Re: [PSES] wet environment AC termination

[Adam Dixon]

Thanks, Brian.  A first pass through the UL CCN master list didn't result
in an obvious match.  I see ELEI for a seasonal/temporary outdoor
application and did some searches on 'cord,' 'outdoor,' 'plug,' etc.  I'll
have to take a closer look.

Also, I forgot to mention that this is for US/Canada (thanks, John W. for
asking for countries...).


Cheers,
Adam





On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Brian O'Connell 
wrote:

> Not aware of specific products, but as you probably know, NEC section
> 330.10 has stuff for wet environment. UL has CCNs for this particular
> classification, but cannot remember.
>
> Brian
>
>
> From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 10:33 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] wet environment AC termination
>
> I am looking at a design requiring a multi-branch AC cable for a wet
> environment.  Is there a tiny form factor enclosure that would
> protect/terminate unused branch(es) for a minimal system configuration
> (i.e. using 3 of 4 branches)?
> I see a variety of hardware that are a bit too large (ex:  generic 1 gang
> box + cable gland, or bulky/long extension cord plug protectors).  The
> smallest option that I have come across is a 1/2" NPT rigid conduit body
> instead of 1 gang box.
> Might there be a clamp on-type protective housing for the unused AC plug?
> Or could I change the AC plug type to one that has an approved cap/cover
> (which I haven't found yet -- the ones I have seen are expecting panel
> mount mates or another mating cable rather than a standalone cap/cover)?
> I've done a fair bit of distributor/supplier website searching, as well as
> looking at local electrical supply companies but haven't landed on an
> obvious option.
>
> Pointers to any suppliers or references are appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Adam
>
> -
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] wet environment AC termination

[Adam Dixon]

I am looking at a design requiring a multi-branch AC cable for a wet
environment.  Is there a tiny form factor enclosure that would
protect/terminate unused branch(es) for a minimal system configuration
(i.e. using 3 of 4 branches)?

I see a variety of hardware that are a bit too large (ex:  generic 1 gang
box + cable gland, or bulky/long extension cord plug protectors).  The
smallest option that I have come across is a 1/2" NPT rigid conduit body
instead of 1 gang box.

Might there be a clamp on-type protective housing for the unused AC plug?
Or could I change the AC plug type to one that has an approved cap/cover
(which I haven't found yet -- the ones I have seen are expecting panel
mount mates or another mating cable rather than a standalone cap/cover)?
I've done a fair bit of distributor/supplier website searching, as well as
looking at local electrical supply companies but haven't landed on an
obvious option.

Pointers to any suppliers or references are appreciated.


Cheers,
Adam

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] wet environment AC termination

[Brian O'Connell]

Not aware of specific products, but as you probably know, NEC section 330.10 
has stuff for wet environment. UL has CCNs for this particular classification, 
but cannot remember.

Brian


From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 10:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] wet environment AC termination

I am looking at a design requiring a multi-branch AC cable for a wet 
environment.  Is there a tiny form factor enclosure that would 
protect/terminate unused branch(es) for a minimal system configuration (i.e. 
using 3 of 4 branches)?
I see a variety of hardware that are a bit too large (ex:  generic 1 gang box + 
cable gland, or bulky/long extension cord plug protectors).  The smallest 
option that I have come across is a 1/2" NPT rigid conduit body instead of 1 
gang box.
Might there be a clamp on-type protective housing for the unused AC plug?  Or 
could I change the AC plug type to one that has an approved cap/cover (which I 
haven't found yet -- the ones I have seen are expecting panel mount mates or 
another mating cable rather than a standalone cap/cover)?  I've done a fair bit 
of distributor/supplier website searching, as well as looking at local 
electrical supply companies but haven't landed on an obvious option.

Pointers to any suppliers or references are appreciated.

Cheers,
Adam

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Job Opening - Sr. Compliance Engineer - Dallas, TX

[Mike Cantwell]

Hi all,

I’m posting this on behalf of a recruiter, Jack Dowdell, looking to fill a Sr. 
Compliance Engineer position in the Dallas, TX area. If you have an interest in 
this position, please make contact directly through the link found at the 
bottom of the job description at the url below.

http://www.bullhornreach.com/sites/scr/job/2191613_senior-compliance-engineer-dallas-tx

Regards,
Mike






-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] New LV Directive 2014/35/EU

[Scott Xe]

John,


> On 1 Dec, 2015, at 2:50 am, John Allen  wrote:
> 
> W.r.t. to what Brian and Ted said below, I've come across a number of cases 
> at work where routine production safety testing has identified assembly 
> safety defects - and one actually here at home when my wife bought an 
> exercise machine which, during final assembly, I noted to have the conductor 
> from the mains inlet not correctly terminated on the chassis stud because the 
> securing nut and washer were still about 20mm proud of the chassis! (no need 
> to guess where that piece of kit came from, and the matter was reported to 
> the importer, who was genuinely very upset because she thought that she had 
> actually done everything she needed to by getting the Tech File and so on!).
>  
> Therefore I am very much in favour of verified and recorded routine testing 
> of all mains products - especially where the sources are thought to be "less 
> than well controlled". As for certification agencies not enforcing such 
> rules, then that I believe is a dereliction of duty on their parts and 
> could/should open them up to the possibility of legal action because the 
> customers rely on their agency certification marks for assurance that the 
> products are adequate w.r.t. safety in the design and manufacture.

Scott: I am unsure if the new directive would like to strengthen the 
inconsistent harmonised standards given to different product categories.  In 
most of modern production, the routine tests are included regardless of 
requirements given in the standard or not.  If the harmonised standard is 
applied to all product categories, it will set a good minimum standard across 
all product categories.
>   <>
> John Allen
> W.London, UK
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: 30 November 2015 18:27
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] New LV Directive 2014/35/EU
>  
> A color photograph has been a requirement of the Toy Directive for a long 
> time. However, toys are different than most other products. If customs 
> receives a shipment of toy cars of model X from company Y, it can be 
> difficult to determine if what is in the box is what is declared on the DoC. 
> The product may have labeling or packaging clearly identifying it, but it may 
> not. The photograph is an important tool for market surveillance. This 
> requirement was added to the draft NLF Directives for a similar purpose. 
> However, the issue is different with other types of products, particularly 
> with highly specialize equipment where a DoC may cover a series of products 
> that differ significantly in appearance depending on the configuration of 
> components. The result was that the photograph was made an option. I would 
> recommend it for products where it can be difficult to clearly identify the 
> model and manufacturer. However, this won't apply to most technology products.
>  
> The routine testing depends on the product type, but it would be the EN 50514 
> testing for products falling under EN 60950-1. The standard only requires 
> routine testing for some components types and for some conditions to allow 
> reduced spacings and such. However, it doesn't specify routine testing at the 
> system level. I believe that the current list of standards harmonized under 
> the Low Voltage Directive includes some routine testing standards, such as EN 
> 50106 for household and similar electrical appliances. However, it does not 
> include EN 50514, so routine testing would not be required if you were to 
> declare the presumption of conformity through the standards route. If your 
> product is certified, the certification agency may require routine testing, 
> but certification isn't mandatory. For ITE, I believe you could self-declare 
> compliance without routine testing. The new LVD is intended to change that.
>  
> Disclaimer: I do not have extensive knowledge of the development of the new 
> LVD and what I stated may be incorrect. Take it as guidance only and not 
> necessarily as hard fact. I would encourage anybody with better insight to 
> correct my statements where they are wrong.
>  
> 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.
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com 
> ]
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 7:27 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] New LV Directive 2014/35/EU
>  
> Scott,
>  
> The New LVD as with the latest Machinery Directive requires a Risk Assessment 
> of the Essential Health and Safety Requirements called out in the Directive. 
> Most likely the new ISO EN 12100 Risk Assessment standard will be harmonized 
> to the LVD and you can use 

Re: [PSES] New LV Directive 2014/35/EU

[Scott Xe]

Hi Ted,

> On 1 Dec, 2015, at 2:26 am, Ted Eckert  wrote:
> 
> A color photograph has been a requirement of the Toy Directive for a long 
> time. However, toys are different than most other products. If customs 
> receives a shipment of toy cars of model X from company Y, it can be 
> difficult to determine if what is in the box is what is declared on the DoC. 
> The product may have labeling or packaging clearly identifying it, but it may 
> not. The photograph is an important tool for market surveillance. This 
> requirement was added to the draft NLF Directives for a similar purpose. 
> However, the issue is different with other types of products, particularly 
> with highly specialize equipment where a DoC may cover a series of products 
> that differ significantly in appearance depending on the configuration of 
> components. The result was that the photograph was made an option. I would 
> recommend it for products where it can be difficult to clearly identify the 
> model and manufacturer. However, this won't apply to most technology products.

Scott: You are quite right that customs is difficult in verifying the products 
without model number.  If there is brand, model no and description, it should 
give reasonable identification even without am image.

> 
> The routine testing depends on the product type, but it would be the EN 50514 
> testing for products falling under EN 60950-1. The standard only requires 
> routine testing for some components types and for some conditions to allow 
> reduced spacings and such. However, it doesn't specify routine testing at the 
> system level. I believe that the current list of standards harmonized under 
> the Low Voltage Directive includes some routine testing standards, such as EN 
> 50106 for household and similar electrical appliances. However, it does not 
> include EN 50514, so routine testing would not be required if you were to 
> declare the presumption of conformity through the standards route. If your 
> product is certified, the certification agency may require routine testing, 
> but certification isn't mandatory. For ITE, I believe you could self-declare 
> compliance without routine testing. The new LVD is intended to change that.

Scott: Thanks for your good references.  EN 60065 already includes routine 
tests while the LVD does not include routine tests for ITE.  They are 
inconsistent with EN 60335-1.

> 
> Disclaimer: I do not have extensive knowledge of the development of the new 
> LVD and what I stated may be incorrect. Take it as guidance only and not 
> necessarily as hard fact. I would encourage anybody with better insight to 
> correct my statements where they are wrong.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 7:27 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] New LV Directive 2014/35/EU
> 
> Scott,
> 
> The New LVD as with the latest Machinery Directive requires a Risk Assessment 
> of the Essential Health and Safety Requirements called out in the Directive. 
> Most likely the new ISO EN 12100 Risk Assessment standard will be harmonized 
> to the LVD and you can use this on your DoCs to show compliance for safety in 
> additional to any other applicable safety standards.  The world of product 
> safety is changing from a list of do's and don't found in product safety 
> standards to a proper Risk Assessment of your products. There are several 
> good articles out there on this topic.
> 
> The color image is optional. I'm curious to see how many manufacturers 
> include color images and how they implement them on DoCs.  I think this was 
> added because in some cases there may be items that cannot be properly 
> identified by other means in which case the color image may be required. I 
> think the only requirement of the image is that it must show the product in a 
> way where it can be properly identified from other products if you are 
> relying on the image for that purpose.
> 
> Regarding sample testing, I'm not sure. This could refer the 100% type 
> testing performed in Production, which you should already be doing. Or it 
> could refer to actual product audits, which I am highly in favor of but many 
> companies do not bother with; except for the factory inspections performed by 
> 3rd party certification houses. If and how you do sample testing of 
> production to insure you are shipping compliant products will vary from 
> company to company depending on many factors and can only really be 
> determined by the manufacturer.
> 
> I hope this was helpful.
> 
> The Other Brian
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:47 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 

Re: [PSES] New LV Directive 2014/35/EU

[Scott Xe]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your useful comments.

> On 30 Nov, 2015, at 11:26 pm, Kunde, Brian  wrote:
> 
> Scott,
> 
> The New LVD as with the latest Machinery Directive requires a Risk Assessment 
> of the Essential Health and Safety Requirements called out in the Directive. 
> Most likely the new ISO EN 12100 Risk Assessment standard will be harmonized 
> to the LVD and you can use this on your DoCs to show compliance for safety in 
> additional to any other applicable safety standards.  The world of product 
> safety is changing from a list of do's and don't found in product safety 
> standards to a proper Risk Assessment of your products. There are several 
> good articles out there on this topic.

Scott: Thanks for sharing reference standard ISO EN 12100 Risk Assessment 
standard for Machinery Directive.  I just got another reference EN 31010 for 
this purpose.  It sounds there is no fix methodology for this requirement.  It 
is new to us and seek for more guidance to take off.

> 
> The color image is optional. I'm curious to see how many manufacturers 
> include color images and how they implement them on DoCs.  I think this was 
> added because in some cases there may be items that cannot be properly 
> identified by other means in which case the color image may be required. I 
> think the only requirement of the image is that it must show the product in a 
> way where it can be properly identified from other products if you are 
> relying on the image for that purpose.

Scott: Traditionally the product is identified by brand, model no, description. 
 With an image, it gives higher level of identification.


> Regarding sample testing, I'm not sure. This could refer the 100% type 
> testing performed in Production, which you should already be doing. Or it 
> could refer to actual product audits, which I am highly in favor of but many 
> companies do not bother with; except for the factory inspections performed by 
> 3rd party certification houses. If and how you do sample testing of 
> production to insure you are shipping compliant products will vary from 
> company to company depending on many factors and can only really be 
> determined by the manufacturer.

Scott: If it is referred to production, it may not have too much different from 
the past.  Most of suppliers are running on ISO 9000 QMS.  They are doing the 
routine test on production line 100% and sampling check as part of quality 
assurance program.  It sounds the new directive would like to kick some worse 
suppliers who did not do any checking on production line.

> 
> I hope this was helpful.
> 
> The Other Brian
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:47 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] New LV Directive 2014/35/EU
> 
> There are 3 additional requirements as compared with existing one.
> 
> The technical documentation shall include an adequate analysis and assessment 
> of the risk(s).  What is objective and scope for these?  Do these analysis 
> and assessment refer to 3rd party verification of compliance with applicable 
> standard(s) or are they on top of compliance with applicable safety 
> standard(s)?
> 
> In DoC, a suitable identification of the product should be included - a 
> colour image of the product could be employed.  Is there any guideline for 
> this product image?  One exterior front view photo like one on front cover of 
> catalogue or a series of different views of the product?
> 
> Article 6, point 4 regarding manufacturers’ obligations, to protect the 
> health and safety of consumers, carry out sample testing of electrical 
> equipment made available on the market.  Does it mean the sample testing, 
> i.e.. dielectric strength test, earth continuity test, etc. is taken in 
> production at factory or in warehouse of destined market?
> 
> Your guidance is highly appreciated!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Scott
> 
> -
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
> 
> 
> LECO Corporation