RE: Class 1 AC/DC adapter
Hello Guys, Apologies for getting into many IF's. Yes, our discussion is based on assumption and description provided. There are many unknown for us on his unit. I believe the fundamental of the safety concept, which have been discussed should be look in depth by Raymond. Maybe it is time for Raymond to give us some input over the different area we discussed. Best Regards, Chengwee From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:40 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: raymond...@omnisourceasia.com.hk; c...@netscreen.com; 'Rich Nute' Subject: RE: Class 1 AC/DC adapter Let's look at these what ifs. From: ChengWee Lai Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:38 PM Raymond might be able to convince Safety agency to accept PE continuity test with 1500Vac Hipot at the production line. However in the Scenerio with end customer, it could mean business or no business. Question regarding: Whether customer can accept his adaptor with only 1500Vac hipot tested where other power supplies can withstand 3000Vac? The only clear answer is some form of redesign is necessary. Simple solutions work best. For any reasoned advice, there are too many unknowns about the physical construction of the power supply. See the below for more on this. Would that affect his customer Safety testing, because his customer unit with his power supply only meet 1500Vac hipot after heating test? Only Raymond and his customers can answer this. Or what if Safety agency require his customer unit to do grounding test to accessible metal part? OK, but why? The discussions have centered around an SELV output, making the end product Class III. There would have to be some specific about the final application to justify this. We have no information to base such an assumption on. Regards, Chengwee As with many discussions on the list, practical issue discussions often get side tracked by the hypothetical and theoretical. More to the point, Raymond hasn't given us specifics on the physical orientation of parts in the power supply to any great degree. Proprietary information aside, we know: K1) the insulation between earthed parts and mains connected parts is somewhat better than Basic, but not Reinforced K2) the EST potential where breakdown occurs (though I've discarded the e-mail with the identified potential) K3) the breakdown is suspected (or possibly confirmed) to occur to the earthed board that is used as an EMC shield and which also electrically connects to an SELV output What we don't know (or I've lost track of): DK1) if the power supply is a linear or switched mode type (we can assume it's a SMPS, since EMC shielding was mentioned, but it would be nice to have confirmation) DK2) what mains connected part(s) are involved in the dielectric breaking down (transformer winding terminations, leads or bodies of filtering, surge suppression or other components and how they are mounted) DK3) what area or specific portion of the earthed parts are involved in breaking down (at solder connection points for lead wires, the copper on the shielding board) DK4) if the supply uses an appliance inlet, has a nondetachable power supply cord or if it a direct plug-in type and how the mains circuit is brought to the power conversion element(s) of the primary circuit With some of this additional information, a more practical solution may be possible, rather than talking around the specifics. A WAG or two: One issue that hasn't come up is whether or not the copper on the shielding board is facing the mains/primary circuitry or not. Based on the application and the general discussion, this board appears to be separate and independent of the mains/primary circuit board. If this is true, it seems logical that the board is single-sided. If the board is single-sided and the copper is facing the mains/primary circuit, has anyone considered flipping the board over and relying on the base laminate to provide Supplementary insulation to a clearance? If the first WAG is unusable, why not add a 0.4mm thick insulating sheet between the earthed board and the portion of the primary circuit involved in breaking down? This will effect margins and pricing, but sometimes one must bite the bullet to get into the market or meet a customer's time constraint. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher:
Re: LVD voltage limits
Hi John, The following article was published in the last issue of Int'l Product Safety News. Enjoy! Regards, Art Michael Int'l Product Safety News A.E. Michael, Editor P.O. Box 1561 INT Middletown CT 06457-8061 U.S.A. Phone : (860) 344-1651 Fax: (860) 346-9066 Email : i...@safetylink.com Website: http://www.safetylink.com ISSN : 1040-7529 _EC2000 Beyond_ Major Changes Proposed for the Low Voltage Directive by Arthur E. Michael, Editor, Int'l Product Safety News* The working document LVD Update.4 details proposals which have been in development since 2001 for updating of the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/EEC (LVD). There are significant changes proposed and we draw your attention to the following: Re Voltage Range: ... for use with a supply or output voltage not exceeding 1000 Volt for alternating current and 1500 Volt for direct current . The minimum voltages, previously designated as 50V AC 75V DC are noticeably absent in the proposal. Therefore, the lower end of the range is proposed to be 0V AC or DC. Re Components: The directive shall not apply to the following equipment: Basic components intended to be incorporated into electrical equipment whose compliance with the essential requirements of this Directive cannot be assessed independently. The original LVD called for equipment to be safe - and then is fairly quiet on what safe entails. The proposed directive, in Annex I (titled, Essential health and safety requirements) provides a long list of required 'protections'. Under the topic of Electric Shock and other electrical hazards it lists: Leakage Current, Energy Supply, ESD, Arcs and these must all take into account electrical, mechanical, chemical and physical stresses. Additional hazards that the user must be protected from include Fire Hazards, Mechanical Hazards, Other Hazards (including explosions caused by the product itself or by substances produced, emitted or used by the equipment); this section lists an additional 12 subdivisions of hazards. Annex I also calls for protection again hazards arising from incorrect functioning, hazards arising from electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, other ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ergonomic compliance is also a requirement of this proposal. The proposal provides a detailed listing of Information Requirements which covers elements such as identification of the equipment by means such as type, batch, serial number or similar. It also requires instructions, identification of the manufacturer, and the name of the responsible person in the EC if the manufacturer is not established in the EC. The proposal calls for instructions for safe installation, maintenance, cleaning, operation, storage and warnings where potential risks are not evident. There is much more of interest in this proposal that we cannot address due to space considerations. The latest iteration of the full report, titled, LVD Update.4 is now available on the Europa site, we located a copy at: europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/lv/direct/lvdupdate4.pdf And, a report commissioned by the UK's Dept. of Trade and Industry, titled, Limited Regulatory Impact Assessment on the revised limits for the Low Voltage Directive, dated APR 2002, can be found at: www.com-met2005.org.uk/events_lit/newsletters/DTI_LVD_Report.pdf Reprinted with permission of Int'l Product Safety News, Vol 16, No, 5 Sept/Oct 2003. Copyright 2003 Arthur E. Michael For further information, see: www.safetylink.com/ipsninfo.html REF: IPSN1608.A 3.4K char's - On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Tyra, John wrote: Hello Everyone, I have read on this list and have been told by TUV that the lower limits for the voltages of products which fall under the Low Voltage Directive may be eliminated so that low voltage products would now fall under that directive. On the Europa website I read an LVD Working Document, dated 7/13/01, that there were two proposals: 1. Delete the lower limit and introduce risk assessment similar to the Machinery Directive 2. Leave the limits as is but add an annex to include certain low voltage products, lighting system, household appliances, TV/Radio etc I found a Working Guide for the LVD dated 3/7/02 which showed that there are countries which favor one or the other proposal while the UK favored no change.. Does anyone have any new information or can point me in the direction which would give me a more recent an update of this proposal? I am very interested in where this proposal is heading.. Thanks in advance for your help.. Regards, John Tyra Product Safety and Regulatory Compliance Manager Bose Corporation The Mountain, MS-450 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 Phone: 508-766-1502 Fax: 508-766-1145 john_t...@bose.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our
Re: LVD voltage limits
John, The following link has the LVD Update #4. This update followed a June 2003 Working Party Meeting. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/lv/direct/review.htm Best Regards Joe Martin Applied Biosystems marti...@appliedbiosystems.com Tyra, John john_t...@bose.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordoSubject: LVD voltage limits mo.ieee.org 11/05/2003 01:34 PM Please respond to Tyra, John Hello Everyone, I have read on this list and have been told by TUV that the lower limits for the voltages of products which fall under the Low Voltage Directive may be eliminated so that low voltage products would now fall under that directive. On the Europa website I read an LVD Working Document, dated 7/13/01, that there were two proposals: 1. Delete the lower limit and introduce risk assessment similar to the Machinery Directive 2. Leave the limits as is but add an annex to include certain low voltage products, lighting system, household appliances, TV/Radio etc I found a Working Guide for the LVD dated 3/7/02 which showed that there are countries which favor one or the other proposal while the UK favored no change.. Does anyone have any new information or can point me in the direction which would give me a more recent an update of this proposal? I am very interested in where this proposal is heading.. Thanks in advance for your help.. Regards, John Tyra Product Safety and Regulatory Compliance Manager Bose Corporation The Mountain, MS-450 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 Phone: 508-766-1502 Fax: 508-766-1145 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: emc_p...@symbol.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
Ciena Job Opening, CM Analyst- San Jose CA.
Group, Not directly an EMC or Safety position but in this position you will work with all of engineering including Compliance. Please forward all emails to me directly. No phone calls please. Regards, Jeffrey Collins Sr. HW Engineering Manager Corporate Compliance Homologation CIENA Corporation 5965 Silver Creek Valley Rd. San Jose, CA. 95138 (408) 571-3002, Fax (408) 965-2705 jcoll...@ciena.com http://www.ciena.com Position Description __ DATE: 10-21-03 TITLE: Change Analyst LOCATION:San Jose building 3 REPORTS TO (use title): HW Manager POSITION SUMMARY * Process ECOs, DCOs, Deviations etc. in Agile. Administer Change Control processes in accordance with Ciena released polices. Responsible for interacting with multiple departments in order to lead, support, administer and complete Change Orders. Support the administration of Agile and Oracle databases. Review and check details of change orders and bills of materials for accuracy. * * ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES * Administer all aspects of Agile including the processing and routing of ECOs, DCOs, Deviations etc. * Help to assign part numbers * Create and analyze changes as required * Interact and train Engineers to create changes in Agile as necessary SKILLS * PC Literate * Ability to operate Word, Adobe Acrobat, Excel * Agile CM and iCM * Oracle ERP * Experience interacting with Contract Manufacturer * Documentation Control Experience DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS * Independent * Dependable * Team Player * Self motivated and proactive * Attention to detail * * EDUCATION and/or RELEVANT EXPERIENCE * 5+ years of related Documentation experience required. Experience with Agile is required. Experience working for an OEM with established systems is needed. Strong written and verbal communication skills required. Ability to multitask in a fast paced environment. This position requires an energetic person who can maintain a positive attitude during constant procedure and task changes. Strong attention to detail is mandatory. * 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: emc_p...@symbol.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
Product Safety job posting message
Greetings All, For those of you interested in a Product Safety position, please see below. I am just posting this as a courtesy and on behalf for the company. Please contact the company for details, not me. Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com == Subject: EE Ad - 102803 Location: Boulder/Fort Collins, Colorado, USA -Electrical Design Engineer Status: Full Time, Employee Shift: First Shift (Day) Established Boulder, Colorado manufacturing company has an immediate opening for a hands-on Electrical Engineer with 3 to 5 years experience. Primary responsibility is the design and manufacturing of TVSS products and grounding systems. Duties include coordinating with regulatory agencies (UL), management of TVSS product line and manufacturing documentation. The position requires a degree in Electrical Engineering (BSEE) and a working knowledge of AutoCAD. Working experience with MAS-90 or other inventory control systems a plus. Excellent salary and benefit package including 401K, EEOC. No relocation provided. Contact: Joseph A. Lanzoni Vice President of Operations Lightning Eliminators Consultants, Inc. Ph: 303-447-2828 x104 Fx: 303-447-8122 E: jlanz...@lightningeliminators.com =
LVD voltage limits
Hello Everyone, I have read on this list and have been told by TUV that the lower limits for the voltages of products which fall under the Low Voltage Directive may be eliminated so that low voltage products would now fall under that directive. On the Europa website I read an LVD Working Document, dated 7/13/01, that there were two proposals: 1. Delete the lower limit and introduce risk assessment similar to the Machinery Directive 2. Leave the limits as is but add an annex to include certain low voltage products, lighting system, household appliances, TV/Radio etc I found a Working Guide for the LVD dated 3/7/02 which showed that there are countries which favor one or the other proposal while the UK favored no change.. Does anyone have any new information or can point me in the direction which would give me a more recent an update of this proposal? I am very interested in where this proposal is heading.. Thanks in advance for your help.. Regards, John Tyra Product Safety and Regulatory Compliance Manager Bose Corporation The Mountain, MS-450 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 Phone: 508-766-1502 Fax: 508-766-1145 john_t...@bose.com
RE: IEC 61010-1:2001 section 6.7.3.2 Clearance Calculation
John Dave, Thank you for your replies. I was hoping someone else had independently found these issues with the document. My only other choices were, I am somehow going senile or worse, insane. I am concerned becuase this lack of attention to detail on the part of the committee, brings the rest of the document into question. I have a fair background in high voltage technology and in addition have carefully checked into IEC 60664 for help. Suffice it to say, there are other things in the IEC 61010-1 that bother me when it comes to safety spacings requirements. Is there anyone in this discussion group who was part of the committee and can answer some of these concerns? Regards, -doug Douglas E. Powell Corporate Compliance Dept. Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA From: John Allen [mailto:john.al...@era.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:46 AM To: 'drcuthb...@micron.com'; POWELL, DOUG Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: IEC 61010-1:2001 section 6.7.3.2 Clearance Calculation Doug, Dave This is not the first time the formulae and examples in 6.7 have been called into question. One of my customers raised a query about a year ago, and I forwarded the query to the Chairman of the IEC TC for 61010, as well as the (BSI) Secretary thereof, as attached - I received an acknowlegement from Mr Chapman but I never received an answer! There might well be misprints in this case as I found quite a few elsewhere on an earlier occasion, as per a previous message to Mr Chapman, also attached! Therefore I think you need to view the text of this edition of 61010-1 with the proverbial pinch of salt :- if it doesnt look right then it probably isn't!! Regards John Allen, Technical Consultant EMC and Safety Engineering ERA Technology Ltd. Cleeve Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7SA UK Tel: +44-1372-367025 (Direct) +44-1372-367000 (Switchboard) Fax: +44-1372-367102 From: drcuthb...@micron.com [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: 04 November 2003 16:46 To: doug.pow...@aei.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: IEC 61010-1:2001 section 6.7.3.2 Clearance Calculation Doug, I find it confusing. Good thing there are examples. example b) gives the correct answer. example a) does not look correct. Reasoning: 1) F is solved incorrectly. It should be 0.297 2) The remainder looks correct. I get 20.5 mm (without interpolation) With interpolation I get 18.4 mm. Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of POWELL, DOUG Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:48 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: IEC 61010-1:2001 section 6.7.3.2 Clearance Calculation Has anyone tried to work through the two examples given in this section? In trying to understand how to use the CLEARANCE = D1 + F(D2-D1) equation, I was hoping to check my work with the examples that were given. Either I'm missing something or these examples have some really fundamental errors. In my application, I am attempting to calculate the basic clearance for a working voltage of 1500 VDC with transients that peak to 1800V and ride on the VDC. The final peak voltage is 300 Volts higher than the steady-state 1500VDC, which apparently meets the 6.7.3.1 b) 2) criteria. Please help! -doug end Douglas E. Powell Corporate Compliance Dept. Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA ___ This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com * Copyright ERA Technology Ltd. 2003. (www.era.co.uk). All rights reserved. The information supplied in this Commercial Communication should be treated in confidence. No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss or damage suffered as a result of accessing this message or any attachments. _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com
RE: Casino gaming machine
Doug, IEC 60035-2-82 is the current prevalent safety standard for gaming machines. Testing and meeting the EN version will suffice for Europe, but meeting the IEC with all group differences, and country deviations is quickest and easies way to go. On that note—Please remember that not all countries have adopted –2-82 yet (US for one) and still requires you meet UL 22, but some countries have made it mandatory by Jan.1 2004. Gaming like many products has been waiting for a single harmonized standard that will be accepted by all, but until it is, you have to meet the requirements of the country you are selling to. Does your product have spinning reels or a video display? The only country I am aware of that ever-required IEC 60065 was Sweden, and that was with a video display. Most other countries accepted IEC 60950. Contact me personally if you wish. Mike Sosnoski Senior Manager--PSER WMS Gaming 3401 N. California Ave., Chicago,IL. 60073 gl...@wmsgaming.com From: Doug Massey [mailto:dmas...@acstestlab.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:30 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Casino gaming machine Hello group; Recently a client has requested a product safety evaluation for CE Marking of their casino game – a fairly typical electronic slot machine. The machine does not issue tokens to a winner, but rather prints a redeemable coupon. Similar products by the client have been evaluated by a Notified Body lab in the Community; the standard used was EN 60065, Audio / Video. My initial research – checking the harmonized standards available – seems to indicate that this may not be the appropriate standard. I find that the following: EN 60335-1:2002 Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety -- Part 1: General requirements Along with EN 60335-2-82:2000 Safety of household and similar electrical appliances -- Part 2-82: Particular requirements for service machines and amusement machines Would appear to be more appropriate than EN 60065. I do not have a copy of the 60335-2-82 standard – if anyone has experience with this type product, or has a copy of the standard, I would be very appreciative of opinions as to the appropriate standard, or would love to have a peek at the scope of 60335-2-82 before purchasing it. I’m wondering if the -2-82 standard only applies to machines that redeem coins or tokens. I have requested justification / reasoning from the Notified Body, but am trying to move forward while waiting for their reply. As always, any assistance is appreciated, and opinions welcomed. Doug Massey Product Safety Engineer Advanced Compliance Solutions Ph. (770) 831-8048 FAX (770) 831-8598 Visit our web home at http://www.acstestlab.com http://www.acstestlab.com/
Re: Class 1 AC/DC adapter
Hello Chengwee: Whether customer can accept his adaptor with only 1500Vac hipot tested where other power supplies can withstand 3000Vac? This is an interesting question as it implies that the higher the withstand voltage the better the unit. The statement may even imply that a double-insulation scheme provides a better safeguard against electric shock than does a PE scheme. In fact, the two schemes provide equal protection against electric shock. There is no *inherent* advantage of one over the other. The 1500-volt withstand value is derived from the normally-occuring mains-to-earth overvoltages plus margin. In other words, the 1500-volt test represents an acceptable insulation that will not fail when subjected to mains-to-earth overvoltage. The 3000-volt withstand value is derived from testing two 1500-volt insulations in series. The 3000-volt test tells us that the two insulations, as a system, are acceptable, assuming that the voltage divides equally across each insulation. (The two insulations will never see overvoltages as high as 1500 volts.) There is no inherent advantage to a unit that passes a 3000-volt withstand test versus a unit that passes a 1500-volt withstand test. The only thing that the 3000-volt withstand test tells us is that the double-insulation system is intact. If I recall correctly, Raymond Li said that the unit in question passes 3000 volts primary-to- secondary, fails 3000 volts primary-to-earth, but passes 1500-volts primary-to-earth. This tells us that both the basic insulation and the double insulation are acceptable. Would that affect his customer Safety testing, because his customer unit with his power supply only meet 1500Vac hipot after heating test? If the customer wants double-insulation throughout the unit, then the adapter is unacceptable. If the customer wants a unit that is certified to a safety standard, then the adapter is acceptable. Or what if Safety agency require his customer unit to do grounding test to accessible metal part? Based on Raymond Li's description and on my own experience, I believe there should be no problem passing the production-line grounding test at 25-amperes. * Despite the preceding comments, such an adapter should easily pass double-insulation requirements between primary and ground, and between primary and secondary. In my experience, adapters designed to IEC 60950 can easily achieve more than 4500 V rms withstand. And, they can easily achieve 25 amperes dc-to-PE. So, I am a bit disturbed that the unit does not pass 3000 V rms to earth. This says to me that there is a clearance within the unit that does not meet the IEC 60950 requirements. I would further guess that the clearance is likely to be an operator-dependent clearance that is determined during the assembly of the unit. (The IEC 60950 clearance dimensions are quite conservative, and should not break down below about 5000 V rms.) Best regards, Rich 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: emc_p...@symbol.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
Casino gaming machine
Hello group; Recently a client has requested a product safety evaluation for CE Marking of their casino game – a fairly typical electronic slot machine. The machine does not issue tokens to a winner, but rather prints a redeemable coupon. Similar products by the client have been evaluated by a Notified Body lab in the Community; the standard used was EN 60065, Audio / Video. My initial research – checking the harmonized standards available – seems to indicate that this may not be the appropriate standard. I find that the following: EN 60335-1:2002 Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety -- Part 1: General requirements Along with EN 60335-2-82:2000 Safety of household and similar electrical appliances -- Part 2-82: Particular requirements for service machines and amusement machines Would appear to be more appropriate than EN 60065. I do not have a copy of the 60335-2-82 standard – if anyone has experience with this type product, or has a copy of the standard, I would be very appreciative of opinions as to the appropriate standard, or would love to have a peek at the scope of 60335-2-82 before purchasing it. I’m wondering if the -2-82 standard only applies to machines that redeem coins or tokens. I have requested justification / reasoning from the Notified Body, but am trying to move forward while waiting for their reply. As always, any assistance is appreciated, and opinions welcomed. Doug Massey Product Safety Engineer Advanced Compliance Solutions Ph. (770) 831-8048 FAX (770) 831-8598 Visit our web home at http://www.acstestlab.com http://www.acstestlab.com/
Re: Class 1 AC/DC adapter
Hi Peter: I have and continue to advocate (in IEC TC 108) that such classes should apply to CIRCUITS, not to products. If this is endemic in IEC (as your statement implies), it may require a elephantine effort. Good luck. Yes. And thank you. The IEC Class I and Class II is an attempt to categorize products according to the supplemental safeguard, i.e., earthing or supplemental insulation, respectively, against electric shock. The IEC Committee that developed the class definitions is an electrical installation committee, not a product committee. I would guess that they had electrical installations, not products, in mind when they developed the definitions. Its fairly easy to encase an outlet box in metal or plastic and thereby get *pure* Class I or Class II products. With the advent of TC 108, supplemental safeguards will be treated as independent supplemental safeguards without reference to the IEC classes. I believe this will demonstrate that the IEC class designations actually confuse product design and evaluation rather than help. (This string is an example of how we get tied up with the issue of IEC Class versus actual construction!) Best regards, Rich 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: emc_p...@symbol.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
digital tv -vs- medical telemetry
This is an old issue for some (from a 20MAR1998 FDA advisory), but an interesting spectrum allocation issue for your edification http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dtvalert.html Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org 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: emc_p...@symbol.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: Class 1 AC/DC adapter
Let's look at these what ifs. From: ChengWee Lai Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:38 PM Raymond might be able to convince Safety agency to accept PE continuity test with 1500Vac Hipot at the production line. However in the Scenerio with end customer, it could mean business or no business. Question regarding: Whether customer can accept his adaptor with only 1500Vac hipot tested where other power supplies can withstand 3000Vac? The only clear answer is some form of redesign is necessary. Simple solutions work best. For any reasoned advice, there are too many unknowns about the physical construction of the power supply. See the below for more on this. Would that affect his customer Safety testing, because his customer unit with his power supply only meet 1500Vac hipot after heating test? Only Raymond and his customers can answer this. Or what if Safety agency require his customer unit to do grounding test to accessible metal part? OK, but why? The discussions have centered around an SELV output, making the end product Class III. There would have to be some specific about the final application to justify this. We have no information to base such an assumption on. Regards, Chengwee As with many discussions on the list, practical issue discussions often get side tracked by the hypothetical and theoretical. More to the point, Raymond hasn't given us specifics on the physical orientation of parts in the power supply to any great degree. Proprietary information aside, we know: K1) the insulation between earthed parts and mains connected parts is somewhat better than Basic, but not Reinforced K2) the EST potential where breakdown occurs (though I've discarded the e-mail with the identified potential) K3) the breakdown is suspected (or possibly confirmed) to occur to the earthed board that is used as an EMC shield and which also electrically connects to an SELV output What we don't know (or I've lost track of): DK1) if the power supply is a linear or switched mode type (we can assume it's a SMPS, since EMC shielding was mentioned, but it would be nice to have confirmation) DK2) what mains connected part(s) are involved in the dielectric breaking down (transformer winding terminations, leads or bodies of filtering, surge suppression or other components and how they are mounted) DK3) what area or specific portion of the earthed parts are involved in breaking down (at solder connection points for lead wires, the copper on the shielding board) DK4) if the supply uses an appliance inlet, has a nondetachable power supply cord or if it a direct plug-in type and how the mains circuit is brought to the power conversion element(s) of the primary circuit With some of this additional information, a more practical solution may be possible, rather than talking around the specifics. A WAG or two: One issue that hasn't come up is whether or not the copper on the shielding board is facing the mains/primary circuitry or not. Based on the application and the general discussion, this board appears to be separate and independent of the mains/primary circuit board. If this is true, it seems logical that the board is single-sided. If the board is single-sided and the copper is facing the mains/primary circuit, has anyone considered flipping the board over and relying on the base laminate to provide Supplementary insulation to a clearance? If the first WAG is unusable, why not add a 0.4mm thick insulating sheet between the earthed board and the portion of the primary circuit involved in breaking down? This will effect margins and pricing, but sometimes one must bite the bullet to get into the market or meet a customer's time constraint. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@ieee.org 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: emc_p...@symbol.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: IEC 61010-1:2001 section 6.7.3.2 Clearance Calculation
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Doug, Dave This is not the first time the formulae and examples in 6.7 have been called into question. One of my customers raised a query about a year ago, and I forwarded the query to the Chairman of the IEC TC for 61010, as well as the (BSI) Secretary thereof, as attached - I received an acknowlegement from Mr Chapman but I never received an answer! There might well be misprints in this case as I found quite a few elsewhere on an earlier occasion, as per a previous message to Mr Chapman, also attached! Therefore I think you need to view the text of this edition of 61010-1 with the proverbial pinch of salt :- if it doesnt look right then it probably isn't!! Regards John Allen, Technical Consultant EMC and Safety Engineering ERA Technology Ltd. Cleeve Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7SA UK Tel: +44-1372-367025 (Direct) +44-1372-367000 (Switchboard) Fax: +44-1372-367102 From: drcuthb...@micron.com [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: 04 November 2003 16:46 To: doug.pow...@aei.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: IEC 61010-1:2001 section 6.7.3.2 Clearance Calculation Doug, I find it confusing. Good thing there are examples. example b) gives the correct answer. example a) does not look correct. Reasoning: 1) F is solved incorrectly. It should be 0.297 2) The remainder looks correct. I get 20.5 mm (without interpolation) With interpolation I get 18.4 mm. Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of POWELL, DOUG Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:48 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: IEC 61010-1:2001 section 6.7.3.2 Clearance Calculation Has anyone tried to work through the two examples given in this section? In trying to understand how to use the CLEARANCE = D1 + F(D2-D1) equation, I was hoping to check my work with the examples that were given. Either I'm missing something or these examples have some really fundamental errors. In my application, I am attempting to calculate the basic clearance for a working voltage of 1500 VDC with transients that peak to 1800V and ride on the VDC. The final peak voltage is 300 Volts higher than the steady-state 1500VDC, which apparently meets the 6.7.3.1 b) 2) criteria. Please help! -doug end Douglas E. Powell Corporate Compliance Dept. Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA ___ This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com * Copyright ERA Technology Ltd. 2003. (www.era.co.uk). All rights reserved. The information supplied in this Commercial Communication should be treated in confidence. No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss or damage suffered as a result of accessing this message or any attachments. _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com ---BeginMessage--- This attachment, originally named Message Text, was removed because it is zero length. ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- For the attention of the following Officers of IEC TC66 Chairman: Mr. Cecil CHAPMAN Grant Instruments (Cambridge) Ltd. Mill Barn Bassingbourn, SG8 5PP, UK Secretary: Mr. N.A.R. BRADFIELD British Electrotechnical Committee Electrical Department - Floor 11-6 British Standards Institution 389 Chiswick High Road London W4 4AL, UK Dear Sirs It has been suggested that we draw to your attention the following technical and/or printing errors which appear in copies of BS EN 61010-1:2001 - and thus presumably in EN 61010-1:2001 and IEC 61010-1:2001 1) Clause 6.8.4 Voltage tests Table 9 Test voltages for BASIC INSULATION (Page 52). We are reasonably sure that there is a misprint in Column 1 Clearance of Table 9 , as follows: The line entry between 1.0 and 2.0 is 1.4 but it should be 1.5 (mm). We believe that this is obvious from Table 8 Clearance for measurement categories II, III and IV where 1.5 (mm) is mentioned in numerous places but 1.4 is not mentioned at all. Apart from anything else, 1.5mm is the category II minimum value for nominal line voltages of 150V=300V - which
