Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections
In message blupr02mb11605ab82bb0e4da6f4c426c1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook .com, dated Wed, 11 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: Would be very interested in other's experience with crimped connector failures. Manual crimping tool used upside down. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections
Don't believe the cost differential is significant - but cost control is only an ancillary activity and only in the general sense. But I've never had a failure except for vibration induced and even then it was generally the copper but the wire still kept from flopping around. QA practices when done in house dictate the crimp tooling to be used, the verification or calibration of the tool etc. For out of house the use of a recognized cable harness facility also insures all of those are done, and depending on volume various amounts of products in the cable factory are subject to pull test and other similar audits. Obviously we have our own QC inspections upon arrival to the factory but they are much reduced by leaning on UL's quarterly audits of the process and testing. mac -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:55 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections Thought about this and realized that I have never seen crimped connector fail where the connector components have test certificate, and where the crimping tool is subject to recurring calibration, and where the correct wiring materials implemented. And have never used crimping tools or connector materials that did not have instructions and conditions of acceptability. You get what you pay for. This is basis of my requirement for crimped pins on transformer flying leads, which are then soldered into the PCB. Would be very interested in other's experience with crimped connector failures. Brian From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:11 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections I agree with Gary, but the quality depends on wire type and match between wire and crimp. Also the tool quality (if the right tool is used at all) is essential. Crimps are suitable for stranded wire only, and the wire need to be inserted far enough. Crimps are subject to a number of failure causes, and I have seen many wires come out of a crimp connector without force. Not all safety critical parts have full compatible flat 6.3 mm terminals, the retention hole is missing or adapted so as to allow wires be soldered into. Manufacturers of crimp terminals often fail to provide decent assembly and safety instructions with their products leaving ample space to for misfits.. There is also no (safety) convention on where to select what type of terminal, be it ring, fork or pin or connector type, so the component applied determines the choice of type, not necessarily leading to a safe solution. This is the more true as component manufacturers provide safety-approved and non-approved types of the same component, mostly at a better price, differing only a type of connection. I have seen pin type of crimp connectors used at a screwed power supply terminal (mains side), and I fail to see the added value of the double crimp action in that case. If the screw comes loose then. I have seen no safety standard explicitly refusing shrinked connections within the restrictions Rich mentioned. Interesting question on heat shrinks is there possible qualification as an insulator... ?? Gert Gremmen Ce-test From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 20:14 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections I've seen the same, although I generally use double crimp wire connections even on the smaller gauge wires. One crimp obviously attaches to the copper conductor the other crimp attaches to the wire insulation. Both Crimps are made with the same tool in the same crimping action. I suppose there is a small cost difference in the piece part, but it's a better, in my opinion, method for providing a secure double connection mac From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:53 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections Hi Charlie: On certified products, I have seen shrink-wrap holding soldered connections in place. The shrink-wrap must attached to both the wire and some other thing that holds the wire in place should the solder connection fail. I have seen the shrink wrap covering both the solder joint and the terminal such that the terminal is the other thing that holds the wire in place. The issue is that if the solder joint fails, the wire can contact some other potential that would create a dangerous situation. I have seen cabling used for this purpose. Note that the solder joint itself must be mechanically secure prior to soldering. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message
Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections
Thought about this and realized that I have never seen crimped connector fail where the connector components have test certificate, and where the crimping tool is subject to recurring calibration, and where the correct wiring materials implemented. And have never used crimping tools or connector materials that did not have instructions and conditions of acceptability. You get what you pay for. This is basis of my requirement for crimped pins on transformer flying leads, which are then soldered into the PCB. Would be very interested in other's experience with crimped connector failures. Brian From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:11 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections I agree with Gary, but the quality depends on wire type and match between wire and crimp. Also the tool quality (if the right tool is used at all) is essential. Crimps are suitable for stranded wire only, and the wire need to be inserted far enough. Crimps are subject to a number of failure causes, and I have seen many wires come out of a crimp connector without force. Not all safety critical parts have full compatible flat 6.3 mm terminals, the retention hole is missing or adapted so as to allow wires be soldered into. Manufacturers of crimp terminals often fail to provide decent assembly and safety instructions with their products leaving ample space to for misfits.. There is also no (safety) convention on where to select what type of terminal, be it ring, fork or pin or connector type, so the component applied determines the choice of type, not necessarily leading to a safe solution. This is the more true as component manufacturers provide safety-approved and non-approved types of the same component, mostly at a better price, differing only a type of connection. I have seen pin type of crimp connectors used at a screwed power supply terminal (mains side), and I fail to see the added value of the double crimp action in that case. If the screw comes loose then. I have seen no safety standard explicitly refusing shrinked connections within the restrictions Rich mentioned. Interesting question on heat shrinks is there possible qualification as an insulator... ?? Gert Gremmen Ce-test From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 20:14 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections I've seen the same, although I generally use double crimp wire connections even on the smaller gauge wires. One crimp obviously attaches to the copper conductor the other crimp attaches to the wire insulation. Both Crimps are made with the same tool in the same crimping action. I suppose there is a small cost difference in the piece part, but it's a better, in my opinion, method for providing a secure double connection mac From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:53 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections Hi Charlie: On certified products, I have seen shrink-wrap holding soldered connections in place. The shrink-wrap must attached to both the wire and some other thing that holds the wire in place should the solder connection fail. I have seen the shrink wrap covering both the solder joint and the terminal such that the terminal is the other thing that holds the wire in place. The issue is that if the solder joint fails, the wire can contact some other potential that would create a dangerous situation. I have seen cabling used for this purpose. Note that the solder joint itself must be mechanically secure prior to soldering. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the
Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections
I agree with Gary, but the quality depends on wire type and match between wire and crimp. Also the tool quality (if the right tool is used at all) is essential. Crimps are suitable for stranded wire only, and the wire need to be inserted far enough. Crimps are subject to a number of failure causes, and I have seen many wires come out of a crimp connector without force. Not all safety critical parts have full compatible flat 6.3 mm terminals, the retention hole is missing or adapted so as to allow wires be soldered into. Manufacturers of crimp terminals often fail to provide decent assembly and safety instructions with their products leaving ample space to for misfits There is also no (safety) convention on where to select what type of terminal, be it ring, fork or pin or connector type, so the component applied determines the choice of type, not necessarily leading to a safe solution. This is the more true as component manufacturers provide safety-approved and non-approved types of the same component, mostly at a better price, differing only a type of connection. I have seen pin type of crimp connectors used at a screwed power supply terminal (mains side), and I fail to see the added value of the double crimp action in that case. If the screw comes loose then... I have seen no safety standard explicitly refusing shrinked connections within the restrictions Rich mentioned. Interesting question on heat shrinks is there possible qualification as an insulator. ?? Gert Gremmen Ce-test From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 20:14 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections I've seen the same, although I generally use double crimp wire connections even on the smaller gauge wires. One crimp obviously attaches to the copper conductor the other crimp attaches to the wire insulation. Both Crimps are made with the same tool in the same crimping action. I suppose there is a small cost difference in the piece part, but it's a better, in my opinion, method for providing a secure double connection mac From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:53 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections Hi Charlie: On certified products, I have seen shrink-wrap holding soldered connections in place. The shrink-wrap must attached to both the wire and some other thing that holds the wire in place should the solder connection fail. I have seen the shrink wrap covering both the solder joint and the terminal such that the terminal is the other thing that holds the wire in place. The issue is that if the solder joint fails, the wire can contact some other potential that would create a dangerous situation. I have seen cabling used for this purpose. Note that the solder joint itself must be mechanically secure prior to soldering. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org _emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b7 4hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs =F19gZpG5uwmM9mC545qHRJWKa4NDpqaWpaQuN8JVWy8e= Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcomplianc e.oc.ieee.org_d=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74h FXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=A Vi2qO6NuZegBPkvCRpsHL1a8yMJ7bIbjZBY_Ek_Ld4e= can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org _d=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx -glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=wJEyPFNwRWqMM2 5XCWYvrsfhv28gT5zbjZGcnvaO5ewe= Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org _list.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEu xvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=UG_fq mqrybLcZUt0Y219t6JPqi_Psh3dFhDgpAVd39Ue= List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org _listrules.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74 hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=
[PSES] Has UNECE Regulation 10 replaced Automotive EMC Directive (2004/104/EC)?
Dear all, I am curious to know if UNECE Regulation 10 has replaced the Automotive EMC Directive (2004/104/EC). Can someone sheld some light in this direction? sincerely Tim Foo aka Foo W J Senior Lecturer School of Engineering, ECE/BME Center Ngee Ann Polytechnic, 535 Clementi Road, Singapore 599489 NOTICE: This message may contain privileged/confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Has UNECE Regulation 10 replaced Automotive EMC Directive (2004/104/EC)?
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:48:15 +0800, Wan Juang Foo f...@np.edu.sg wrote: I am curious to know if UNECE Regulation 10 has replaced the Automotive EMC Directive (2004/104/EC). Can someone sheld some light in this direction? In the past, under Directive 2007/46/EC, we could use either of 72/245/EC (2004/104/EC) and ECE R10. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0046 Now, 72/245/EC (hence 2004/104/EC) was repealed by Regulation (EC) No 661/2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0661 Regards, Tom -- Tomonori Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] CE standards for USB 2.0
USB 2.0 sticks ... pluggable to PC. Do we talk about EN55022 and EN55024 for CE marking? #Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Encapsulation for Creepage Clearance
In IEC 60079-15 Table 10 - Minimum creepage distances, clearances and separations, Encapsulated or solid insulation is allowed to reduce the minimum clearance requirements. Note 4 of the table states completely encapsulated in compound to a minimum depth of 0.4 mm. What tests are required to verify this encapsulation? Does the encapsulation need to meet the requirements of IEC 60079-18 Encapsulation, because the requirements for Conformal Coating much simpler? I am trying to dispute MetLab requirement for testing to IEC 60079-18 when the minimum creepage and clearance of a 100-240VAC power supply is 1.0 mm. My understanding is creepage is not considered, if conformal coating or encapsulation is used. Is this correct? John Cochran STRONGARM Designs 425 Cardean Drive, Horsham, PA 19044 Ph: 215-443-3400 x219 Fax: 215-443-3002 jcoch...@strongarm.commailto:jcoch...@strongarm.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
