Unsubscribe

[Sam Wismer]

Unsubscribe
 

Re: dmax test

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that John Woodgate  wrote (in
) about 'dmax test' on Tue, 25 Feb
2003:
>I will forward you message to someone who is in a VERY good position to
>advise, but whose name I may not reveal. Watch this space.

Well, I did that and he says you are OK with what you are doing. If he
says so, it almost certainly IS so.
-- 
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...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

AC feed fail changeover relay

[bruce maule]

Hello all,

Would anyone know of a relay suitable for the following application:

The circuit is a 100-240VAC ac feed fail changeover, ie one output with an A
and B ac feed.

The coil would be powered from 48VDC derived from either ac feed and the
contact rating would need to be in the range 15 to 30A.

The main design challenge tripping up the designer - and hence my involvement
- is in maintaining double/reinforced isolation between the A and B inputs.

The reason being, if the power cord is removed from one of the ac feed inlets,
then there the is exposed accessible metal pins of the inlet that must be
double insulated from the other ac feed.

I believe that this scenario is reasonably common, from talking over with our
electrical safety test lab, but the solution of using a single relay as the
changeover element may not be viable.

Please reply directly to me rather to the group as whole unless you feel
there's merit in posting your response.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Bruce Maule


Bruce Maule, Approvals Engineer
Allied Telesyn Research Ltd
Courier: 27 Nazareth Ave, Middleton, 8002, Christchurch, NZ
Post:  PO Box 8011, Riccarton, 8034, Christchurch, NZ
Phone: +64-3-339-3000,  +64-3-339-9242(DDI),  Fax: +64-3-339-3002
http://www.alliedtelesyn.co.nz/ 



NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the addressee
named above. If you are not the intended recipient of
this message you are hereby notified that you must not
disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it.
If you have received this message in error please
notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender has the
authority to issue and specifically states them to
be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Custom Units in EU

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Gregg Kervill  wrote (in
) about 'Custom
Units in EU' on Tue, 25 Feb 2003:
>Please re-read John - we are not is disagreement

I understand that now.
>
>My original statement - 'ONLY If they comply to harmonized standards they
>are "deemed to be" "safe"'  is correct.
>

H'mm. I think that the implications of the eyebrows "" are not clear. A
fourth bullet point about the alternative to applying standards would
have made your point more clearly.
>
>
>
>You statement "Conformity to standards is NOT the only way of demonstrating
>compliance with Directives" is also correct - but they are not "DEEMED" nor
>are they "Presumed" to be in compliance with the Directives.

Not 'deemed', but are 'presumed', I think. Because of your last point
below. The Notified Body cannot PROVE that the product is safe, it can
only endorse a presumption that it is.
>
>
>The point that I tried (and failed) to make was that the other ways of
>demonstrating compliance place a greater onus of proving (and associated
>risk) upon the company PROVING safety.

Indeed; the alternative route is generally more difficult and costly,
and is only to be followed if that is not so in a particular case. 
>
>
>
>After all - we cannot PROVE something is safe - the best we can do is to
>eliminate the potential hazards that we can find.

Quite right.
-- 
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...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Global Chemical Regulations Forum?

[Joe P Martin]

Greetings,

Is anyone aware of a forum, similar to the EMC-PSTC forum, that deals with
Global Chemical Regulations?

All responses are appreciated.

Regards

Joe Martin
Applied Biosystems
marti...@appliedbiosystems.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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

D of C for medical P.S.

[boconn...@t-yuden.com]

Good people of PSTC 

One of our custom (component) SMPS is evaluated/certified to IEC/EN60601-1.
The LVD precludes medical stuff, and the MDD is ambiguous on "components" or
"materials" being scoped by the MDD.

The customer has determined that indicated conformance should be the LVD. If
the unit's D of C claims conformance to the LVD, then there is no applicable
standard, within the scope of the LVD that can be stated.

So what is the correct content of the unit's Declaration of Conformity? Can
anyone please cite normative OJ guidance? 

thanx much. 

R/S, 
Brian 

Re: dmax test

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that djumbdenst...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A2
05F84BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A0532B31F@flbocexu05>) about 'dmax test' on Tue, 25
Feb 2003:
>We have a HP HFTS (harmonic and flicker test system) 6843A that runs the
>original flicker tests.  Now 61000-3-3 requires a measurement of dmax 24
>times, taking the average of 22 readings.  We have come up with a way to do
>that manually using the HFTS.  I would like to present it to the group and
>see if anyone sees an oversight or a better way of doing it.  I suspect the
>program is the same whether you have the 1kva model or the 5kva model 6843A.
>
>a) Create an Excel "template" to record 24 points of data.  Create a formula
>that sums the 24 values, subtracts the max and min, and divides the result
>by 22.  This value is the average dmax required by the amendment.
>b)  Set up the HFTS as follows:
>   Integration Periods:1
>   PST Int Time:   1 minute
>   Measurement Delay:  0 seconds.
>c)  Start the HFTS Voltage Fluctuation test with the EUT off.
>d)  After several seconds, manually turn on the EUT.
>e)  At the conclusion of the 1 minute test, record the dmax value reported
>by the HFTS on the excel worksheet.
>f)  Turn off the EUT
>g)  Repeat steps c) to f) 24 times.
>h)  Compare the dmax value reported on the work sheet to the appropriate
>limit in 61000-3-3, Amendment 1, 2001.
>
>This approach requires manual intervention and takes approximately 1/2 hour.
>It appears to address the requirement of the amendment without requiring
>modification to the unsupported test equipment.  
>
>Comments?

I will forward you message to someone who is in a VERY good position to
advise, but whose name I may not reveal. Watch this space.
-- 
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...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: CCC mark China

[Jim Bacher]

Jan, one of the items that makes it confusing is, that you submit a test
reports (EMC and CB) with the unit to be tested. That makes it look like
they accept the reports when they do not. I believe that the reports are
used to duplicate the tests. 

As for wireless, it is the MII that does the radio certifications. 

Jim

Jim Bacher,  Senior Engineer
Paxar Americas, Inc.
170 Monarch Lane 
Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 USA
e-mail: jim.bac...@paxar.com
voice: 1-937-865-2020
fax: 1-937-865-2048 


From: Jan Vercammen [mailto:jan.vercamm...@agfa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:19 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: CCC mark China




Hello,

I have some questions concerning the CCC mark in China with respect to EMC
and radio
spectrum matters.

-1- I receive contradicting information about EMC compliance in China. On
one hand I have
information which asserts that China recognizes EMC laboratories outside
China. For Belgium these
are CEBEC recognised laboratories. On the other hand I also have
information that this is not correct
and that products need to be retested by CCC recognised lab's, which are
located in the
Asian area (China region - I have a list of lab's). What is correct?

-2- I have checked  the CCC classification. It does not look complete
(yet). It could be that our
product does not fit the classification list (yet).

-3- We have a product tested according to IEC 60601-1-1 (safety)  and IEC
60601-1-2 (EMC).
 Can anyone explain what one should do to obtain the CCC mark in simple
terms.

-4- The product also includes a short range device (SRD) operating at
13.56MHz. It has been
tested according to ETSI 300330 (radio parameters) and ETSI 301 489-3
(radio EMC)  and FCC
part 15. The same question as in -3-, what one should do to obtain the CCC
mark. It does not
get easier!


Kind regards,

Jan Vercammen
Agfa-Gevaert NV, Belgium








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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Custom Units in EU

[Gregg Kervill]

Please re-read John - we are not is disagreement

My original statement - 'ONLY If they comply to harmonized standards they
are "deemed to be" "safe"'  is correct.




You statement "Conformity to standards is NOT the only way of demonstrating
compliance with Directives" is also correct - but they are not "DEEMED" nor
are they "Presumed" to be in compliance with the Directives.


The point that I tried (and failed) to make was that the other ways of
demonstrating compliance place a greater onus of proving (and associated
risk) upon the company PROVING safety.



After all - we cannot PROVE something is safe - the best we can do is to
eliminate the potential hazards that we can find.



Best regards

Gregg


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:13 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Custom Units in EU



I read in !emc-pstc that Gregg Kervill  wrote (in
<015801c2d8e0$0abf5360$7100a8c0@MENHADEN>) about 'Custom Units in EU' on
Thu, 20 Feb 2003:
>
>
>The Simple *  rule for the EU goes:-
>
>* Product SHALL be "safe"
>* ONLY If they comply to harmonized standards they are "deemed to be"
>"safe"

No. Conformity to standards is NOT the only way of demonstrating
compliance with Directives. But the other ways are, for most equipment,
more costly and less certain. OTOH, for some products, they are the BEST
way.

I did read the disclaimer in the part of your message that I've snipped,
but I don't think it was prominent enough to state the position fairly.
--
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...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: CCC mark China

[David Heald]

Jan,
   I can answer the first part of your question.  In October 2002, I 
attended a presentation given by representatives of China's CNCA.  At 
that time, plans existed to eventually certify labs outside of China, 
but it was not expected to occur in the foreseeable future.  Note that 
this was an official government delegation so the answer was straight 
>from the horse's mouth.

Having said that, there are many agencies outside of China who will 
escort your product through the process (in China) and can apparently do 
so fairly quickly.

Best Regards,
Dave Heald

PS - ADMIN NOTE - replies offering services of this nature should be 
sent to the intended recipient only and should not be copied to the list.





Jan Vercammen wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have some questions concerning the CCC mark in China with respect to EMC
> and radio
> spectrum matters.
> 
> -1- I receive contradicting information about EMC compliance in China. On
> one hand I have
> information which asserts that China recognizes EMC laboratories outside
> China. For Belgium these
> are CEBEC recognised laboratories. On the other hand I also have
> information that this is not correct
> and that products need to be retested by CCC recognised lab's, which are
> located in the
> Asian area (China region - I have a list of lab's). What is correct?
> 
> -2- I have checked  the CCC classification. It does not look complete
> (yet). It could be that our
> product does not fit the classification list (yet).
> 
> -3- We have a product tested according to IEC 60601-1-1 (safety)  and IEC
> 60601-1-2 (EMC).
>  Can anyone explain what one should do to obtain the CCC mark in simple
> terms.
> 
> -4- The product also includes a short range device (SRD) operating at
> 13.56MHz. It has been
> tested according to ETSI 300330 (radio parameters) and ETSI 301 489-3
> (radio EMC)  and FCC
> part 15. The same question as in -3-, what one should do to obtain the CCC
> mark. It does not
> get easier!
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Jan Vercammen
> Agfa-Gevaert NV, Belgium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
> 
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
> 



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Hazardous to SELV separation on internal PCB layers

[j...@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/25/2003, Chris Maxwell writes:




What if I were to specify a circuitboard with .006" layer to layer spacing
between an SELV layer and a hazardous layer?  Obviously, this is less than
.016".   Furthermore, the drawing would specify to the PCB maker that they
must use at least three layers of laminate to make this spacing, for instance,
three sheets of .002" fiberglass?

Can anybody shoot holes in this design from an EN 61010-1 perspective?

BONUS QUESTION:  WHAT ABOUT HAZARDOUS/SELV SEPARATION  BETWEEN TRACES ON THE
SAME, ***INTERNAL*** LAYER?  





Hi Chris:

I work mostly with EN 60950, so I'm not sure how clear EN 61010-1 is on this
topic.  However, clause 2.10.5.3 in EN 60950 provides a very clear description
of what is acceptable for both layer-to-layer and trace-to-trace on the same
layer.  You might want to read this just to get an idea of what the authors of
EN 60950 were thinking.

In general, the approach you describe of specifying three layers of .002 inch
material would meet the layer-to-layer requirement in EN 60950, but you would
always be vulnerable to a screw-up at the board fab house.  If your board is a
multi-later board, there are a couple other options that help reduce the risk:

1) Put SELV on the top layer and HAZ on the bottom, with no copper on inner
layers in that area.  This gives you the full board thickness for insulation.

2) If there are several layers in the board, keep one or two layers between
the SELV and HAZ void of copper.  This provides a simple guarantee that you
will always have the desired 2 or 3 layers of thin insulation between SELV and
HAZ, regardless of how the board fab house constructs the board.


Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com

Hazardous to SELV separation on internal PCB layers

[Chris Maxwell]

All,

This email is a sanity check.

We deal mainly with EN 61010-1 for our products.  

THIS QUESTION DEALS WITH HAZARDOUS/SELV SEPARATION WHERE THE HAZARDOUS VOLTAGE
IS ON ONE LAYER AND SELV IS ON ANOTHER LAYER.

>From EN 61010-1, we get a "through insulation" distance of about 0.016" when
we consider our hazardous working voltages for a particular design.  I
remember some discussion on this topic from before which stated that smaller
layer to layer distances are permissable as long as two conditions are met:

1.  Each layer of the PCB laminate used must have a dielectric strength such
that it could pass the hipot test even in a small thickness (for instance
0.001").  This isn't a big problem, given that most PCB material has a
dielectric strength of several thousand volts per 0.001"

2.  More than two layers of this laminate must be used between PCB layers. 
The reason for this was given as "pinholes".  A layer of fiberglass that is
.001" thick can withstand hipot; but there is a finite chance that there could
be some pinholes in it.  If more than two layers of .001" fiberglass are used;
then the probability that the pinholes in all of the layers could line up
becomes infinitesimal.

Confusing?  How about an example:

What if I were to specify a circuitboard with .006" layer to layer spacing
between an SELV layer and a hazardous layer?  Obviously, this is less than
.016".   Furthermore, the drawing would specify to the PCB maker that they
must use at least three layers of laminate to make this spacing, for instance,
three sheets of .002" fiberglass?

Can anybody shoot holes in this design from an EN 61010-1 perspective?

BONUS QUESTION:  WHAT ABOUT HAZARDOUS/SELV SEPARATION  BETWEEN TRACES ON THE
SAME, ***INTERNAL*** LAYER?  

 I am assuming that I would have to apply the 0.016" distance between an SELV
and hazardous trace on the same internal layer.  Can anybody see a problem
with that?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

creepage and clearance distance

[Reginald Henry]

Hello All,

Does anyone have any regulatory literature indicating the creepage and
clearance distance reqs for a 12 VAC (RMS) input to a chassis and input to a
PC board?

Thanks,

RH   


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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

CCC mark China

[Jan Vercammen]

Hello,

I have some questions concerning the CCC mark in China with respect to EMC
and radio
spectrum matters.

-1- I receive contradicting information about EMC compliance in China. On
one hand I have
information which asserts that China recognizes EMC laboratories outside
China. For Belgium these
are CEBEC recognised laboratories. On the other hand I also have
information that this is not correct
and that products need to be retested by CCC recognised lab's, which are
located in the
Asian area (China region - I have a list of lab's). What is correct?

-2- I have checked  the CCC classification. It does not look complete
(yet). It could be that our
product does not fit the classification list (yet).

-3- We have a product tested according to IEC 60601-1-1 (safety)  and IEC
60601-1-2 (EMC).
 Can anyone explain what one should do to obtain the CCC mark in simple
terms.

-4- The product also includes a short range device (SRD) operating at
13.56MHz. It has been
tested according to ETSI 300330 (radio parameters) and ETSI 301 489-3
(radio EMC)  and FCC
part 15. The same question as in -3-, what one should do to obtain the CCC
mark. It does not
get easier!


Kind regards,

Jan Vercammen
Agfa-Gevaert NV, Belgium








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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

dmax test

[djumbdenst...@tycoint.com]

We have a HP HFTS (harmonic and flicker test system) 6843A that runs the
original flicker tests.  Now 61000-3-3 requires a measurement of dmax 24
times, taking the average of 22 readings.  We have come up with a way to do
that manually using the HFTS.  I would like to present it to the group and
see if anyone sees an oversight or a better way of doing it.  I suspect the
program is the same whether you have the 1kva model or the 5kva model 6843A.

a) Create an Excel "template" to record 24 points of data.  Create a formula
that sums the 24 values, subtracts the max and min, and divides the result
by 22.  This value is the average dmax required by the amendment.
b)  Set up the HFTS as follows:
Integration Periods:1
PST Int Time:   1 minute
Measurement Delay:  0 seconds.
c)  Start the HFTS Voltage Fluctuation test with the EUT off.
d)  After several seconds, manually turn on the EUT.
e)  At the conclusion of the 1 minute test, record the dmax value reported
by the HFTS on the excel worksheet.
f)  Turn off the EUT
g)  Repeat steps c) to f) 24 times.
h)  Compare the dmax value reported on the work sheet to the appropriate
limit in 61000-3-3, Amendment 1, 2001.

This approach requires manual intervention and takes approximately 1/2 hour.
It appears to address the requirement of the amendment without requiring
modification to the unsupported test equipment.  

Comments?

Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: MRA US-EU: Sectoral Annex Safety suspended

[Amund Westin]

Ok, so it is ended. But what was the intention of this MRA and do you think
it will return with other text ?

Amund


> -Opprinnelig melding-
> Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av Hudson, Alan
> Sendt: 6. februar 2003 12:50
> Til: EMC-pstc (E-mail)
> Emne: RE: MRA US-EU: Sectoral Annex Safety suspended
>
>
>
>
> Carpentier Kristiaan wrote:
> > This seems to be the end of the Sectoral Annex Electrical Safety.
> >
> >
>  40025.pdf>
>
>
>
> H'ixcuse ma h'igorance, but what *was* this mutual recognition
> agreement on
> electrical safety about anyway (in plain English!)?
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan
>
> Alenia Marconi Systems
> Scotland
>
> 
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> 
>
> ---
> 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
>
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Reminder - NPSS Meeting Tomorrow on Wednesday, February 26

[Matt Campanella]

There will be a Northeast Product Safety Society meeting tomorrow,
Wednesday, February 26th, at EMC Corporation's Customer Briefing Center
at 42 South Street in Hopkinton, MA.  A social hour with light
refreshments will begin at 7:00 PM and the technical meeting will start
at 7:30 PM.  David W. Simmerer, former Director of Product Reliability
at Olson Manufacturing Company, will present this month’s topic on
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis.

David’s presentation will provide an overview of FMEA and it’s
methodology with an example analysis using a Ford car door.  He will
illustrate FMEA application with past experiences such as brain shunts
for J&J in Switzerland, Otis Elevator, and some actual hospital process
FMEA's that have done to prevent patient mix-up of diagnosis and
prescriptions and stealing of infants, etc.  David will condense what is
normally a two or three day seminar into 1 hour, and still leave time
for Q&A and discussions afterwards.  If you have never taken part in a
FMEA this will be a new insight for you, and if you have, then this can
provide some refresher information.

David W. Simmerer is a management consultant with over 40 years of
experience in all areas of quality improvement.  David is a former
Director of Product Reliability and Human Resources at Olson
Manufacturing Company.  David studied mechanical engineering and
graduated from the WPI School of Industrial Management.  He is past
chairperson of the American Society for Quality, Worcester Section.
David, a certified quality engineer, teaches in the areas of quality
improvement and management.  Over the past years, David has conducted
customized In-House Training for many National and International
corporations.

The 2003 NPSS meeting schedule is available on the NPSS website at
http://www.nepss.org/meetings/NPSS2003Calendar.htm.

Further information about the Northeast Product Safety Society and how
to become a member is available at http://www.nepss.org.  You can also
contact one of the NPSS officers via links at
http://www.nepss.org/secretary/officers03.html.

Directions:
>From Route 495 North or South take exit 21B to South Street.
At the first traffic light, turn left (Note: This is on South direction
side of Route 495).
EMC Corporation is the second driveway on the right.


Matt Campanella
   NPSS Secretary

Compliance Engineer
Motorola, Inc.
Broadband Communications Sector
3 Highwood Drive East
Tewksbury, MA 01876

(978) 858-2303   Direct
(978) 858-2300   Main
(978) 858-2399   Fax

matthew.campane...@motorola.com  email






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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

VIRUS ALERT!

[Gordon,Ian]

All
I have been informed today that my computer was infected with a virus. This
was W32.HLLW.Lovgate.C@mm and is a variant of W32.HLLW.Lovgate@mm. The virus
may be passed via email. Thus I recommend you check your computer using, for
example Norton Anti Virus software ensuring this is the latest issue 24th
February 2003.
Many apologies.

Ian Gordon

_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed
Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.worldcom.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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc