RE: Wire spool labeling requirements
Doug, Not sure how we appear to be on the opposite side of the stick here. Believe it or not I support almost all of the NRTL compliance engineers I have worked with. They are like any group of people some are very good some should quit consuming oxygen at the first opportunity (I'm kidding here!) The occasional request that makes my life more difficult is weighed with how many times they have really done a superb job - and yes that happens. All I was pointing out is that their system is set up so that it helps them first, then me and I expect them to use the tools they have first. They do that by looking directly at the reports which are different than just the on-line cards. I also agree those aren't as up to date as I would have anticipated - but they are more current than the UL recognition books. I still have to get certificates for TUV etc, but not for UL. The biggest problem with that is half the time the vendors don't even know who has that documentation. I don't always have, as my 25 year daughter would say my cranky pants on. Have a good week end Doug Gary -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:36 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Wire spool labeling requirements Gary, I can go along with the documentation hunt as well. And I can understand that their approval cycle would probably increase by a factor of x10 (I'm not joking) if they had to do all the research to the parts themselves. I believe that's really what's at the bottom of it all. But, it's having to put up with vendors who would burn your ear off complaining that the NRTL is one with the approval and the records and that's what they're paying all this money to do, etc ... I've gotten to point where I'm beginning to sympathize greatly with these vendors. And, I am also very aware (from an unfortunate experience) that the website is not that reliable as in being updated as it should on a regular basis. There's lots of reasons for that. Some most definitely with the vendor. Not to detract from their or anyone else's quality of work, but I do know that as of only a couple of years ago, it was the engineers who wrote up the reports. Now, all that gets handed over to a secretary pool and that mistakes have increased as a result. I'm assuming that may also factor in to the rather strict show me state of mind over there. Something I don't think they should slack off on. After some of the things I've seen, I'm rather glad everyone gets the same scrutiny and I've gotten quite an education being involved with it. It may be a pain in the butt sometimes and there are certainly times where issues appear from left field, but I really do have a lot of respect for the engineers who have more than 3 years experience working 15 to 20 (or so) product approvals per month. All different kinds of products. The reviewers seem to be very well qualified. All very approachable and all very procedural. Which I guess it really should be. I do know that they requiring you to get the paperwork instead of them at time of submittal hits several birds with one stone - educating the submitter what's needed, verification FROM the vendor, verification OF the vendor, etc I've had the experience of handing over a copy of a live approval from the vendor but something on it was not right. For some reason, it didn't effect my product approval, but the engineer contacted the field office about it. And I was not privy as to why. they certainly do keep a very professional atmosphere as well. At least the people I've worked with directly. Yes, there are times where we throw a wrench and complain, but in the end, I can understand most of what they require. - Doug McKean --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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
Re: DSL on residential buildings.
The reason for the Part 15 residential (Class B) limit is to protect reception, and the levels prescribed are (arguably) low enough to do so. If we allow higher levels, we are asking for service calls and perhaps official attention. But (unless I am mistaken) it is now the USER who responsible for interference generated by his Class A devices, and it's perfectly legal for us to sell them to him. I recently spent some years working for a company that makes telecomm equipment. I there encountered for the first time the telco point of view (which is probably not uncommon). In the telephone world, the service provider is responsible for everything up to the network interface. Everything beyond that is the responsibility of the customer. Therefore, some people assume that equipment installed prior to the NIC can be, and should be Class A for Part 15. I have argued, with success, that this is an error with potentially expensive consequences. Part 15 contains an exemption for equipment located within a facility - even just a locked room, cabinet or vault - controlled by the telco. There is an argument, which I make, that when we do this in a residential building, if we are NOT Class B compliant, we may wish we had been. (Even Class B is often not enough, and I have seen equipment meant for customer use whose specification was well below the FCC limit.) And though our employers' products may comply with Part 15 we are still liable for harmful interference. However, emissions may be suppressed by other means than installing only Class B equipment and this is often the way to go. The utility exemption does make this easier. I personally believe that one may make a case for the mechanical room being Class A. It often contains furnaces, motors, and many other unregulated devices which generate high levels of radio and television interference, and to impose a stricter standard on telecom equipment in the same place seems a bit of a reach. But look at the environment! Will emissions reaching a customer location be above the Class B limit? If so, then I would say due diligence requires suppressing them further. A vault in a steel reinforced building's basement is a different matter than a rooftop utility hut with TV antennas just 3 meters away. If deployment entails a wide range of installations, then it is probably best to suppress all of it to Class B, rather than install Class B retrofit kits on a case-by-case basis. This is a decision I believe has to be made when the product is proposed. Regards, Cortland Richmond (unemployed, and looking) --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
DSL on residential buildings.
Just making a quick check here. I'm seeing some product brochures out indicating some of these home units are class A. Am I missing something here, shouldn't that be class B. The fact its phone stuff (also carries the FCC part 68 stuff) can't override this classification correct? How about apartment buildings - is their mechanical room A or B? Gary --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: creepage v breakdown voltage
Time certainly couldn't account for wide ranging humidity or altitude, but perhaps lessor humidity and air pressure changes. The time may have more to do with settling capacitive effects first. Stephen At 10:38 AM 3/15/2002, MCA Compliance wrote: These factors are certainly all relevant, but I was under the impression (maybe incorrectly so?) that the requirement to apply the test voltage for 60 seconds during the type test was to account for all these degradating factors. Brian -Original Message- From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com] Sent: 15 March 2002 15:17 To: Roman, Dan Cc: 'MCA Compliance'; Emc-Pstc Post Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage Try this. For flat electrodes, at sea level, and normal temperatures; eliminating such factors as humidity, dust, illumination, and the electrode materials; the molecules of the gases that compose common air, get ionized in the presence of an electric field of about 30KV/cm. So, since - electrode shape, barometric pressure, temperature, humidity, dust, presence of photons, and composition of the materials and shape of the electrodes, as well as the composition of the 'air' (gases), and also any other local (competing) electromagnetic fields - can all affect the definitive voltage that will jump a given gap - is it any wonder that the standard includes what otherwise appears to be a lot of slop. Stephen At 09:28 AM 3/15/2002, Roman, Dan wrote: I was looking into this a few weeks ago also and found similar results experimentally as other posters have mentioned. The only voltage per inch spec I was able to come up with was in the IPC specs but they were way out of whack! 0.12 mils per volt or more meaning that 2121 Vdc distance that the safety standards say should be 2.5 mm the IPC spec is saying you need 5 mm While the safety standards may be conservative to allow for temperature, grease, dirt, etc. over time the IPC specs are ultra-conservative. The dielectric tables for hermetically sealed material group III is probably closer to the actual breakdown but I never did find a spec I could use to predict the ACTUAL breakdown voltage of a gap between traces. If anyone finds a rule of thumb or equation I'd like to have it also. Dan -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: creepage v breakdown voltage
Regarding Paschen's Law: http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/hvmain.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/paschen.htm Stephen At 12:51 PM 3/15/2002, Doug McKean wrote: I've done my own testing and researched the thing as well. I think we've had some serious discussions here about this subject in the past. If the archives are available, it would be beneficial to go through them. Also, get a little hipot tester from any of the hipot mfrs for your own bench testing. That's highly educational as well as nipping problems in the bud. You'll first have to jump into Paschen's Law and all that involves with pressure/humidity/geometry of the probe tips used, etc ... Basically, I start with 1Mv/meter STP and work down from there. Therefore, 1mm means 1Kv. Now, throw in a x2 safety factor and you get 2mm spacing. Now increase to 1.5Kv and you end up with 2.5mm? Well, okay. Surface contamination sets in over time? Well, okay again. Obviously, I've been doing some extreme fudging, but it ends up darn close most of the time. Follow the standards when in any doubt. I'm not really sure, but I was told many years ago that wire mfrs use as much as a x7 safety factor for their insulation or used to. - Doug McKean --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: creepage v breakdown voltage
I've done my own testing and researched the thing as well. I think we've had some serious discussions here about this subject in the past. If the archives are available, it would be beneficial to go through them. Also, get a little hipot tester from any of the hipot mfrs for your own bench testing. That's highly educational as well as nipping problems in the bud. You'll first have to jump into Paschen's Law and all that involves with pressure/humidity/geometry of the probe tips used, etc ... Basically, I start with 1Mv/meter STP and work down from there. Therefore, 1mm means 1Kv. Now, throw in a x2 safety factor and you get 2mm spacing. Now increase to 1.5Kv and you end up with 2.5mm? Well, okay. Surface contamination sets in over time? Well, okay again. Obviously, I've been doing some extreme fudging, but it ends up darn close most of the time. Follow the standards when in any doubt. I'm not really sure, but I was told many years ago that wire mfrs use as much as a x7 safety factor for their insulation or used to. - Doug McKean --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Wire spool labeling requirements
Gary, I can go along with the documentation hunt as well. And I can understand that their approval cycle would probably increase by a factor of x10 (I'm not joking) if they had to do all the research to the parts themselves. I believe that's really what's at the bottom of it all. But, it's having to put up with vendors who would burn your ear off complaining that the NRTL is one with the approval and the records and that's what they're paying all this money to do, etc ... I've gotten to point where I'm beginning to sympathize greatly with these vendors. And, I am also very aware (from an unfortunate experience) that the website is not that reliable as in being updated as it should on a regular basis. There's lots of reasons for that. Some most definitely with the vendor. Not to detract from their or anyone else's quality of work, but I do know that as of only a couple of years ago, it was the engineers who wrote up the reports. Now, all that gets handed over to a secretary pool and that mistakes have increased as a result. I'm assuming that may also factor in to the rather strict show me state of mind over there. Something I don't think they should slack off on. After some of the things I've seen, I'm rather glad everyone gets the same scrutiny and I've gotten quite an education being involved with it. It may be a pain in the butt sometimes and there are certainly times where issues appear from left field, but I really do have a lot of respect for the engineers who have more than 3 years experience working 15 to 20 (or so) product approvals per month. All different kinds of products. The reviewers seem to be very well qualified. All very approachable and all very procedural. Which I guess it really should be. I do know that they requiring you to get the paperwork instead of them at time of submittal hits several birds with one stone - educating the submitter what's needed, verification FROM the vendor, verification OF the vendor, etc I've had the experience of handing over a copy of a live approval from the vendor but something on it was not right. For some reason, it didn't effect my product approval, but the engineer contacted the field office about it. And I was not privy as to why. they certainly do keep a very professional atmosphere as well. At least the people I've worked with directly. Yes, there are times where we throw a wrench and complain, but in the end, I can understand most of what they require. - Doug McKean --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: CE Mark on Product Packaging
Hi Guys My wording may have been put together in haste however, I think the important part of the directive is the word OR. The manufacturer OR his authorised representative, established within the community. I had always beleived this was interpreted as one or the other must be within the EEC (now EU). This does differ from the RTTE requirement and is the basis for the differing needs to CE mark packaging. I am of course interested in other views on this interpretation. Bill Ellingford -Original Message- From: Scott Lemon [mailto:sle...@caspiannetworks.com] Sent: 15 March 2002 14:43 To: emc-pstc Cc: Bill Ellingford; 'Russell' Subject: Re: CE Mark on Product Packaging Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the statement below is entirely correct. It is my understanding (per EMC directive and published guidelines) that the Manufacturer or Authorized Representative is responsible for affixing the CE marking and drawing up the DoC and that only the Authorized Rep (if applicable) must be established within the community. In other words, the Manufacturer (who draws up the DoC and tech docs) does not have to be established in the community, but if an Authorized Rep is used, they must be. It is clear that when neither the Manufacturer or the Auth Rep are established within the community, the obligation to keep the DoC available is the responsibility of the party placing the product on the market (importer). Scott Lemon Caspian Networks Bill Ellingford wrote: Under the EMC directive, the person making a DOC and placing the goods on the market would be an EU resident. --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list * --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: CE Mark on Product Packaging
The Commission has said the same thing in their explainatory document. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/legislati on.htm Note: this URL is long and may be cut into two sections when you receive this e-mail. If so, just join the two sections back togther to create the full URL. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Scott Lemon [mailto:sle...@caspiannetworks.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:43 AM To: emc-pstc Cc: Bill Ellingford; 'Russell' Subject: Re: CE Mark on Product Packaging Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the statement below is entirely correct. It is my understanding (per EMC directive and published guidelines) that the Manufacturer or Authorized Representative is responsible for affixing the CE marking and drawing up the DoC and that only the Authorized Rep (if applicable) must be established within the community. In other words, the Manufacturer (who draws up the DoC and tech docs) does not have to be established in the community, but if an Authorized Rep is used, they must be. It is clear that when neither the Manufacturer or the Auth Rep are established within the community, the obligation to keep the DoC available is the responsibility of the party placing the product on the market (importer). Scott Lemon Caspian Networks Bill Ellingford wrote: Under the EMC directive, the person making a DOC and placing the goods on the market would be an EU resident. --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Alternate Country Approvals
As a member of CENELEC, Switzerland uses ENs. I understand Poland uses EN 55022. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: cecil.gitt...@kodak.com [mailto:cecil.gitt...@kodak.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 8:08 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Alternate Country Approvals Hi All, I have tested ITE products to the FCC, EN55022 and EN55024 Standards. Does anyone know what additional EMC approvals and documentation is required for Poland, Russia and Switzerland? Thanks for your help Cecil --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Voltage Spikes on Power Lines etc
Regarding the snippet below paralleling the bulk cap with a ceramic addresses differential mode noise such as the vacuum cleaner, but it doesn't help against common mode noise that the cm choke and snap-on ferrite sleeve address. Line to ground or Y-caps will work with the cm choke and snap-on ferrite to attenuate cm spikes. -- From: John Barnes jrbar...@iglou.com To: George Stults george.stu...@watchguard.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Voltage Spikes on Power Lines etc Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2002, 5:16 PM A very basic precaution is to put ceramic capacitors in parallel with the bulk electrolytic capacitors in your power supply, to short out the high-frequency components of the spikes. A common-mode choke on the input can also help a lot. To see if this would help, you can put a snap-on ferrite sleeve around the power cord next to the power supply. --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: creepage v breakdown voltage
I read in !emc-pstc that MCA Compliance bally...@iolfree.ie wrote (in nbbblhpagldfkfbcdencaemojjac.bally...@iolfree.ie) about 'creepage v breakdown voltage', on Fri, 15 Mar 2002: How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? IEC TC74, responsible for IEC60950, didn't arrive at it. There is a special committee, TC28, that deals with clearance and creepage. You may find, from the public part of the IEC web site, that there is an Irish person on TC28 who can help you. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Australian compliance to ARE: creepage v breakdown voltage
Hello, According to the latest version of the Telecommunication Labelling Notice 2001, products in the Category A50 are deemed to comply with ACA TS-001-1997 and AS/ACIF S043-2001. No problem for TS-001, but S043 needs Compliance level 3 only since January 1rst 2002. The general approach is that testing for S043 must be done by a Recognised Testing Authority. After verifying the latest list of RTA´s http://www.nata.asn.au/downloads/rtalist.pdf of March 7th, only 1 lab seems to be listed as RTA and it is not even located in Australia, but in the US. From my reading of the Labelling Notice, Schedule 3 seems to give however other possibilities to comply, like a Certification or Competent body. Any-one can shed some light on this issue? Regards, Kris Carpentier
RE: creepage v breakdown voltage
Remember that some of that distance, I believe, accounts for when the boards get dirty, and the pollutants build up and reduce the spacings. When you test the boards during the evaluation they are almost always clean with no pollution build-up. Gary -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:39 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage Peter I agreee with your comment, but, I have seen lots of boards (material group III) pass high pot tests at 1.5kV with only 2 mm creepage on the boards. yet, 950 specifies 2.5mm for basic insulation. This is why I am after some independent experimental test data correlating creepage and dielectric strength, with different board material properties taken into account. I suppose to flip it around, if a board passes the hi-pot for 1 minute with 2 mm creepage (and the fact that it passes the hi-pot, means the clearance must also have been adequate?), why does 60950 look for 2.5mm creepage ??? rgds Brian -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: 15 March 2002 12:00 To: 'MCA Compliance'; Emc-Pstc Post Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage Brian, Your PCB manufacturer should be able to tell you what spacings to keep in order to withstand the test voltages. It all depends on the base material used for the PCB which all have different dielectric strength properties. Remember, the standards reference a minimum creepage distance AND you must still pass the electric strength tests. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Wire spool labeling requirements
Doug, I have no problem doing just that with my projects. The online data thing gives away the source so we are talking about the same folks - but different offices. Although I know that the engineer involved in my projects pulls copies of the full reports for the device, as he should, to check for miscellaneous items that aren't on the Listing or Yellow recognized cards. Internally I verify the part has recognition and send the manufacturers file number off, - after checking the conditions of acceptability. As long as I am at it, after calling the UL follow-up-services regional office, I quit having trouble with surface marked wiring. It took three things, A Card that identified the manufacture as having Listed/Recognized wiring, the logos and ratings on the wiring, and a small discussion about the definition of package, and the fact that other components have nothing more than surface markings on products. Its not my responsibility to enforce UL's markings policy and a tag can be as easily forged as the wiring. As I've said here in the past, if you don't agree with them challenge it. The standards are a two-edged sword, they have to live by them as well. If the can't show you where it is they can't enforce it. One of the problems with the NRTL's, all of them, is inconsistent interpretation - or worse yet the fact that it need be interpreted at all. Throw in the fact that occasionally they make up stuff, called desk standards and you find there are times when the extra time spent makes your, and their, lives easier. I haven't notice being put into the bucket of nasty clients and enjoy a good working relationship with the guys on the other side of the fence so just challenging a thorny issue doesn't have hidden costs in the long run. I don't win them all and often learn something along the way. (Putting on my bell bottoms and tie dyed shirt for the big finish here) Power to the people! (Stepping off the soap box for now) Gary -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:06 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Wire spool labeling requirements I find it interesting, the possibility that to some degree UL (and others) cast doubt on the validity of their own markings and logos by requiring that we as users validate labeling on the wire spool. I understand the concern Just to underscore this, I haven't been able to validate approvals on parts or products to a well known NRTL without having an actual copy of the approval that was sent to the vendor of said device from the approving agency. And it doesn't make a difference even if I can prove the company and device approval are listed on the website of the NRTL. - Doug McKean --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: SDR in the US
Kim, I believe the Part you desire is 47 CFR 15.231 (Part 15, clause 231) ...the intentional radiator is restricted to the transmission of a control signal such as those used with alarm systems, door openers, remote openers, etc. The fundamental is allowed a level of 3,700 - 12,500 uV/m from 260-470 MHz. Other frequency ranges have other limits; some restrictions apply (sound like a lawyer?) ;-) If you would rather do 902-908 MHz, 15.247 applies for spread spectrum, or 15.249 for other applications. Spread spectrum allows more power but is complicated by the spread spectrum requirements. 15.249 is more restrictive in the power allowed. I have attached a link for your convenience. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/ Best regards, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic Electronics Corp Tyco International -- From: Kim Boll Jensen[SMTP:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Reply To: Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:35 AM To: treg; EMC-PSTC Subject: SDR in the US File: kimboll.vcf Hi all I have a Radio remote control for use in private homes I have understood that 433MHz SRD is not possible in the US in the same way as in EU. Some FCC notes points to 902 - 928 MHz for this kind of equipment. I'm trying to understand the FCC but I'm hindered by no possible download of relevant 47CFR code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/47cfr90_00.html doesn't seem to function at the moment) Is it correct that 902 -928 is allowed in part 15 without license if output is below 50mV/m at 3m, and if I need more power I will have to apply for a general license under part 90 ? Please help me ! Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: creepage v breakdown voltage
Try this. For flat electrodes, at sea level, and normal temperatures; eliminating such factors as humidity, dust, illumination, and the electrode materials; the molecules of the gases that compose common air, get ionized in the presence of an electric field of about 30KV/cm. So, since - electrode shape, barometric pressure, temperature, humidity, dust, presence of photons, and composition of the materials and shape of the electrodes, as well as the composition of the 'air' (gases), and also any other local (competing) electromagnetic fields - can all affect the definitive voltage that will jump a given gap - is it any wonder that the standard includes what otherwise appears to be a lot of slop. Stephen At 09:28 AM 3/15/2002, Roman, Dan wrote: I was looking into this a few weeks ago also and found similar results experimentally as other posters have mentioned. The only voltage per inch spec I was able to come up with was in the IPC specs but they were way out of whack! 0.12 mils per volt or more meaning that 2121 Vdc distance that the safety standards say should be 2.5 mm the IPC spec is saying you need 5 mm While the safety standards may be conservative to allow for temperature, grease, dirt, etc. over time the IPC specs are ultra-conservative. The dielectric tables for hermetically sealed material group III is probably closer to the actual breakdown but I never did find a spec I could use to predict the ACTUAL breakdown voltage of a gap between traces. If anyone finds a rule of thumb or equation I'd like to have it also. Dan -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: creepage v breakdown voltage
Doing high voltage power supplies we found we always got in trouble using 20,000 V/in and things worked well when we kept below 10,000 V/in. Metric that's 790 V/mm and 390 V/mm This was free air and not some kind of pointy structure. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Roman, Dan dan.ro...@intel.com To: 'MCA Compliance' bally...@iolfree.ie; Emc-Pstc Post emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, March 15, 2002 6:49 AM Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage I was looking into this a few weeks ago also and found similar results experimentally as other posters have mentioned. The only voltage per inch spec I was able to come up with was in the IPC specs but they were way out of whack! 0.12 mils per volt or more meaning that 2121 Vdc distance that the safety standards say should be 2.5 mm the IPC spec is saying you need 5 mm While the safety standards may be conservative to allow for temperature, grease, dirt, etc. over time the IPC specs are ultra-conservative. The dielectric tables for hermetically sealed material group III is probably closer to the actual breakdown but I never did find a spec I could use to predict the ACTUAL breakdown voltage of a gap between traces. If anyone finds a rule of thumb or equation I'd like to have it also. Dan -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: creepage v breakdown voltage
*snippped from Stephen Phillips email** The geometry of the surface across which the potential is laid matters too (curves, points, parallel planes), doesn't it. Again, maybe the committee just added guaranteed slop. * Yes, definitely. The Electric field gradients increase dramatically around sharp metal points. (if you were graphing the electric field, the equipotentials get closer). The breakdown distance between two pointy electrodes is much less than the breakdown distance between two round balls. A great reference for intuitively sketching field lines around conductors can be found on pages 53-55 of Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics, second edition by Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duzer. Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | -Original Message- From: Stephen Phillips [SMTP:step...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:50 AM To: MCA Compliance Cc: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage Humidity matters. Some years back, when doing some experiments around this subject - I too was surprised at just how much voltage different gaps could bear, such that the standard seemed gross overkill. But in a less than purely scientific way, I decided to breath (just breath, not blow) in the vicinity of the withstand, and got different results. It was winter (dry air), and my merely breathing normally - within about a foot of the gap under test - caused a 400V(DC) lower breakdown. I know the standard doesn't hold us to tight humidity spec's, only pollution degree, but maybe the committee that came up with this added enough margin to be sure to always cover such issues. The geometry of the surface across which the potential is laid matters too (curves, points, parallel planes), doesn't it. Again, maybe the committee just added guaranteed slop. There is no such thing as too safe. Stephen At 07:39 AM 3/15/2002, MCA Compliance wrote: Peter I agreee with your comment, but, I have seen lots of boards (material group III) pass high pot tests at 1.5kV with only 2 mm creepage on the boards. yet, 950 specifies 2.5mm for basic insulation. This is why I am after some independent experimental test data correlating creepage and dielectric strength, with different board material properties taken into account. I suppose to flip it around, if a board passes the hi-pot for 1 minute with 2 mm creepage (and the fact that it passes the hi-pot, means the clearance must also have been adequate?), why does 60950 look for 2.5mm creepage ??? rgds Brian -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: 15 March 2002 12:00 To: 'MCA Compliance'; Emc-Pstc Post Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage Brian, Your PCB manufacturer should be able to tell you what spacings to keep in order to withstand the test voltages. It all depends on the base material used for the PCB which all have different dielectric strength properties. Remember, the standards reference a minimum creepage distance AND you must still pass the electric strength tests. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il/ http://www.i-spec.com/ -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation.
Re: CE Mark on Product Packaging
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the statement below is entirely correct. It is my understanding (per EMC directive and published guidelines) that the Manufacturer or Authorized Representative is responsible for affixing the CE marking and drawing up the DoC and that only the Authorized Rep (if applicable) must be established within the community. In other words, the Manufacturer (who draws up the DoC and tech docs) does not have to be established in the community, but if an Authorized Rep is used, they must be. It is clear that when neither the Manufacturer or the Auth Rep are established within the community, the obligation to keep the DoC available is the responsibility of the party placing the product on the market (importer). Scott Lemon Caspian Networks Bill Ellingford wrote: Under the EMC directive, the person making a DOC and placing the goods on the market would be an EU resident. --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: creepage v breakdown voltage
Hi All, The Creepage and clearance specifications take into account the long term degradation of spacings due to environmental conditions. Just because it will pass the test today when it is clean and pure does not mean that this condition will last forever. Scott MCA Compliance wrote: Peter I agreee with your comment, but, I have seen lots of boards (material group III) pass high pot tests at 1.5kV with only 2 mm creepage on the boards. yet, 950 specifies 2.5mm for basic insulation. This is why I am after some independent experimental test data correlating creepage and dielectric strength, with different board material properties taken into account. I suppose to flip it around, if a board passes the hi-pot for 1 minute with 2 mm creepage (and the fact that it passes the hi-pot, means the clearance must also have been adequate?), why does 60950 look for 2.5mm creepage ??? rgds Brian -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: 15 March 2002 12:00 To: 'MCA Compliance'; Emc-Pstc Post Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage Brian, Your PCB manufacturer should be able to tell you what spacings to keep in order to withstand the test voltages. It all depends on the base material used for the PCB which all have different dielectric strength properties. Remember, the standards reference a minimum creepage distance AND you must still pass the electric strength tests. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: creepage v breakdown voltage
I was looking into this a few weeks ago also and found similar results experimentally as other posters have mentioned. The only voltage per inch spec I was able to come up with was in the IPC specs but they were way out of whack! 0.12 mils per volt or more meaning that 2121 Vdc distance that the safety standards say should be 2.5 mm the IPC spec is saying you need 5 mm While the safety standards may be conservative to allow for temperature, grease, dirt, etc. over time the IPC specs are ultra-conservative. The dielectric tables for hermetically sealed material group III is probably closer to the actual breakdown but I never did find a spec I could use to predict the ACTUAL breakdown voltage of a gap between traces. If anyone finds a rule of thumb or equation I'd like to have it also. Dan -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Alternate Country Approvals
Hi All, I have tested ITE products to the FCC, EN55022 and EN55024 Standards. Does anyone know what additional EMC approvals and documentation is required for Poland, Russia and Switzerland? Thanks for your help Cecil --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: SDR in the US
Try downloading from this location: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/ Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:36 AM To: treg; EMC-PSTC Subject: SDR in the US Hi all I have a Radio remote control for use in private homes I have understood that 433MHz SRD is not possible in the US in the same way as in EU. Some FCC notes points to 902 - 928 MHz for this kind of equipment. I'm trying to understand the FCC but I'm hindered by no possible download of relevant 47CFR code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/47cfr90_00.html doesn't seem to function at the moment) Is it correct that 902 -928 is allowed in part 15 without license if output is below 50mV/m at 3m, and if I need more power I will have to apply for a general license under part 90 ? Please help me ! Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: creepage v breakdown voltage
Humidity matters. Some years back, when doing some experiments around this subject - I too was surprised at just how much voltage different gaps could bear, such that the standard seemed gross overkill. But in a less than purely scientific way, I decided to breath (just breath, not blow) in the vicinity of the withstand, and got different results. It was winter (dry air), and my merely breathing normally - within about a foot of the gap under test - caused a 400V(DC) lower breakdown. I know the standard doesn't hold us to tight humidity spec's, only pollution degree, but maybe the committee that came up with this added enough margin to be sure to always cover such issues. The geometry of the surface across which the potential is laid matters too (curves, points, parallel planes), doesn't it. Again, maybe the committee just added guaranteed slop. There is no such thing as too safe. Stephen At 07:39 AM 3/15/2002, MCA Compliance wrote: Peter I agreee with your comment, but, I have seen lots of boards (material group III) pass high pot tests at 1.5kV with only 2 mm creepage on the boards. yet, 950 specifies 2.5mm for basic insulation. This is why I am after some independent experimental test data correlating creepage and dielectric strength, with different board material properties taken into account. I suppose to flip it around, if a board passes the hi-pot for 1 minute with 2 mm creepage (and the fact that it passes the hi-pot, means the clearance must also have been adequate?), why does 60950 look for 2.5mm creepage ??? rgds Brian -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: 15 March 2002 12:00 To: 'MCA Compliance'; Emc-Pstc Post Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage Brian, Your PCB manufacturer should be able to tell you what spacings to keep in order to withstand the test voltages. It all depends on the base material used for the PCB which all have different dielectric strength properties. Remember, the standards reference a minimum creepage distance AND you must still pass the electric strength tests. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: creepage v breakdown voltage
Peter I agreee with your comment, but, I have seen lots of boards (material group III) pass high pot tests at 1.5kV with only 2 mm creepage on the boards. yet, 950 specifies 2.5mm for basic insulation. This is why I am after some independent experimental test data correlating creepage and dielectric strength, with different board material properties taken into account. I suppose to flip it around, if a board passes the hi-pot for 1 minute with 2 mm creepage (and the fact that it passes the hi-pot, means the clearance must also have been adequate?), why does 60950 look for 2.5mm creepage ??? rgds Brian -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: 15 March 2002 12:00 To: 'MCA Compliance'; Emc-Pstc Post Subject: RE: creepage v breakdown voltage Brian, Your PCB manufacturer should be able to tell you what spacings to keep in order to withstand the test voltages. It all depends on the base material used for the PCB which all have different dielectric strength properties. Remember, the standards reference a minimum creepage distance AND you must still pass the electric strength tests. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: creepage v breakdown voltage
Brian, Your PCB manufacturer should be able to tell you what spacings to keep in order to withstand the test voltages. It all depends on the base material used for the PCB which all have different dielectric strength properties. Remember, the standards reference a minimum creepage distance AND you must still pass the electric strength tests. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: MCA Compliance [mailto:bally...@iolfree.ie] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:54 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: creepage v breakdown voltage does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Voltage Spikes on Power Lines etc
One clear piece of evidence is that safety standards committees always specify much larger creepage and clearance distances for externaly supplied hazardous voltages than for those generated within a product. A good example are the two sets of tables in IEC or EN 60 950. This is to accomodate high voltage spikes and lightning induced voltages etc. Bill Ellingford -Original Message- From: George Stults [mailto:george.stu...@watchguard.com] Sent: 14 March 2002 17:17 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Voltage Spikes on Power Lines etc Hi Folks, I am trying right now to convince some folks that power line voltage spike problems can be and usually are severe enough to degrade or kill ITE products that don't have adequate over-voltage protection. I found a link using Google that describes the problems [ http://www.kalglo.com/powrline.htm ] but I'm looking for additional links to specifics or summaries if any one knows of such. Thanks in advance. George S. --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list * --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: CE Mark on Product Packaging
I beleive the change in stance is due to the change in requirement regarding a European presence. Under the EMC directive, the person making a DOC and placing the goods on the market would be an EU resident. The RTTE allows parties outside of the EU to make the DOC and hold the Technical file, it is the person placing product on the market who carries legal liability. This means that goods can be imported into the EU with the CE declaration so marking the packaging resolves customs issues in these circumstances. Bill Ellingford -Original Message- From: Russell [mailto:r@totalise.co.uk] Sent: 14 March 2002 15:39 To: emc-pstc Subject: CE Mark on Product Packaging Does anybody know why the placing of the CE mark on product packaging is compulsory under the RTTE Directive, yet optional under the EMC and LVD Directives? Or am I wrong? Only curious, Russell. --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list * --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
creepage v breakdown voltage
does data exist which correlates creepage distance on a pcb with hi-potential test voltage it should withstand ? for example, I know 60950 sugests a test voltage of 1500Vrms for 1 minute and a creepage of 2.5mm (material group III) for basic insulation. How did they arrive at 2.5 mm ??? Brian email: i...@mcac.ie --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: IP67 Water Ingress Testing
Alex, I am currently testing some lithium ion battery pack for a major international renowned manufacturer. None of their lithium ion battery packs are vented and many are already Accessory Listed to UL60950. This leads me to believe that venting is not a problem with such battery packs. However, you must protect the cells from overcharge and discharge under normal and abnormal conditions. Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: McKinney, Alex [mailto:mckinne...@ems-t.com] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:51 PM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum (E-mail) Subject: IP67 Water Ingress Testing All, We are currently working on a new handheld product that will be tested for IP67 Water Ingress (1 meter submersion for 30 minutes) and we are trying to determine the safety impact of not including the lithium ion battery pack as part of this rating. This product will be UL60950 Listed. One question that has also been asked of me is whether this battery pack needs to be vented. A few lithium ion cell manufactures whom I have researched on this say that the pack should definitely be vented. If vented then the IP67 rating on the battery pack is definitely out of the question without designing some costly pressure release mechanism. I guess my ultimate question is, how safe is a lithium ion battery pack if water is introduced in to the circuit? Any help is greatly appreciated. Regards, Alex McKinney Safety Engineer LXE, Inc. Tel: 770-447-4224 x3606 Fax: 770-447-6928 --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
