Re: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review
Dear Mr Balasubramanian, Looks like you need to try and use another National Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL). Have you tried TUV Rheinland - the North American office is NRTL accredited by OSHA and Standards Council of Canada - Out of 19 countries in Asia, TUV Rheinland has 8 offices in India with test laboratory capabilities for world markets. http://www.tuv.com/in/en/regional_offices.html Best Regards, Peter Merguerian --- On Thu, 11/6/08, kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in wrote: From: kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in Subject: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 6:45 AM Dear Experts, We submit most of products to UL for 60950 listing. Almost 95 % of our products are UL listed. We find it very difficult to complete the cycle. Many times we come across situations that the parts used are not meeting UL spec. and a redesign is inevitable. This further complicates the things and delay the cycle. We look for some consultants who can help us by participating from the design review stage itself. The most sad part is many times we submit the product to UL for preliminary inspection during the proto stage and UL (India office located at Bangalore) gives pass report. Then we go for pilot production (simultaneously we initiate procurement for mass production also) and submit the pilot samples to the same UL office for final certification. At this time UL is coming with new findings and ultimately product fails to get UL listing. All the times I am sure that there is no difference between the proto samples and pilot samples. Mostly some resistor values get changed between proto and pilot. It is not clear to me whether it is the competence issue at UL India or UL is greedy in money making. I look for advise from the experts of this forum. I have been told that UL Taiwan is more proficient in 60950 standard. Is this true? Sincerely SCM Microsystems (India) Pvt. Ltd. K. Balasubramanian Modules 0506, 0507 0508, D – Block, Manager – Hardware South Wing, TIDEL Park, Tel : +91 44 42931391 #4, Rajiv Gandhi Road,(formerly Canal Bank Road) Fax :+91 44 22540029 Taramani, Chennai – 600113. India E-mail:kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in Web : http://scmmicro.com ‘This email and any attachment may contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). If you have received this information in error, you are prohibited from reading, copying, distributing and using the information. If you are not a named addressee or otherwise an intended recipient you are requested to immediately notify the sender and to delete this email and all attachments from your system.’ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Re: 13.56 MHz RFID for India
Not allowed but special permission may be granted by the WPC depending on the power levels. Each case is considered separately. Peter Merguerian --- On Mon, 11/3/08, rehel...@mmm.com rehel...@mmm.com wrote: From: rehel...@mmm.com rehel...@mmm.com Subject: 13.56 MHz RFID for India To: emc-p...@ieee.org Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:43 AM I am aware that 865-867 MHz RFID is allowed in India and it does not require a license. Does anyone know if 13.56 MHz is an allowable RFID frequency for India? Thank you, Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review
K. Balasubramanian PSNet, It seems that because of the described trouble you are having with your certification supplier you are making the process more difficult for yourself by the way you approach the process. Working with the test house in steps opens the door for additional review of the design for compliance. You have probably started this 2 step method because you weren't sure if you understood the requirements and the standard well enough to get the equipment to pass all at once. Most manufacturers that I know don't utilize a multiple pass certification process. Once you have developed confidence (maybe you are there already) why don't you just approach them once to get the certification you need and move into production of the unit? It would seem that you would minimize your trouble and probably save a little money in the process. For each new product there are only a few new issues that arise and you should be able to discuss those with a certification engineer that you have worked with recently to get assurance that you are moving ahead in a mutually agreeable way. This will pave the way for a smooth certification process. As with any business process with a supplier the relationship that you develop with the folks with which you work regularly is important. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:45 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review Dear Experts, We submit most of products to UL for 60950 listing. Almost 95 % of our products are UL listed. We find it very difficult to complete the cycle. Many times we come across situations that the parts used are not meeting UL spec. and a redesign is inevitable. This further complicates the things and delay the cycle. We look for some consultants who can help us by participating from the design review stage itself. The most sad part is many times we submit the product to UL for preliminary inspection during the proto stage and UL (India office located at Bangalore) gives pass report. Then we go for pilot production (simultaneously we initiate procurement for mass production also) and submit the pilot samples to the same UL office for final certification. At this time UL is coming with new findings and ultimately product fails to get UL listing. All the times I am sure that there is no difference between the proto samples and pilot samples. Mostly some resistor values get changed between proto and pilot. It is not clear to me whether it is the competence issue at UL India or UL is greedy in money making. I look for advise from the experts of this forum. I have been told that UL Taiwan is more proficient in 60950 standard. Is this true? Sincerely SCM Microsystems (India) Pvt. Ltd. K. Balasubramanian Modules 0506, 0507 0508, D Block, Manager Hardware South Wing, TIDEL Park, Tel : +91 44 42931391 #4, Rajiv Gandhi Road,(formerly Canal Bank Road) Fax :+91 44 22540029 Taramani, Chennai 600113. India E-mail:kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in Web : http://scmmicro.com This email and any attachment may contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). If you have received this information in error, you are prohibited from reading, copying, distributing and using the information. If you are not a named addressee or otherwise an intended recipient you are requested to immediately notify the sender and to delete this email and all attachments from your system. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions:
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
- Original Message - From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk In the early days of the old Directive, it was considered that educational products did not have to be tested but that Article 4 applied: if interference occurred it must be prevented. I don't see anything about this in a quick scan of the current Directive or its guidelines, but I think it should be obvious that educational products have to be treated as a special case. Maybe they are not 'apparatus' as defined in the Directive, as they are not 'finished appliances'. Thank you John. In 2002 my conclusion about old Directive was that _ONLY_ products destined for EMC education can be not tested, as they must violate EMC to show EMC problems. All others should be tested (I don't know where from my conclusion comes). It is why I gave up those days. I am mainly a designer. My target is to spend 90% time designing, and 10% reading all about EMC, LVD, ROHS,. and standards. Because of this I can't be well oriented in any of them. I have read the ROHS/WEEE interpretation where 'finished appliances' were discussed based on the question if they have end user needed function. In my understanding education PCB has end user needed function - education. It has not its special case, but it will newer have such case (it is not the module used as part of other apparatus). My problem is if it is in the EMC scope. The basestation for this PCB models has its case and I think is 'apparatus'. The generator I have described is in that basestation. But the 15cm unshielded wire is used only when PCB model is used. The basestation will be well ESD protected. Do I have to use this 15cm wire when testing basestation, or test it with model not needing generator, or needing 10Hz sinus, or without any model ? Selecting test that way is certainly not the right way. There are such systems on the market, and I'm sure use unshielded cables. What is the way I don't know. May be 3MHz TTL at such wire is well under the emission levels, but I don't think so. Where should I ask my questions to have the problem solved once for always? Piotr Galka - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
In message EB68941A997545109E32136A716A995D@MmPc21, dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Piotr Galka piotr.ga...@micromade.pl writes: Where should I ask my questions to have the problem solved once for always? You should take the problem to the Polish National Standards body and ask the relevant committee to submit your case to CENELEC TC210 for an official 'interpretation'. It may be that TC210 would also need to refer your case to the Commission's 'EMC Working Party'. Some people associated with those bodies read the mailing list. Maybe further assistance can be offered. Maybe not. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk You should take the problem to the Polish National Standards body and ask the relevant committee to submit your case to CENELEC TC210 for an official 'interpretation'. It may be that TC210 would also need to refer your case to the Commission's 'EMC Working Party'. Do you know that way takes few weeks/months/years ? Piotr Galka - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
In message 074D7671D8D74339973279276937D262@MmPc21, dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Piotr Galka piotr.ga...@micromade.pl writes: Do you know that way takes few weeks/months/years ? You asked 'how to have the problem solved once for always'. There is no other way than the one I described to do that. It may be that there is on record a previous case in which special treatment was seen to be necessary for products of the type you are concerned with, in which case the time-scale could be quite short. You could try the 'EMC assessment and Notified Body report' route for demonstrating compliance with the Directive without applying standards, but it's uncertain and costly in many cases. It, too, can take time and it takes money as well. And you seem to think that the emissions would be excessive anyway, so it's doubtful that you would get a positive report from the Notified Body. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review
Dear Peter, Thanks for the feedback. For one product we went through TUV and found that for everything they follow UL standards. They demand UL file number for all the critical parts. In that way we felt UL is the master and leading in defining the standard hence continuing with UL. Sincerely                                                          SCM Microsystems (India) Pvt. Ltd. K. Balasubramanian                                         Modules 0506, 0507 0508, D – Block, Manager – Hardware                                        South Wing, TIDEL Park, Tel : +91 44 42931391                                      #4, Rajiv Gandhi Road,(formerly Canal Bank Road) Fax :+91 44 22540029                                       Taramani, Chennai – 600113. India E-mail:kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in         Web : http://scmmicro.com ‘This email and any attachment may contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). If you have received this information in error, you are prohibited from reading, copying, distributing and using the information. If you are not a named addressee or otherwise an intended recipient you are requested to immediately notify the sender and to delete this email and all attachments from your system.’ peter merguerian pmerguerian2001@ yahoo.com To emc-p...@ieee.org, 11/07/2008 11:03 kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in AM cc EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Please respond to Subject pmerguerian2001@y Re: UL 60950 preliminary inspection ahoo.com / design review Dear Mr Balasubramanian, Looks like you need to try and use another National Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL). Have you tried TUV Rheinland - the North American office is NRTL accredited by OSHA and Standards Council of Canada - Out of 19 countries in Asia, TUV Rheinland has 8 offices in India with test laboratory capabilities for world markets. http://www.tuv.com/in/en/regional_offices.html Best Regards, Peter Merguerian --- On Thu, 11/6/08, kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in wrote: From: kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in Subject: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 6:45 AM Dear Experts,
Re: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review
In message ofca9d98c8.f412f212-on652574fa.0040cae4-652574fa.0041c...@scmmicro.co.in , dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in writes: For one product we went through TUV and found that for everything they follow UL standards. They demand UL file number for all the critical parts. A test-house isn't in a position to 'demand' anything. And it certainly has no authority to insist on certification of parts by one particular organization. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria
Hi Group While we all have our copies of EN 61326 close at hand I’d like to see what your consensus of opinion is on the meaning of paragraph 6.2.102 of EN61326-2-1. ‘ 6.2.102 Tests with continuously present electromagnetic phenomenon No visual degradation of parameters of the EUT is allowed during application of the test, except as specified by the manufacturer.” The standard calls it an “addition” to the requirements of EN 61326-1 section 6.2 but does not indicate whether it replaces the tables there or modifies the Criterion A requirements. What do you think? Thanks John Harrington From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:12 AM To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria Thanks to all. Your comments were greatly appreciated and helpful. The Other Brian From: Martin, Charles R (GE EntSol, SensInsp) [mailto:charles.mar...@ge.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:25 PM To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria Hi Brian, I agree with you, I don't see any other statements. Table 2 evaluation of immunity test results notes possible combinations of device function, phenomenon and performance criteria. This has been removed in EN 61326-1:2006 and the performance criteria has been added to the immunity test requirements tables for each port and phenomenon. Thanks, Charlie Martin From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:24 PM To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria As Doug mentioned in his email, the allowance of deviations appear to have been removed in the 2006 version of the EN 61326-1 standard which I believe becomes mandatory in February 2009. Can anyone else confirm this or is there some other statement in the 2006 version that I’m not seeing that allows the deviation? Thanks, The Other Brian From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:53 PM To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria As I read EN 61326, it allows the manufacturer to specify the performance criteria for each test. The standard only requires that equipment shall not become dangerous or unsafe as a result of the application of the tests. Table 2 is only an example of evaluation of immunity test results. The note states “…performance criteria B and/or C may be accepted provided that both the specification and the test report highlight such deviation(s) for the relevant combination(s) of function and test.” The standard does require that the deviations be listed in the specifications in addition to the test report. If the published specifications do not describe the deviations, the manufacturer may be considered in noncompliance with the standard. If they have declared compliance via the standard, this could be an issue. If the manufacturer has chosen not to use the standards route but claims compliance with the essential requirements of the directive, you may have an argument if the peripheral is not suitable for its intended use because of the deviation. I agree with David Spencer; you are the customer and the vendor needs to meet your requirements if they want you to buy their products. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:59 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Deviation of Performance Criteria Greetings Compliance Experts. Something disturbing came across my desk today I thought I would get your opinion on it. On a CE marked peripheral we buy/sell as part of our laboratory equipment system, failed several immunity tests when we tested it as part of our system. When we notified the peripheral's manufacturer of the problem (yes, I'm being purposely vague) they said the failures were ok and sent us a Certificate of Compliance by a very very well know compliance lab with the following statement: Snip EMC Immunity: EN 61326-1:1997/A1:1998/A2:2001 EMC requirements for Electrical equipment for measurement, control, and laboratory use. - General Use for the following test with deviation of performance criteria to Criteria C instead of B. EN 61000-4-2 EN 61000-4-3 EN 61000-4-4 Unsnip The peripheral manufacture said the EMC test lab told them they can put the CE marking on their product as long as they included the above deviation statement in their documentation and DOC. Is
Re: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria
John, one of the problems with defining criteria is that you cannot define criteria that will encompass all of the past, present, and future equipment in the world. Only the manufacturer (keeping in mind his customers and competitors) can definitively define what is or is not acceptable. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 John Harrington jharrington@keit hley.com To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 11/07/2008 07:21 FW: Deviation of Performance AMCriteria Hi Group While we all have our copies of EN 61326 close at hand I’d like to see what your consensus of opinion is on the meaning of paragraph 6.2.102 of EN61326-2-1. ‘ 6.2.102 Tests with continuously present electromagnetic phenomenon No visual degradation of parameters of the EUT is allowed during application of the test, except as specified by the manufacturer.†The standard calls it an “addition†to the requirements of EN 61326-1 section 6.2 but does not indicate whether it replaces the tables there or modifies the Criterion A requirements. What do you think? Thanks John Harrington From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:12 AM To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria Thanks to all. Your comments were greatly appreciated and helpful. The Other Brian From: Martin, Charles R (GE EntSol, SensInsp) [mailto:charles.mar...@ge.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:25 PM To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria Hi Brian, I agree with you, I don't see any other statements. Table 2 evaluation of immunity test results notes possible combinations of device function, phenomenon and performance criteria. This has been removed in EN 61326-1:2006 and the performance criteria has been added to the immunity test requirements tables for each port and phenomenon. Thanks, Charlie Martin From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:24 PM To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria As Doug mentioned in his email, the allowance of deviations appear to have been removed in the 2006 version of the EN 61326-1 standard which I believe becomes mandatory in February 2009. Can anyone else confirm this or is there some other statement in the 2006 version that I’m not seeing that allows the deviation? Thanks, The Other Brian From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:53 PM To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria As I read EN 61326, it allows the manufacturer to specify the performance criteria for each test. The standard only requires that equipment shall not become dangerous or unsafe as a result of the application of the tests. Table 2 is only an example of evaluation of immunity test results. The note states “…performance criteria B and/or C may be accepted provided that both the specification and the test report highlight such deviation(s) for the relevant combination(s) of function and test.†The standard does require that the deviations be listed in the specifications in addition to the test report. If the published specifications do not describe the deviations, the manufacturer may be considered in noncompliance with the standard. If they have declared compliance via the standard, this could be an issue. If the manufacturer has chosen not to use the standards route but claims compliance with the essential requirements of the directive, you may have an argument if the peripheral is not suitable for its intended use because of the deviation. I agree with David Spencer; you
Re: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria
In message F8D22487033A4C4490CE53694BB9D2D7@harrington09269, dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, John Harrington jharring...@keithley.com writes: Hi Group While we all have our copies of EN 61326 close at hand I?d like to see what your consensus of opinion is on the meaning of paragraph 6.2.102 of EN61326-2-1. ? 6.2.102 Tests with continuously present electromagnetic phenomenon No visual degradation of parameters of the EUT is allowed during application of the test, except as specified by the manufacturer.? The standard calls it an ?addition? to the requirements of EN 61326-1 section 6.2 but does not indicate whether it replaces the tables there or modifies the Criterion A requirements. It modifies the Criterion A requirements, for philosophical reasons, which, as very rarely happens (;-), are also practical reasons. It must mean to apply to Criterion A, because that's the one most associated with continuously-present disturbances. What does 'no degradation' mean? 0%, 1%, 0.001%, 10%? It can only mean 0%: zilch, nada, nowt! How can that possibly be tested? The 'except' text allows the manufacturer to specify a finite degradation that is not exceeded. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk And you seem to think that the emissions would be excessive anyway, so it's doubtful that you would get a positive report from the Notified Body. My main problem is how to make evident in papers that it is CE OK if education circuits can be ESD damaged because I don't see any solution to that. I should be able to limit the emission just making square being not square and persuade the pupil that it is really square what they see ;-) Regards Piotr Galka - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Replacement of UK Statutory Instruments 1994 1768
There was an consultation to replace SI 1994 1768 in 2006. Is there any progress in the replacement? Thanks and regards, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria
Hi Bob I get your point but criterion A comes with some guidelines at least. I'd like peoples' opinion on whether this clause widens, negates or has no effect on those guidelines. Thanks John John Harrington From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:41 AM To: John Harrington Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria John, one of the problems with defining criteria is that you cannot define criteria that will encompass all of the past, present, and future equipment in the world. Only the manufacturer (keeping in mind his customers and competitors) can definitively define what is or is not acceptable. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 John Harrington jharrington@keit hley.com To Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 11/07/2008 07:21 FW: Deviation of Performance AMCriteria Hi Group While we all have our copies of EN 61326 close at hand I'd like to see what your consensus of opinion is on the meaning of paragraph 6.2.102 of EN61326-2-1. ' 6.2.102 Tests with continuously present electromagnetic phenomenon No visual degradation of parameters of the EUT is allowed during application of the test, except as specified by the manufacturer. The standard calls it an addition to the requirements of EN 61326-1 section 6.2 but does not indicate whether it replaces the tables there or modifies the Criterion A requirements. What do you think? Thanks John Harrington From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:12 AM To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria Thanks to all. Your comments were greatly appreciated and helpful. The Other Brian From: Martin, Charles R (GE EntSol, SensInsp) [mailto:charles.mar...@ge.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:25 PM To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria Hi Brian, I agree with you, I don't see any other statements. Table 2 evaluation of immunity test results notes possible combinations of device function, phenomenon and performance criteria. This has been removed in EN 61326-1:2006 and the performance criteria has been added to the immunity test requirements tables for each port and phenomenon. Thanks, Charlie Martin From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:24 PM To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria As Doug mentioned in his email, the allowance of deviations appear to have been removed in the 2006 version of the EN 61326-1 standard which I believe becomes mandatory in February 2009. Can anyone else confirm this or is there some other statement in the 2006 version that I'm not seeing that allows the deviation? Thanks, The Other Brian From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:53 PM To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria As I read EN 61326, it allows the manufacturer to specify the performance criteria for each test. The standard only requires that equipment shall not become dangerous or unsafe as a result of the application of the tests. Table 2 is only an example of evaluation of immunity test results. The note states .performance criteria B and/or C may be accepted provided that both the specification and the test report highlight such deviation(s) for the relevant combination(s) of function and test. The standard does require that the deviations be listed in the specifications in addition to the test report. If the published specifications do not describe the deviations, the manufacturer may be considered in
RE: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review
Dear Perkins, Thanks for the valuable feedback, certainly it is very useful in many practical aspects. The condition prevailing in ITE industry today does not allow slips in schedule. I am sure that not only SCM every one is waking in a tight rope. If I tell my supply chain to start procurement after I complete all certification they will laugh at me. I thank to everyone who replied to my query through the forum or to my personal ID. Sincerely                                                          SCM Microsystems (India) Pvt. Ltd. K. Balasubramanian                                         Modules 0506, 0507 0508, D – Block, Manager – Hardware                                        South Wing, TIDEL Park, Tel : +91 44 42931391                                      #4, Rajiv Gandhi Road,(formerly Canal Bank Road) Fax :+91 44 22540029                                       Taramani, Chennai – 600113. India E-mail:kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in         Web : http://scmmicro.com ‘This email and any attachment may contain confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). If you have received this information in error, you are prohibited from reading, copying, distributing and using the information. If you are not a named addressee or otherwise an intended recipient you are requested to immediately notify the sender and to delete this email and all attachments from your system.’ Pete Perkins peperkinspe@cs.c omTo Sent by: kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in, emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 11/07/2008 01:51 Subject PMRE: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review K. Balasubramanian PSNet, It seems that because of the described trouble you are having with your certification supplier you are making the process more difficult for yourself by the way you approach the process. Working with the test house in steps opens the door for additional review of the design for compliance. You have probably started this 2 step method because you weren't sure if you understood the requirements and the standard well enough to get the equipment to pass all at once. Most manufacturers that I know don't utilize a multiple pass certification process. Once you have developed confidence (maybe you are there already) why don't you just approach them once to get the certification you need and move into production of the unit? It would seem that you would minimize your trouble and probably save a little money in the process. For each new product there are only a few new issues that arise and you should be able to discuss those with a certification engineer that you have worked with recently to get assurance that you are moving ahead in a mutually agreeable way. This will pave the way for a smooth certification process. As with any business process with a supplier the relationship that you develop with the folks with which you work regularly is important. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:45 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review Dear Experts, We submit most of products to UL for 60950 listing. Almost 95 % of our products are UL listed. We find it very difficult to complete the cycle. Many times we come across situations that the parts used are not meeting UL spec. and a redesign is
UL flammability marking
Hi all I have been told that the UL marking on PCB (UR 94V-0 etc.) can also be something like E4. Does anyone know if the marking requirements have been changed and if so where I can get more information. Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Rådgivning Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Denmark T: +45 48 18 35 66 F: +45 48 18 35 30 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria
John What does 'no degradation' mean? 0%, 1%, 0.001%, 10%? It can only mean 0%: zilch, nada, nowt! How can that possibly be tested? The 'except' text allows the manufacturer to specify a finite degradation that is not exceeded. So can that finite degradation exceed the normal performance within specification limits of the general criterion A degradation? John John Harrington From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:46 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria In message F8D22487033A4C4490CE53694BB9D2D7@harrington09269, dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, John Harrington jharring...@keithley.com writes: Hi Group While we all have our copies of EN 61326 close at hand I?d like to see what your consensus of opinion is on the meaning of paragraph 6.2.102 of EN61326-2-1. ? 6.2.102 Tests with continuously present electromagnetic phenomenon No visual degradation of parameters of the EUT is allowed during application of the test, except as specified by the manufacturer.? The standard calls it an ?addition? to the requirements of EN 61326-1 section 6.2 but does not indicate whether it replaces the tables there or modifies the Criterion A requirements. It modifies the Criterion A requirements, for philosophical reasons, which, as very rarely happens (;-), are also practical reasons. It must mean to apply to Criterion A, because that's the one most associated with continuously-present disturbances. What does 'no degradation' mean? 0%, 1%, 0.001%, 10%? It can only mean 0%: zilch, nada, nowt! How can that possibly be tested? The 'except' text allows the manufacturer to specify a finite degradation that is not exceeded. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc _ Scanned by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs. For more information please visit http://www.ers.ibm.com _ _ Scanned by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs. For more information please visit http://www.ers.ibm.com _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Replacement of UK Statutory Instruments 1994 1768
Scott - see current position para near bottom of BERR page below and related documents on right side of page: http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/sectors sustainability/regulations/ecdirect/page12568.html Chris From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Scott Xe Sent: 07 November 2008 14:01 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Replacement of UK Statutory Instruments 1994 1768 There was an consultation to replace SI 1994 1768 in 2006. Is there any progress in the replacement? Thanks and regards, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
In message 8D6DAA21BC8A460FBCA6AE9A5229C9DA@MmPc21, dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Piotr Galka piotr.ga...@micromade.pl writes: My main problem is how to make evident in papers that it is CE OK if education circuits can be ESD damaged because I don't see any solution to that. No possibility of prevention, indeed, so there MUST be a special case. I should be able to limit the emission just making square being not square and persuade the pupil that it is really square what they see ;-) Instead of work-arounds, there should be an EMC standard (or a pair, for emissions and immunity) for such educational products. However, neither IEC or ISO has a committee with responsibility for hardware (of any sort) for education and training. It's a very surprising omission; that doesn't help you, though. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria
In message F766B5AD23EA4C37836CDA2A2379DA99@harrington09269, dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, John Harrington jharring...@keithley.com writes: So can that finite degradation exceed the normal performance within specification limits of the general criterion A degradation? It depends what individual standards say: not all have exactly the same wording for Criterion A. In any case, the manufacturer has to consider carefully how to word the statement. If the manufacturer uses those words then he must widen his spec limits to allow for the degradation, otherwise a product at the unfavourable performance limit would violate the criterion in the presence of the disturbance. For example, 'Signal-to noise ratio better than 80 dB'. If that can be degraded by 3 dB in the presence of the disturbance, then the statement must say '77 dB', not '80 dB'. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria
So can that finite degradation exceed the normal performance within specification limits of the general criterion A degradation? It depends what individual standards say: not all have exactly the same wording for Criterion A. I think this is specific to EN 61326-1 and EN 61326-2-1 In any case, the manufacturer has to consider carefully how to word the statement. If the manufacturer uses those words then he must widen his spec limits to allow for the degradation, otherwise a product at the unfavourable performance limit would violate the criterion in the presence of the disturbance. For example, 'Signal-to noise ratio better than 80 dB'. If that can be degraded by 3 dB in the presence of the disturbance, then the statement must say '77 dB', not '80 dB'. But where is this statement? Not on the DofC. Not on the spec sheet. May be in the test report, may be on some justification document at the bottom of the filing cabinet. My point being that the manufacturer can now claim compliance to criterion A regardless of actual performance and the customer (like Brian's original issue) has even less opportunity to determine what that means. This appears to be worse than the previous version of the standard. _ Scanned by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs. For more information please visit http://www.ers.ibm.com _ _ Scanned by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs. For more information please visit http://www.ers.ibm.com _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review
Perhaps the test house was confusing the requirement for components to be certified to a UL/CSA standard vs UL recognition of the component. from UL60950-1 1.5.1 ...In this standard, certain IEC component standard requirements are replaced by the relevant requirements of component standards listed in Annex P.1. P.1 UL and CSA Component Requirements (mandatory) ...The following components shall comply with the requirements specified below. All IEC standard requirements in this standard are either replaced or modified, as noted, by the relevant requirements of either CSA or UL or both component standards as listed in this annex. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 5:18 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: UL 60950 preliminary inspection / design review A test-house isn't in a position to 'demand' anything. And it certainly has no authority to insist on certification of parts by one particular organization. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
IMO if you can show no problem with emissions and safety, ESD is not a big problem. 1) Use less than 9 KHz for a clock. 2) Note that the equipment is not complete (a breadboard isn't, after all) and so not subject to the standards for completed equipment. 3) Use a SELV power limited supply. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Piotr Galka piotr.ga...@micromade.pl To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org; John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Date: 11/7/2008 8:59:55 AM Subject: Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question. From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk And you seem to think that the emissions would be excessive anyway, so it's doubtful that you would get a positive report from the Notified Body. My main problem is how to make evident in papers that it is CE OK if education circuits can be ESD damaged because I don't see any solution to that. I should be able to limit the emission just making square being not square and persuade the pupil that it is really square what they see ;-) Regards Piotr Galka - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: UL flammability marking
Strictly speaking, the flame rating does not need to be marked on the circuit board. The following is from the UL guide for category code ZPMV2 for Printed Wiring Boards. Printed wiring boards Recognized under UL's Component Recognition Program are identified by significant markings consisting of the Recognized company's identification, the factory identification (if the printed wiring board is produced at more than one location), and the Recognized type designation that correspond with the marking specified in UL's published records. Only those components that actually bear the Marking shown in the individual Recognitions should be considered as being covered under the Component Recognition Program. As noted, the board must have the following items. 1. Company Identification; this can be a name or logo. 2. Recognized Type Identification; this is normally a code issued by the circuit board manufacturer. 3. Factory identification, if made at more than one factory. You will need to go to UL's on-line certification database. http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm If you enter the category code ZPMV2, many pages of manufacturers will show up. I will take the first listing as an example, ZPMV2.E46545 for A C Electronics. (They are only first alphabetically and I am in no way endorsing them as a vendor.) At the bottom of the page is listed the required marking for this vendor. It is their name or logo (and a picture of the logo is shown), type designation corresponding to the table displayed and factory marking. The flammability rating can only be determined from the table in the file. The vendor may choose to mark the rating on the board, but it isn't required by UL. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 6:14 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: UL flammability marking Hi all I have been told that the UL marking on PCB (UR 94V-0 etc.) can also be something like E4. Does anyone know if the marking requirements have been changed and if so where I can get more information. Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Rådgivning Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Denmark T: +45 48 18 35 66 F: +45 48 18 35 30 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: FW: Deviation of Performance Criteria
In message F9E8844C84FF4B8CB92370D766C07003@harrington09269, dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, John Harrington jharring...@keithley.com writes: But where is this statement? If you need it, and the manufacturer hasn't supplied it, you have to ask for it. Some standards (such as EN 55103) are more explicit about this than others. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
- Original Message - From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk I should be able to limit the emission just making square being not square and persuade the pupil that it is really square what they see ;-) Instead of work-arounds, there should be an EMC standard (or a pair, for emissions and immunity) for such educational products. I don't expect such standards will allow for higher emission then others. There is possibility that in next classroom there is TV working. Except described (method 1) I see other methods of emission limiting: 2) - not allowing the pupil to make connections as they wont, but making them permanent when test board is installed (limiting the board flexibility of use). 3) - using shielded cables (BNC seems to me too big, but for smaller shielded connectors I don't give long live at school environment). As in 2 and 3 signal wires are not accessible you must add something to allow for oscilloscope probe connection. At the moment method 1 seems to me the easiest so the best one. Now I believe there is nothing I just missed in these subjects. Thanks John. But still don't know how existing at market education systems manage with ESD problem. Regards Piotr Galka P.S. Live was easy and pleasant before 2004 ;-) - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: UL flammability marking
PCB flammability rating marks are specifically required when ...found that flammability classifications of different grades of base materials (previously identified by one printed-wiring type designation) are different... I have never seen an E4 flammability rating specified in UL94 or UL796. PCB marking requirements are found in UL796, clause 31, the CCN guide for 'ZPMV2', and the individual FUS file. And they are not always consistent. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ted Eckert Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 7:29 AM To: Kim Boll Jensen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: UL flammability marking Strictly speaking, the flame rating does not need to be marked on the circuit board. The following is from the UL guide for category code ZPMV2 for Printed Wiring Boards. Printed wiring boards Recognized under UL's Component Recognition Program are identified by significant markings consisting of the Recognized company's identification, the factory identification (if the printed wiring board is produced at more than one location), and the Recognized type designation that correspond with the marking specified in UL's published records. Only those components that actually bear the Marking shown in the individual Recognitions should be considered as being covered under the Component Recognition Program. As noted, the board must have the following items. 1. Company Identification; this can be a name or logo. 2. Recognized Type Identification; this is normally a code issued by the circuit board manufacturer. 3. Factory identification, if made at more than one factory. You will need to go to UL's on-line certification database. http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.h tm If you enter the category code ZPMV2, many pages of manufacturers will show up. I will take the first listing as an example, ZPMV2.E46545 for A C Electronics. (They are only first alphabetically and I am in no way endorsing them as a vendor.) At the bottom of the page is listed the required marking for this vendor. It is their name or logo (and a picture of the logo is shown), type designation corresponding to the table displayed and factory marking. The flammability rating can only be determined from the table in the file. The vendor may choose to mark the rating on the board, but it isn't required by UL. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 6:14 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: UL flammability marking Hi all I have been told that the UL marking on PCB (UR 94V-0 etc.) can also be something like E4. Does anyone know if the marking requirements have been changed and if so where I can get more information. Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Rådgivning Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Denmark - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
- Original Message - From: Cortland Richmond k...@earthlink.net 1) Use less than 9 KHz for a clock. 1MHz generator is standard in such systems. AM and FM receivers are a kind of basic electronic in my opinion so I'd like to allow for taking frequency characteristics of 465kHz and 10.7MHz filters, and see AM and FM demodulators working. 2) Note that the equipment is not complete (a breadboard isn't, after all) and so not subject to the standards for completed equipment. It is used by end user and there is nothing planned to be added to it so why it is not complete? Typical breadboard isn't complete as it is destined to be installed in some case. 3) Use a SELV power limited supply. Right. Regards Piotr Galka - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: UL flammability marking
KBJ PSNet, As you probably know the requirements for flammability of PWBs come down thru the chain of UL 94, UL 746 and UL 796. There are IEC equivalents for these requirements, but I don't have all the standard numbers at hand. To show conformity to requirements markings on the board are needed/required. Traceability is easily done once the manufacturer's mark and type number are shown since all the PWB characteristics are listed in the UL Component database under this mfgr type. The inclusion of the UL V-X rating is superfluous once the mfgr type are identified. I never look for the V rating on the board; I'm examining the UL database info for proper ratings. There are other parameters which are of interest in meeting the needed requirements for the product standard which are given there. So, your reference to 'E4' may be the manufacturers' type number from which you can determine the V-rating. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 6:14 AM To: EMC PSTC Subject: UL flammability marking Hi all I have been told that the UL marking on PCB (UR 94V-0 etc.) can also be something like E4. Does anyone know if the marking requirements have been changed and if so where I can get more information. Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Rådgivning Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Denmark T: +45 48 18 35 66 F: +45 48 18 35 30 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
Piotr Under EMC directive 2004/108/EC, apparatus means any finished appliance or combination thereof made commercially available as a single functional unit, intended for the end user and liable to generate electromagnetic disturbance, or the performance of which is liable to be affected by such disturbance. As your classromm lab equipment does not seem to fit this definition, some provisions of the directive are therefore non-applicable. Marking is another issue. David From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Piotr Galka Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:44 AM To: EMC-PSTC; John Woodgate Subject: Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question. From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk I should be able to limit the emission just making square being not square and persuade the pupil that it is really square what they see ;-) Instead of work-arounds, there should be an EMC standard (or a pair, for emissions and immunity) for such educational products. I don't expect such standards will allow for higher emission then others. There is possibility that in next classroom there is TV working. Except described (method 1) I see other methods of emission limiting: 2) - not allowing the pupil to make connections as they wont, but making them permanent when test board is installed (limiting the board flexibility of use). 3) - using shielded cables (BNC seems to me too big, but for smaller shielded connectors I don't give long live at school environment). As in 2 and 3 signal wires are not accessible you must add something to allow for oscilloscope probe connection. At the moment method 1 seems to me the easiest so the best one. Now I believe there is nothing I just missed in these subjects. Thanks John. But still don't know how existing at market education systems manage with ESD problem. Regards Piotr Galka P.S. Live was easy and pleasant before 2004 ;-) - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
Piotr Galka wrote: 1MHz generator is standard in such systems. AM and FM receivers are a kind of basic electronic in my opinion so I'd like to allow for taking frequency characteristics of 465kHz and 10.7MHz filters, and see AM and FM demodulators working. Ah, NOW I see your dilemma. For digital systems, a lower frequency clock avoids EMI regulations. For the other, is there any reason why the radio must be sold and qualified disassembled? One doesn't have to meet the Automotive Directive to teach mechanics how to rebuild an engine. In the past, teaching electronics in military schools, we would use an AM or FM reciever built on a sheet of plywood. I agree this is not what one should sell the general public for a kitchen radio, but it appears the bureacrats never considered that education involves more than looking at schematic diagrams! Still, one might get around their short-sighted blunder by building a radio set that, *when assembled in its cabinet*, does comply with the regulations and CAN be placed on the market but which, when opened up, may be spread out on a workbench for students to learn from. If connecting to an oscillator circuit with an oscilloscope violates the EMC directive, we may all be out of business. Cortland KA5S - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Deviation of Performance Criteria - other question.
In message 380-220081157185821...@earthlink.net, dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Cortland Richmond k...@earthlink.net writes: If connecting to an oscillator circuit with an oscilloscope violates the EMC directive, we may all be out of business. In the early days of the 89 Directive, people did ask such questions. They were quite convinced that the whole thing was insane. It was later shown that the insanity primarily resided with some alarmist 'interpreters'. But some of the terminology used by officials was bizarre. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Conversion between A/m and Gauss
Hi Experts, I know it is Friday afternoon, but I was wondering if anyone can help me convert Gauss in to Amp/meter RMS. I understand these two represent different magnetic properties, but I have been testing our products in Gauss, and EN 61000-4-8 requires testing in Amp/meter. Thanks for the help. Regards, Ravinder Ajmani Server PCB Development Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Voice: (408) 717-7956 Fax: (408) 717-9044 Email: ravinder.ajm...@hitachigst.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Conversion between A/m and Gauss
Ravinder 1 Gauss = 1000 mGauss = 100 microTesla = 79.6 A/m John McAuley www.cei.ie john.mcau...@cei.ie mailto:john.mcau...@cei.ie * DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of ravinder.ajm...@hitachigst.com Sent: 07 November 2008 23:04 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Conversion between A/m and Gauss Hi Experts, I know it is Friday afternoon, but I was wondering if anyone can help me convert Gauss in to Amp/meter RMS. I understand these two represent different magnetic properties, but I have been testing our products in Gauss, and EN 61000-4-8 requires testing in Amp/meter. Thanks for the help. Regards, Ravinder Ajmani Server PCB Development Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Voice: (408) 717-7956 Fax: (408) 717-9044 Email: ravinder.ajm...@hitachigst.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Conversion between A/m and Gauss
Hi Ravinder: Can't do it. As you said, they are different magnetic properties. Gauss is a measure of magnetic flux density. Amperes/meter is a measure of magnetic field strength. Best regards, Rich -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of ravinder.ajm...@hitachigst.com Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:04 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Conversion between A/m and Gauss Hi Experts, I know it is Friday afternoon, but I was wondering if anyone can help me convert Gauss in to Amp/meter RMS. I understand these two represent different magnetic properties, but I have been testing our products in Gauss, and EN 61000-4-8 requires testing in Amp/meter. Thanks for the help. Regards, Ravinder Ajmani Server PCB Development Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Voice: (408) 717-7956 Fax: (408) 717-9044 Email: ravinder.ajm...@hitachigst.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: UL flammability marking
Hello Kim Boll: I have been told that the UL marking on PCB (UR 94V-0 etc.) can also be something like E4. Does anyone know if the marking requirements have been changed and if so where I can get more information. UL 796 specifies marking requirements for PCBs. Here is a quote from UL 796: 27.6 A printed-wiring board that is identified by an individual type designation for each different base material is not required to have an additional marking to identify its flammability rating. I believe this answers your question. If you need more information, I suggest you obtain a copy of UL 796. If you need to confirm or determine the flammability rating of a manufacturer's type designation, you will need to look it up in UL's Component Directory. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
