GR 1089
To all; Section 3.2.2(Radiated Emissions - Magnetic Fields) says: Radiated emissions from the EUT shall not exceed the levels of field strength obtained from the following equation in the frequency range of 60 Hz through 30 MHz: H = E-51.5dB In this equation, E is the electric-field intensity in dBmV/m as obtained from Table 3-1; H is the magnetic-field intensity limit in dBmA/m; and the constant, 51.5, is the decibel equivalent of the free-space wave impedance of a plane wave. Extrapolation of magneticfield intensity limits is based on the electric-field intensity obtained from using the equations of Table 3-1 for the particular distance greater than 3 meters. What is the procedure here? 1) Calculate your E-field limits depending on your measurement distance. 2) Measure the E-Field and compare to the E-field limits. 3) Calculate your H-field limits depending on your measurement distance. 4) Measure the H-field and compare to your limits. I'm sure this isn't right since the H-field limits are the E-Field limits minus 51.5 dB, so there would be no reason to re-measure the field strength. What am I missing here? Questions: Kind Regards, Sam Wismer Engineering Manager ACS, Inc. Phone: (770) 831-8048 Fax: (770) 831-8598 Web: www.acstestlab.com
RE: Hazardous Area Designations/Certifications
Hi Chris, Classified area = hazardous location = an area where the atmosphere may be easily ignitable Class = type of hazard; Class 1 = gas vapours; 2 = combustible dust, 3 = ignitable fibers Zone = Frequency of the hazard; Zone 1 means hazard present frequently or for long periods; Zone 2 means hazard present only during maintenance or mishap (leaky valve); Zone 0 means hazard present continuously in normal use (the headspace above the flammable liquid in the holding tank, and the lid of the tank) EEx = Approved to the European version of the Ex standards d = a protection method = 'flameproof enclosure' - contain the explosion n = a protection method = 'non-incendive' - no hot surfaces Gas Group IIB = Ethylene family of gases T3 = maximum product surface temperature of 200 C, under fault conditions Relevant authority for Europe = Notified Body (Notified to the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC) You scratched the surface on a really big topic; here are some links for your education: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/atex/index.htm - ATEX (94/9/EC) home page, with links to harmonized standards and notified bodies http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/atex/guide/guide_en.pdf - ATEX guideline http://www.iecex.com/home.htm - IEC-EX home (like the CB Scheme for Ex) http://www.ul.com/hazloc/ - UL's hazloc page http://www.epsilon-ltd.com/ - Epsilon Ltd., home page - lots of hazloc info http://www.extronics.com/Ex_Info/protection_concepts.html - EXTronics has a good protection concepts table here. You could impress the questioner by pointing out that 'EEx n' devices are not allowed in Zone 1 areas... I'm guessing you have a European customer who needs a Zone 2 rating - I don't really see network diagnostic equipment being needed in a Zone 1 or 0 location. The full product rating would then likely be: ATEX Group 2 Category IIB, EEx n IIB T3. By the way, the ATEX Directive, mandatory July 1, 2003,requires notification (certification by an ATEX Notified Body) of your quality system per prEN13890, which is essentially ISO9000:2000 + specific ATEX requirements. Periodic factory surviellence is mandated by the Directive (is this a first?). Also note that the Class/Division system of defining HAZLOCS is widely used in North America; although the Class/Zone system has been allowed since 1999 (re 1999NEC Articles 505-510), only one facility has adopted the Class/Zone system to date. There are three, largely separate, approvals efforts for HAZLOC equipment; the USA, Europe, and ROW. The USA requires listing by an OSHA-approved NRTL. Europe requires an ATEX Notification. ROW - Australia, Brazil, Japan, among others - issue a national cert based on IEC standards. Have fun. Doug Massey Lead Regulatory Engineer LXE, Inc. -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:52 AM To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject: Hazardous Area Designations/Certifications Hi all, I have been asked a question regarding the following: use in a Zone 1 and Zone 2 classified area. This equipment shall be certified EEX d and EEx n by a relevant authority (e.g. BASEEFA, CENELEC etc.) and shall be suitable for Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3. Can anyone elaborate on the above information? What standard defines Zone 1 or Zone 2? What standard defines EEX d and EEX n? What about Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3? Any clarification, elaboration, elucidation and/or explanation that the group members could provide would certainly be appreciated. Thanks, 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 | --- 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...@attbi.com 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:
Re: Tantalum Capacitor Reliability
I don't think you can use this directly, but I ran hours of tests on a tantalum cap at full rated potential while applying large amplitude microsecond spikes with no hiccups, no heating until I got quite extreme. The cap was rated at 30 WVDC and I biased it at 28 Vdc, while applying all kinds of nasty spikes. The report accounts for at least seven hours of applied bias potential and spikes, with no failure until after several hours of a multi-kilovolt, 20 us long spike finally destroyed it. The reference is: K. Javor, Investigation Into the Effects of Microsecond Power Line Transients on Line-Connected Capacitors, NASA/CR-2000-209906, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812, February 2000, pp. 33. and it can be found at: http://see.msfc.nasa.gov/see/ee/eepub.html -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Tantalum Capacitor Reliability Date: Mon, Jul 29, 2002, 2:41 PM Hi all, By the way, thank you to the various group members for the responses regarding the hazardous atmosphere classifications. One of my colleagues is testing a new design. He has designed a buck-boost switching converter which has tantalum output capacitors. We have looked at his design and gone through the calculations. His output current is 4 A maximum. His output voltage is 12 VDC His caclulated ripple current is 800 mA. He needed a 120 mV ripple voltage, so he put 8 each of 68 uF, 20 V tantalum capacitors (with 150 mOhm ESR) in parallel on the output. Each cap is rated for approximately 800mA of ripple current. He has seen two failures of these capacitors during initial testing and demonstrations. Meanwhile, many initial units run fine. From what I can gather, he hasn't violated any design rules. He has 20V rated caps on a 12V circuit. He has a ripple current rating of 8 X 800mA (8 caps in parallel). It is tempting to just increase the voltage rating to 25V or 35Vbut why? Even if he does, how do you prove that the problem is fixed. It would take months of testing the new capacitors to get the history that we have on the existing design. I guess what I'm looking for is some tantalum capacitor wisdom... Should we just go ahead and use 25 V or 35V caps in this 12 V application? Are tantalum caps that flaky?What is the possibility that we don't have a design problem; but just a couple of bad capacitors? Is there some piece of knowledge out there that would help us tell the difference? 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 | --- 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...@attbi.com 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...@attbi.com 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
Recommendation for Safety Standard
Group, Could someone recommend an appropriate UL safety standard to test a Submersible Aerator-Mixer to. The device is will be used in the bottom of a lake or other large water body. It contains a propeller and an AC powered motor. Thank you for your input. Barbara Brooks Wyle Laboratories 7800 Highway 20 West Huntsville, AL 35807- (256) 837-4411 ext 595 (253) 721-0144 Fax bbro...@hnt.wylelabs.com _ http://hotbar.com/Scripts/Utils/ShineDirect.asp?requestor=shn22 Upgrade Outlook® - Add COLOR to your Emails http://hotbar.com/Scripts/Utils/ShineDirect.asp?requestor=shn22 Outlook® is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation
RE: Hazardous Area Designations/Certifications
Chris, This brings back a lot of memories; my first job out of college was with Factory Mutual Research Corporation (www.fmglobal.com) doing hazardous location approvals. Instead of reinventing the wheel (and digging deep into memory), here's a link to an excellent primer on explosion protection by R. Stahl, one of my first clients. http://www.rstahl.com/Exprotection/index.htm Click on the pdf Basics of Explosion Protection for an in depth look at this subject. It's about 4.5 Mb. The answers to your questions are in there plus a whole lot more. Good luck and best regards, Dave Lorusso Lorusso Technologies, LLC www.lorusso.com 512.695.5871 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Chris Maxwell Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:52 AM To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject: Hazardous Area Designations/Certifications Hi all, I have been asked a question regarding the following: use in a Zone 1 and Zone 2 classified area. This equipment shall be certified EEX d and EEx n by a relevant authority (e.g. BASEEFA, CENELEC etc.) and shall be suitable for Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3. Can anyone elaborate on the above information? What standard defines Zone 1 or Zone 2? What standard defines EEX d and EEX n? What about Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3? Any clarification, elaboration, elucidation and/or explanation that the group members could provide would certainly be appreciated. Thanks, 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 | --- 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...@attbi.com 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...@attbi.com 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: Tantalum Capacitor Reliability
Nonetheless, inrush current aside, a 20V Tantalum is considered marginal for a 12V circuit if reliability is desired. A 60% derating factor was and is a typical max for reliability circuits, i.e a 30V min rated cap is recommended. Tantalums require additional derating than Al-electrolytics. Furthermore, switchers are notorious for destroying Tantalums due to the large and fast V-swings. I don't recall seeing too many Tantalums on switcher designs. --- Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com wrote: Chris, The issue isn't voltage rating; low-ESR caps such as these are susceptible to excessive charging current at turn-on. At a former employer, we saw REALLY GOOD, expensive caps used on a computer's 5V bus exploding at turn-on, even ones rated at 50 volts. Replacing them with cheaper electrolytics (TEN volts!) took care of that. You might be able to alleviate turn-on stress by using a power-on monitor circuit to slow down the initial charge. But it'd be far cheaper to go to electrolytics. Cortland One of my colleagues is testing a new design. He has designed a buck-boost switching converter which has tantalum output capacitors. We have looked at his design and gone through the calculations. His output current is 4 A maximum. His output voltage is 12 VDC His caclulated ripple current is 800 mA. He needed a 120 mV ripple voltage, so he put 8 each of 68 uF, 20 V tantalum capacitors (with 150 mOhm ESR) in parallel on the output. Each cap is rated for approximately 800mA of ripple current. He has seen two failures of these capacitors during initial testing and demonstrations. Meanwhile, many initial units run fine. From what I can gather, he hasn't violated any design rules. He has 20V rated caps on a 12V circuit. He has a ripple current rating of 8 X 800mA (8 caps in parallel). It is tempting to just increase the voltage rating to 25V or 35Vbut why? Even if he does, how do you prove that the problem is fixed. It would take months of testing the new capacitors to get the history that we have on the existing design. --- 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...@attbi.com 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 = Best Regards Hans Mellberg Regulatory Compliance EMC Design Services Consultant By the Pacific Coast next to Silicon Valley, Santa Cruz, CA, USA office:831-454-9450, cell:408-507-9694, fax:831-454-0755 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Scott/primer
Ted, Good job. But, please, don't stop there. Maybe you should work with Gary Hogan and between you I see quite a good and useful primer in the works. Your second statement is the key. But these web sites don't really start at step 2, more like they start at steps 3 or 4. I am looking for not only the initial why, but where do you go from there, how do you find those sites or sources that can guide you further down the trail? The first overview, especially for the non-technical or even the beginning compliance type, is critical. But once you know that you should or that you have to, how to figure out where to get the next piece of the puzzle. I see something starting out with those explanations about problems caused by lack of compliance, sort of starting at the real world and showing what problems arise due to lack of compliance. This covers a whole range of issues from life safety to product performance and reliability and including customer satisfaction. Needs to be somewhat brief (is that possible?), remembering the target audience. This covers what compliance is, how it is used, and how it can be beneficial for more than just liability reasons. Once the background is laid out, I can see an overview of the world of compliance. Who makes the rules, how they get approved, how they become required. This applies to those required by law as well as to those required by due diligence or to satisfy customers. The who encompasses governments like the EU or the US Congress. The how is by laws, directives, or regulations. Of course the legal types (congressmen) don't actually do the work. They just adopt what independent agencies, like the UL's or ANSI's or NFPA's of the world, create. So a bit about the creation goes along with the adoption. After that, what are the ways to show compliance. Technical construction files, testing, certifications, etc. Explaining each type of process then transitions into the independent test and certification process. Examples of the major players, the UL, CSA, TUV, type of test and marking. Proving compliance by supportable means, either third party, or by qualified internal programs. In this case, here is where the liability protection comes in. Need to be able to show my internal lab is making supportable tests and results are acceptable to experts, etc. Will it hold up in court? Does it meet the spirit and intent? And this is just all the up front stuff. Notice I did not go into any detail about how we compliance types actually do our jobs, how we follow the tree from the directive to the generic, family and then specific test we need to do. That would be probably another dozen books. Anyway, I was hoping to spare myself the hours it will take to write up a report for the man, hoping it was already out there waiting to be plucked. Scott At 11:32 AM 7/29/02 -0500, you wrote: what a good question. I think I understand your situation, with so much to know where do you begin? Numerous websites take the process from step 2 onwards but step 1 is the concept which may not be obvious to the non-technical person. It will help if the person has a grasp of basic science, that is electricity, heat, mechanics. Try this approach: For a non technical person it is the simple issues that have to be underlined. First, step outside your company operations; try to see the product you make as just one item in a system of hardware; the customer needs the whole system to run reliably with minimal downtime. That mean everyone's products have to link up without unforeseen interactions, with robustness to operator error; it has to keep working when lightning strikes and restart safely after a power outage. It mustn't burst into flames when abused; mustn't interfere with allocated radio frequencies, telephones, video cameras etc,; mustn't kill the service engineer; must be insurable. Can the equipment fail? How? Who pays to fix it? Can someone be injured while installing operating or servicing? Can connected equipment be damaged? Can it degrade the performance of another item nearby? How to avoid the cost of equipment failure and repair. How to avoid the cost of injury to the installer, operator and service engineer. How to avoid the cost of explosive damage and consequential loss. How to avoid the cost of installation debugging due to interactions. Regulatory bodies exist to raise the standard of hardware so that beginning at the design stage new equipment gets built incorporating all the knowledge gained from prior experience about reliability and performance. There are three categories of concern: safety: legal liability arising from electrical shock hazard and fire hazard performance: where is it used? a submarine? an aircraft? an office? what are the build requirements and maintenance requirements for the expected life cycle? interaction: what are the requirements to perform reliably in
Re: Tantalum Capacitor Reliability
Chris, The issue isn't voltage rating; low-ESR caps such as these are susceptible to excessive charging current at turn-on. At a former employer, we saw REALLY GOOD, expensive caps used on a computer's 5V bus exploding at turn-on, even ones rated at 50 volts. Replacing them with cheaper electrolytics (TEN volts!) took care of that. You might be able to alleviate turn-on stress by using a power-on monitor circuit to slow down the initial charge. But it'd be far cheaper to go to electrolytics. Cortland One of my colleagues is testing a new design. He has designed a buck-boost switching converter which has tantalum output capacitors. We have looked at his design and gone through the calculations. His output current is 4 A maximum. His output voltage is 12 VDC His caclulated ripple current is 800 mA. He needed a 120 mV ripple voltage, so he put 8 each of 68 uF, 20 V tantalum capacitors (with 150 mOhm ESR) in parallel on the output. Each cap is rated for approximately 800mA of ripple current. He has seen two failures of these capacitors during initial testing and demonstrations. Meanwhile, many initial units run fine. From what I can gather, he hasn't violated any design rules. He has 20V rated caps on a 12V circuit. He has a ripple current rating of 8 X 800mA (8 caps in parallel). It is tempting to just increase the voltage rating to 25V or 35Vbut why? Even if he does, how do you prove that the problem is fixed. It would take months of testing the new capacitors to get the history that we have on the existing design. --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Hazardous Area Designations/Certifications
Chris, Looks like you're dealing with equipment for use in explosive atmosphere's legislation/standards. The exact details vary a bit depending on the world-region (US, Europe, etc...). One of the basic how to determine zones documents is IEC 60079-10 and its few clones. Watch out also for the two so-called ATEX directives comming down the pike in Europe. Optional now, mandatory in May 2003. There is one for the workplace and one for the equipment that goes into the workplace. Cheers, Lauren Crane TUV America -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Sent: 7/29/2002 10:51 AM Subject: Hazardous Area Designations/Certifications Hi all, I have been asked a question regarding the following: use in a Zone 1 and Zone 2 classified area. This equipment shall be certified EEX d and EEx n by a relevant authority (e.g. BASEEFA, CENELEC etc.) and shall be suitable for Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3. Can anyone elaborate on the above information? What standard defines Zone 1 or Zone 2? What standard defines EEX d and EEX n? What about Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3? Any clarification, elaboration, elucidation and/or explanation that the group members could provide would certainly be appreciated. Thanks, 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 | --- 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...@attbi.com 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
Tantalum Capacitor Reliability
Hi all, By the way, thank you to the various group members for the responses regarding the hazardous atmosphere classifications. One of my colleagues is testing a new design. He has designed a buck-boost switching converter which has tantalum output capacitors. We have looked at his design and gone through the calculations. His output current is 4 A maximum. His output voltage is 12 VDC His caclulated ripple current is 800 mA. He needed a 120 mV ripple voltage, so he put 8 each of 68 uF, 20 V tantalum capacitors (with 150 mOhm ESR) in parallel on the output. Each cap is rated for approximately 800mA of ripple current. He has seen two failures of these capacitors during initial testing and demonstrations. Meanwhile, many initial units run fine. From what I can gather, he hasn't violated any design rules. He has 20V rated caps on a 12V circuit. He has a ripple current rating of 8 X 800mA (8 caps in parallel). It is tempting to just increase the voltage rating to 25V or 35Vbut why? Even if he does, how do you prove that the problem is fixed. It would take months of testing the new capacitors to get the history that we have on the existing design. I guess what I'm looking for is some tantalum capacitor wisdom... Should we just go ahead and use 25 V or 35V caps in this 12 V application? Are tantalum caps that flaky?What is the possibility that we don't have a design problem; but just a couple of bad capacitors? Is there some piece of knowledge out there that would help us tell the difference? 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 | --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Compliance Primer
I would add a litle to Rick's insight from my experience. You may find that Manufacturing appreciates the quality enhancements usually obtained in the regulatory process (and other test methods such as stress testing) and would understand the consequences of non-compliance. Product designers may not recognize a need for regulatory enhancements. Complaints of software bugs are more tangible (since they tend to be suffered by more customers) to RD than hardware regulatory issues. When an executive sees a competitor's non-compliant product competing successfully then the executive is tempted by greed to copy that successful business model. This attitude was proven by how quickly financial accounting fraud spread to so many companies here in America. Eric Lifsey Compliance Engineer --- 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...@attbi.com 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
IEC 60601-1
Hello, As all the safety standards, IEC 60601 defines the creepage and clearance distances regarding the working voltage of the considered insulation. In a switching power supply, designed for medical product, one of my customer has designed the creepage and clearance distances to be compliant with the rated voltage, which is 230 V. When one of the most known test house has reviewed the product, engineer said that the creep. and clear. were not good, due to the voltage between primary and secondary which is, at some location, about 440 V rms. This voltage implies 16 and 9 mm distances. These distances are very hard to obtain in the PSU (size of a PSU for Personal computer) and mainly the optoisolators are dimensionned to comply with it. So, my customer had a look on other PSU certified to IEC60601 by very known test house, and he was surprised to see that the creep. and clear. were designed to meet 230V requirements, and not 440Vrms (the PSU had such a voltage inside). How can we explain this situation, and is there a solution to have a compliant PSU with insulation designed to meet 230v distance requirements. Thanks to all, Pierre --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Hazardous Area Designations/Certifications
Hello Chris, While I can't supply specifics, I expect you can find what you need on Links available on the Safety Link www.safetylink.com Once you arrive therein, using your browser's FIND function (Control-F in most browsers), search on the following terms: ATEX Ex Scheme HAZLOC Intrinsic Safety You will be delivered to links to sites with a plethora of info on these subjects. Best regards, Art Michael, Webmaster - the Safety Link On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Chris Maxwell wrote: Hi all, I have been asked a question regarding the following: use in a Zone 1 and Zone 2 classified area. This equipment shall be certified EEX d and EEx n by a relevant authority (e.g. BASEEFA, CENELEC etc.) and shall be suitable for Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3. Can anyone elaborate on the above information? What standard defines Zone 1 or Zone 2? What standard defines EEX d and EEX n? What about Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3? Any clarification, elaboration, elucidation and/or explanation that the group members could provide would certainly be appreciated. Thanks, 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 | --- 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...@attbi.com 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...@attbi.com 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: Compliance Primer
I used to do seminars internal to companies where I worked on this very subject. Great for people with insomnia. I can pass along the information for a small fee of, say, $20,000 per page ... big grin Regards, Doug McKean - Original Message - From: Scott Douglas To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:15 AM Subject: Compliance Primer Hi, Does anyone know of any primers on regulatory compliance? Like what compliance is, why we do it, how does one figure out what standards apply to a product, and whatever? Reason I ask is I had these questions posed to me by one of our directors. He wants to learn about compliance. I was caught flat footed. How do you explain what took you 19 years to learn? And that you really don't know as much as you think? I showed him my stack of standards but didn't think that would be a good place for him to start. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com --- 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...@attbi.com 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
Scott/primer
what a good question. I think I understand your situation, with so much to know where do you begin? Numerous websites take the process from step 2 onwards but step 1 is the concept which may not be obvious to the non-technical person. It will help if the person has a grasp of basic science, that is electricity, heat, mechanics. Try this approach: For a non technical person it is the simple issues that have to be underlined. First, step outside your company operations; try to see the product you make as just one item in a system of hardware; the customer needs the whole system to run reliably with minimal downtime. That mean everyone's products have to link up without unforeseen interactions, with robustness to operator error; it has to keep working when lightning strikes and restart safely after a power outage. It mustn't burst into flames when abused; mustn't interfere with allocated radio frequencies, telephones, video cameras etc,; mustn't kill the service engineer; must be insurable. Can the equipment fail? How? Who pays to fix it? Can someone be injured while installing operating or servicing? Can connected equipment be damaged? Can it degrade the performance of another item nearby? How to avoid the cost of equipment failure and repair. How to avoid the cost of injury to the installer, operator and service engineer. How to avoid the cost of explosive damage and consequential loss. How to avoid the cost of installation debugging due to interactions. Regulatory bodies exist to raise the standard of hardware so that beginning at the design stage new equipment gets built incorporating all the knowledge gained from prior experience about reliability and performance. There are three categories of concern: safety: legal liability arising from electrical shock hazard and fire hazard performance: where is it used? a submarine? an aircraft? an office? what are the build requirements and maintenance requirements for the expected life cycle? interaction: what are the requirements to perform reliably in hostile electrical environments such as RF fields, lightning strikes? What are the requirements to limit the emission of nuisance energy which might adversely affect connected equipment and or nearby equipment? ... better stop there --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Compliance Primer
Hi Rick, Thank you for the input. I have found the same experience on the penalties issue. You are correct in the fact that it will be mentioned and not be a focal point of the article. Any other comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated. Incidentally, I would also really enjoy hearing from the group about what kind of resource SCS could incorporate into their website which would be most beneficial to you. Best regards, Garry Hojan CEO/ President Strategic Compliance Services (SCS) a Division of NRL, L.L.C. 11402 E Mariposa Rd. Stockton, CA 95215 Tel:209-465-0619 Fax:209-812-1931 Mobile: 209-662-4322 Email: gho...@regulatory-compliance.com Web:www.regulatory-compliance.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of rbus...@es.com Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:41 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: Compliance Primer For what its worth, it has been my experience over the years that management is turned off by hearing about threats and penalties. That is not to say that they don't care, and these should definitely be part of your presentation, but they are looking business building issues. I try to show how regulatory efforts improve product quality, how additional markets may be opened and how testing costs can best be managed. Showing them why regulatory issues are important should be the bulk of your presentation. Addressing the penalties and consequences should be mentioned but in my opinion should not be focal point. The issue that is always thrown back at me are the numerous accounts where company A shipped product without proper regulatory approval and nothing happened. We all know this has been problematic. Obviously the issue is whether or not their company is willing to take the risk. After all product regulations is in effect a risk management effort. We minimize the risk of hazards, minimize the risk of interference and minimize the risk that our companies could get into legal trouble. Just my $.02 Rick Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Garry Hojan [mailto:gho...@regulatory-compliance.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:10 AM To: Scott Douglas; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Compliance Primer Hi Scott, I am in the process of writing just such an article, directed towards those within an organization who have, what I would call, a periphery view of regulatory compliance (directors, purchasing, sales and marketing) and how it effects them and the company. I am writing it with your situation in mind, but I would be interested in the group's viewpoint on the value of such an article. Do you find yourself explaining what rc is? Do you have to justify the fact that it has to be done? How many times do you find yourself in a pressure situation where the product is sold without the appropriate approvals and your under the gun to get the approvals? I would also be extremely appreciative if the group has some scenario's that they would like covered in the article. I will also be covering penalties and liability issues, which should hopefully open some eyes of those who feel that it is an acceptable business risk to run with a less than satisfactory compliance program. In the article I will explain the process of how to determine which standards apply for which country/product mix, and how difficult it can be for some countries due to time zones, translations, unclear or differing instructions from within the country, political issues, political and business policy, unwritten caveats, etc., etc. I look forward to hearing from the group. Best regards, Garry Hojan CEO/ President Strategic Compliance Services (SCS) a Division of NRL, L.L.C. 11402 E Mariposa Rd. Stockton, CA 95215 Tel: 209-465-0619 Fax: 209-812-1931 Mobile: 209-662-4322 Email: gho...@regulatory-compliance.com Web: www.regulatory-compliance.com --- 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...@attbi.com 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
Re: medical-grade transformers
Regarding my query on medical equipment transformer construction (EN-60601-1, clause 57.9.4(e)), can I be a bit more specific. - How were insulation thickness requirements decided, and why is the thickness requirement lower if insulation is 2-layer rather than single-layer ?. - Why are single-layer and 2-layer insulation requirements defined in terms of thickness, yet 3-layer insulaton requirements defined in terms of dielectric strength ?. Thanks Ged Dean ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. NCHT ** --- 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...@attbi.com 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: medical-grade transformers
Hi, From Appendix A, General Guidance and Rationale, for Clause 57.9 ...For reasons of PATIENT safety additional requirements must be applied to the construction of such transformers, e.g. restriction of LEAKAGE CURRENTS flowing to PATIENT CIRCUITS. 57.9.4 e) In transformers with REINFORCED INSULATION or DOUBLE INSULATION the insulation between the primary and secondary winding shall consist of: - one insulation layer having a thickness of at least 1 mm, or - at least two insulation layers with a total thickness of not less than 0.3 mm, or - three layers provided that each combination of two layers can withstand the dielectric strength test for REINFORCED INSULATION. Ned Devine Program Manager Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 1 616 248 9671 Phone 1 616 574 9752 Fax ndev...@entela.com e-mail Entela, Inc. A Certified Woman Owned Business www.entela.com -Original Message- From: Dean Gerard (gdean) [mailto:gd...@ncht.trent.nhs.uk] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:29 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: medical-grade transformers With regard to transformer construction, CLAUSE-57.9.4(e) of EN-60601-1 General Requirements for Safety of Medical Electrical Equipment requires:- In transformers with REINFORCED INSULATION or DOUBLE INSULATION the insulation between 1ary and 2ary windings shalll consist of - - 1 insulation layer having thickness at least 1mm, or - at least 2 insulation layers with total thickness not less than 0.3mm, or - 3 layers provided each combination of 2 layers can withstand the dielectric strenght test for REINFORCED INSULATION Can anyone explain ther rationale behind these requirements ? Thanks. Ged Dean Nottingham City Hospital. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. NCHT ** --- 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...@attbi.com 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...@attbi.com 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: Compliance Primer
For what its worth, it has been my experience over the years that management is turned off by hearing about threats and penalties. That is not to say that they don't care, and these should definitely be part of your presentation, but they are looking business building issues. I try to show how regulatory efforts improve product quality, how additional markets may be opened and how testing costs can best be managed. Showing them why regulatory issues are important should be the bulk of your presentation. Addressing the penalties and consequences should be mentioned but in my opinion should not be focal point. The issue that is always thrown back at me are the numerous accounts where company A shipped product without proper regulatory approval and nothing happened. We all know this has been problematic. Obviously the issue is whether or not their company is willing to take the risk. After all product regulations is in effect a risk management effort. We minimize the risk of hazards, minimize the risk of interference and minimize the risk that our companies could get into legal trouble. Just my $.02 Rick Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Garry Hojan [mailto:gho...@regulatory-compliance.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:10 AM To: Scott Douglas; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Compliance Primer Hi Scott, I am in the process of writing just such an article, directed towards those within an organization who have, what I would call, a periphery view of regulatory compliance (directors, purchasing, sales and marketing) and how it effects them and the company. I am writing it with your situation in mind, but I would be interested in the group's viewpoint on the value of such an article. Do you find yourself explaining what rc is? Do you have to justify the fact that it has to be done? How many times do you find yourself in a pressure situation where the product is sold without the appropriate approvals and your under the gun to get the approvals? I would also be extremely appreciative if the group has some scenario's that they would like covered in the article. I will also be covering penalties and liability issues, which should hopefully open some eyes of those who feel that it is an acceptable business risk to run with a less than satisfactory compliance program. In the article I will explain the process of how to determine which standards apply for which country/product mix, and how difficult it can be for some countries due to time zones, translations, unclear or differing instructions from within the country, political issues, political and business policy, unwritten caveats, etc., etc. I look forward to hearing from the group. Best regards, Garry Hojan CEO/ President Strategic Compliance Services (SCS) a Division of NRL, L.L.C. 11402 E Mariposa Rd. Stockton, CA 95215 Tel: 209-465-0619 Fax: 209-812-1931 Mobile: 209-662-4322 Email: gho...@regulatory-compliance.com Web: www.regulatory-compliance.com --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Compliance Primer
Hi Scott, I would first show your director the reference in the 2002 NEC Article 90.7 (Page 70-31) Examination of Equipment for Safety. It doesn't get specific information as what you are asking for, but it does give the reason we have to do what we do. From that point on, I'm sure other list members have more specific ideas. Ron Baugh VeriFone, Inc. -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [SMTP:dougl...@naradnetworks.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:15 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Compliance Primer Hi, Does anyone know of any primers on regulatory compliance? Like what compliance is, why we do it, how does one figure out what standards apply to a product, and whatever? Reason I ask is I had these questions posed to me by one of our directors. He wants to learn about compliance. I was caught flat footed. How do you explain what took you 19 years to learn? And that you really don't know as much as you think? I showed him my stack of standards but didn't think that would be a good place for him to start. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com http://www.naradnetworks.com/ --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Compliance Primer
Hi Scott, I am in the process of writing just such an article, directed towards those within an organization who have, what I would call, a periphery view of regulatory compliance (directors, purchasing, sales and marketing) and how it effects them and the company. I am writing it with your situation in mind, but I would be interested in the group's viewpoint on the value of such an article. Do you find yourself explaining what rc is? Do you have to justify the fact that it has to be done? How many times do you find yourself in a pressure situation where the product is sold without the appropriate approvals and your under the gun to get the approvals? I would also be extremely appreciative if the group has some scenario's that they would like covered in the article. I will also be covering penalties and liability issues, which should hopefully open some eyes of those who feel that it is an acceptable business risk to run with a less than satisfactory compliance program. In the article I will explain the process of how to determine which standards apply for which country/product mix, and how difficult it can be for some countries due to time zones, translations, unclear or differing instructions from within the country, political issues, political and business policy, unwritten caveats, etc., etc. I look forward to hearing from the group. Best regards, Garry Hojan CEO/ President Strategic Compliance Services (SCS) a Division of NRL, L.L.C. 11402 E Mariposa Rd. Stockton, CA 95215 Tel: 209-465-0619 Fax: 209-812-1931 Mobile: 209-662-4322 Email: gho...@regulatory-compliance.com Web: www.regulatory-compliance.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Scott Douglas Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:15 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Compliance Primer Hi, Does anyone know of any primers on regulatory compliance? Like what compliance is, why we do it, how does one figure out what standards apply to a product, and whatever? Reason I ask is I had these questions posed to me by one of our directors. He wants to learn about compliance. I was caught flat footed. How do you explain what took you 19 years to learn? And that you really don't know as much as you think? I showed him my stack of standards but didn't think that would be a good place for him to start. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Nameplate Rating (US/Canada/Mexico
Cecil, The nominal supply voltages/frequencies and tolerances in the US, Canada and Mexico are as follows: US: 120 V +/- 5%, 60 Hz +/-0.3% Canada: 120V +5%/-8.3%, 60 Hz +/-0.02% Mexico: 127V +/-10%, 60Hz +/-0.2% Therefore, a rating of 100-120V or 100-127 V is acceptable for all countries, if the tolerance is additionally specified in the manual. 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: cecil.gitt...@kodak.com [mailto:cecil.gitt...@kodak.com] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: From: Cecil A. Gittens Hi All, What is the correct voltage labeling for the US, Canada and Mexico on product dataplate? Is it 100-120V or 100-127V? --- 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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...@attbi.com 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
Hazardous Area Designations/Certifications
Hi all, I have been asked a question regarding the following: use in a Zone 1 and Zone 2 classified area. This equipment shall be certified EEX d and EEx n by a relevant authority (e.g. BASEEFA, CENELEC etc.) and shall be suitable for Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3. Can anyone elaborate on the above information? What standard defines Zone 1 or Zone 2? What standard defines EEX d and EEX n? What about Gas Group IIB and Temperature Class T3? Any clarification, elaboration, elucidation and/or explanation that the group members could provide would certainly be appreciated. Thanks, 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 | --- 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...@attbi.com 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
Electronic Rule Compliance??
Hello Group, We have been asked by a customer in Ireland to provide them with a letter stating our drive to Electronic Rule Compliance; stating the current version of the software available and when we expect to be fully compliant. We are a laboratory equipment company and have never seen this request before. Does anyone know what Electronic Rule Compliance is? Regards, Brian Kunde LECO Corp. --- 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...@attbi.com 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: FCC and Professional Scanner : Verification or certification
Obviously there is considerable disagreement between myself and what appears to be the rest of the group. The positions regarding the consideration of the scanner as a Class A device were well thought out. I will bow to the consenses of the group However, even if the scanner were intended only for an Industrial / commercial market, and it could meet the Class B limits, wouldn't it be better to issue a DoC in order to open up more markets for the device? John -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gary McInturff Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 6:54 PM To: john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com; Pierre SELVA; Forum Safety-emc Subject: RE: FCC and Professional Scanner : Verification or certification John, obviously I disagree. The definitions I provided from part 15 describe a PC. Outside of that definition it might not be a PC. While a scanner doesn't really look or act like a PC, one can apply those same definitions to analyze whether or not any digital device, in this case a scanner, is likely to be class A or Class B. But I don't believe that to really be the point anyway. His question is a little more subtle and one has to find out first, where the scanner can be used. If his is a class A system used in a class A environment, his equipment is the controlling device - not the PC. He is not obligated to become class B because he uses a device that is class B in a commercial environment. The fact that outside of his application the PC might be used in a residential area is of little concern to him. He isn't using or supporting the PC in all of its possible uses. He is supporting the use of the PC only as it applies to the use of his equipment when developing and dig! itizing photographs. The determination lies in his scanner. Again a Class A device in a Class A environment can be interconnected with either a Class A device or A class B device. The class B device by definition meets the Class A requirements. Look at Ethernet routers and switches. They sit only in commercial locations, can cost many thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, aren't advertised in consumer magazines, nor are they sold in consumer outlets. They do have ports that could be connected to a PC but they are clearly class A devices. The fact that a class B computing device might be hooked up to it in its industrial location doesn't require the router to all of a sudden become a class B device - nor is it re-labeled a PC peripheral. Contrast that with a small Ethernet hub. They share a great deal with routers and switches. But because they sit in homes and/or industrial locations, they only cost some tens of dollars, are sold in consumer magazines and stores, basically all the definitions of a PC as described earlier, and as such are likely to be found in both commercial and residential areas. So they are required to be class B. They also have a port for one or more PC's. But its not the fact that a PC can be hooked up that makes the determination its the usage of the device that is being tested - in this case the hub. So we go back to, I believe, even if it were to look like a PC its either a PC or not a PC depending on how it meets the definitions I provided earlier. A very similar argument can be made for Pierre's scanner. Is it cheap, is it sold to consumers through magazines, and is it sold in consumer outlets. If not it simply is a digital device used in a commercial environment. Gary -Original Message- From: John Shinn [mailto:john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 5:02 PM To: Gary McInturff; 'Pierre SELVA'; 'Forum Safety-emc' Subject: RE: FCC and Professional Scanner : Verification or certification Lets get this straight. The unit connects to a PC with a SCSI port (Do I read Apple?). He is not questioning the the certification status of the PC. Apparently the computer is not of his design or manufacture. He simply connects to a PC. Unless he specifies that the unit is to be only connected to a host Personnal Computer that is for industrial / commercial use and has a SCSI port (is there such a thing?), the scanner will take on the characteristics of its host (a Personnal Computer - not just a Computer). Again, the normal run of the mill PCs are Class B. He needs to simply look at the host PC and determine the its class by looking at the label (that is assuming that the required label is there). If the label says Class B, the scanner and host must meet Class B. He then has to decide whether to go the certification route via a TCB (time and money) or DoC (no money, no time). If he wants to OEM a main-frame, that is another story for another day. 'Nuff said, end of story. John Shinn, P.E. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gary McInturff Sent:
medical-grade transformers
With regard to transformer construction, CLAUSE-57.9.4(e) of EN-60601-1 General Requirements for Safety of Medical Electrical Equipment requires:- In transformers with REINFORCED INSULATION or DOUBLE INSULATION the insulation between 1ary and 2ary windings shalll consist of - - 1 insulation layer having thickness at least 1mm, or - at least 2 insulation layers with total thickness not less than 0.3mm, or - 3 layers provided each combination of 2 layers can withstand the dielectric strenght test for REINFORCED INSULATION Can anyone explain ther rationale behind these requirements ? Thanks. Ged Dean Nottingham City Hospital. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. NCHT ** --- 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...@attbi.com 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
Compliance Primer
Hi, Does anyone know of any primers on regulatory compliance? Like what compliance is, why we do it, how does one figure out what standards apply to a product, and whatever? Reason I ask is I had these questions posed to me by one of our directors. He wants to learn about compliance. I was caught flat footed. How do you explain what took you 19 years to learn? And that you really don't know as much as you think? I showed him my stack of standards but didn't think that would be a good place for him to start. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com
RE: FCC and Professional Scanner : Verification or certification
John, I have to agree with Gary on this one. While the scanner requires some sort of host computer and connects via SCSI port, the host need not be a Personal Computer of the sort destined for residential use. In a former life, my employer made scanners and recorders for the graphics arts industry. They could operate stand-alone or connected to a computer. The products were marketed direct or through distributors and were not intended for residential use, but rather for businesses. That is not to say that a person with a home office could not buy our product. But the price point of greater than $10,000 made residential use unlikely. And we did not intend these things for home use, nor did we market them that way. All of them were Class A. So, while technically the scanner could be considered a peripheral of a PC, that does not mean it needs be Class B. Since it can operate stand-alone (as did our products), it technically is not a peripheral of a PC. And, since there are plenty of PC's designed for industrial use, and they are not Class B devices, there is no reason why the scanner cannot be Class A. If the product is not intended for residential use, and is not marketed that way, then it can be Class A regardless of what it is or is not connected to. If the price point helps make it unlikely for residential use, then so much the better. And if you are really worried about going Class A, and assuming the above points are satisfied, then put a disclaimer in the advertising and product manual stating not for residential use. Can't get much more clear than that. Just my opinion. Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com At 05:02 PM 7/26/02 -0700, John Shinn wrote: Lets get this straight. The unit connects to a PC with a SCSI port (Do I read Apple?). He is not questioning the the certification status of the PC. Apparently the computer is not of his design or manufacture. He simply connects to a PC. Unless he specifies that the unit is to be only connected to a host Personnal Computer that is for industrial / commercial use and has a SCSI port (is there such a thing?), the scanner will take on the characteristics of its host (a Personnal Computer - not just a Computer). Again, the normal run of the mill PCs are Class B. He needs to simply look at the host PC and determine the its class by looking at the label (that is assuming that the required label is there). If the label says Class B, the scanner and host must meet Class B. He then has to decide whether to go the certification route via a TCB (time and money) or DoC (no money, no time). If he wants to OEM a main-frame, that is another story for another day. 'Nuff said, end of story. John Shinn, P.E. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gary McInturff Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:51 PM To: Pierre SELVA; Forum Safety-emc Subject: RE: FCC and Professional Scanner : Verification or certification Pierre, Another way to analyze the problem is the intended use, cost, and how you advertise the product. Below is a small excerpt from the FCC part 15 rules defining a computer. Such computers are considered Class B digital devices. Computers which use a standard TV receiver as a display device or meet all of the following conditions are considered examples of personal computers: (1) Marketed through a retail outlet or direct mail order catalog. (2) Notices of sale or advertisements are distributed or directed to the general public or hobbyist users rather than restricted to commercial users. (3) Operates on a battery or 120 volt electric al supply. Basically the converse of the above takes you out of the computer category. (1) Not sold in retail outlets - The product is bought directly from you or through business distributors that deal with business rather than consumers. So a national distributor that a professional photographer would use - sorry I can't think of a French distributor (2) You advertise in Business magazines not consumer electronic magazines etc. (3) This one is no help because commercial equipment often runs on 120. (4) Don't know exactly where its at, but there is also a clause that mentions the price being such that it is unlikely that a consumer would purchase the thing, even if they were aware. If your equipment meets all of those categories then you can justify Verification. The fact that an actual computer is attached to the device is a bit of a red herring. It might be a DoC certified device and class B, and even though it is necessary to have one to operate the scanner its emission classification doesn't define your product. You can always use a class B device on a Class A system, just not the
Re: Regulatory requirements for Thailand
Hi John, Regarding Audio Product-Compulsory Standards for Thailand; TIS 1195-2536 (Mains operated electronic and related apparatus for household and similar general use: safety requirements) covers home audio and is translated/derived from IEC 60065. As you rightly mentioned, it has an effective date of August 31, 2002. Certification is issued by TISI (Thai Industrial Standard Institute). Please feel free to respond directly for further information. Best, Martin. Martin Garwood Principal Consultant, Approval Specialists 41/11 Whiting Ave, Terrigal NSW Australia ph: 61 2 43 841433 fx : 61 2 43 853382 http://www.approvalspecialists.com - Original Message - From: Tyra, John To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:28 AM Subject: Regulatory requirements for Taiwan Hello Everyone, I just received an e-mail from our distributor in Thailand that starting August 31st our home audio product are subject to a new certification scheme which will require test verification and licensing in order to be imported into the country. Does anyone have any additional information regarding the new requirements for Thailand or can point me in the direction as to where I can additional info. Thanks for your help. regards, John Tyra Design Assurance Engineering, Product Safety Regulatory Manager Bose Corporation The Mountain, M.S.-450 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 508-766-1502 Phone 508-766-1145 Fax john_t...@bose.com --- 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...@attbi.com 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: SV: Changes to FCC Conducted Limits for Part 15 18
So, what will happen to PLC (PowerLine Communication) in US ? I know an application called CEBus and they operate in the frequency band 100kHz-400kHz. Those folks using CEBus will not meet the new conducted emission requirements. Maybe, that sort of equipment is not within the scope of FCC part 15 / 18 ? Yes, it IS covered by Part 15. Here's what Part 15 says about it: === === Section 15.107 Conducted limits. (c) The limits shown in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Section shall not apply to carrier current systems operating as unintentional radiators on frequencies below 30 MHz. In lieu thereof, these carrier current systems shall be subject to the following standards: (1) For carrier current systems containing their fundamental emission within the frequency band 535-1705 kHz and intended to be received using a standard AM broadcast receiver: no limit on conducted emissions. (2) For all other carrier current systems: 1000 uV within the frequency band 535-1705 kHz, as measured using a 50 µH/50 ohms LISN. (3) Carrier current systems operating below 30 MHz are also subject to the radiated emission limits in Section 15.109(e). === ***Outside .535-1705 KHz, and below 30 MHz, there is NO conducted limit for carrier current PLC systems.*** === Section 15.109 Radiated limits. (e) Carrier current systems used as unintentional radiators or other unintentional radiators that are designed to conduct their radio frequency emissions via connecting wires or cables and that operate in the frequency range of 9 kHz to 30 MHz, including devices that deliver the radio frequency energy to transducers, such as ultrasonic devices not covered under Part 18 of this Chapter, shall comply with the radiated emission limits for intentional radiators provided in Section 15.209 for the frequency range of 9 kHz to 30 MHz. As an alternative, carrier current systems used as unintentional radiators and operating in the frequency range of 525 kHz to 1705 kHz may comply with the radiated emission limits provided in Section 15.221(a). At frequencies above 30 MHz, the limits in paragraph (a), (b) or (g) of this Section, as appropriate, continue to apply. === Section 15.209 Radiated emission limits, general requirements. (Extract of tabular data): = 0.009 - 0.490, 2400/F(kHz), at 300 meters 0.490 - 1.705, 24000/F(kHz), at 30 meters 1.705 - 30.0, 30 dBuV/m at 30 meters. == CEBus would have no conducted limit, but a radiated limit of from 24uV/m to 6uV/m at 300 meters. (Higher in frequency, we can expect systems operating above the AM broadcast band to generate interference to Short Wave and Amateur Radio reception.) Cortland --- 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...@attbi.com 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
