relevant technical requirements, then it could be possible for him to obtain Listing with that 2-pin plug! Now, someone tell me that I am too out-of-date and that the above possibility does not exist (please!). John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Crabb, John [mailto:jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com] Sent: 17 May 2001 09:44 To: 'Enci'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: US Mains Plug/Earthing I don't know if you have to fit a plug, but I can certainly tell you that our USA customers would be VERY UNHAPPY if we supplied a product without a plug. I certainly have the impression that fitting a plug in the USA is not something that people expect to have to do. 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: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com] Sent: 17 May 2001 08:03 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing Thank you for all your comments. Do EU manufacturers have to fit a suitable mains plug to appliances when exporting to USA?... or can it be supplied without a plug, putting the requirement on the user to follow the instructions - in my case, stating that a grounding plug must be used ? Thank you. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line:
