Re: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!

[Ken Javor]

A very simple and inexpensive means of arranging staging is to introduce
delays between left and right channels such that the sound appears to be
coming from a particular direction. This is much easier to accomplish with
headphones than loudspeakers, but it's the same principle.  I've seen a
convincing demonstration at the US Army Aeromedical Research Lab (USAARL),
where something like five different radios can be going at once and a
helicopter crew have to be able to intelligently respond in a crisis
situation, and what people normally do in a situation like that where they
can't pay attention to everyone is they zero in on one conversation and
ignore the others, and to do that we use directionality. Originally there
was none and the headphones could be blaring all channels at once, and the
crew would simply turn off he radios they didn't want to hear, which wasn't
good. By introducing specific delays for each radio, the various radios
could be made to sound as if one conversation was from 12:00, another at
3:00 another at 6:00 and so on. That allowed the crew to mentally focus in
on the conversation of interest and tune out the others temporarily.  But
that is all software and digital circuitry: no fancy audiophile equipment
necessary.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Peter Tarver 
> Reply-To: Peter Tarver 
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:37:04 +
> To: 
> Conversation: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!
> 
> I have heard of and known a few audiophiles that go to great lengths to have
> sound reproduced as accurately as possible and spend enormous sums to
> accomplish that.
> 
> The term that was most silly in my view was holography; but I understood what
> was meant. The aforementioned audiophiles claim to recreate the spatial
> relationship between the physical locations musical instruments when recorded.
> The needs for recording and reproduction are entirely impractical and don't
> seem achievable for simple stereophonics, so it seems on the bovine
> scatological side of the olfactory sense.
> 
> BUT, I have stood in and moved about a room that was carefully put together.
> In one part of the room one instrument (say clarinet) could be heard more
> distinctly than in other areas, and so on for other instruments, giving the
> impression that one was moving from musician to musician on a sound stage.
> 
> Pretty clever, but outlandishly expensive.
> 
> 
> Peter Tarver
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ken Javor
>> [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 19:55
>> 
>> Next, the terms are not entirely gibberish. They may be
>> unfamiliar to those not in the hi-fi hobby, but I can make out
>> all but one of these terms:
>> 
>> Sound staging means stereo separation.  Or whatever
>> passes fro that in the age of five and six different channels (I
>> haven't kept up with this stuff since it departed from two
>> channels).  I don't know how a fuse aids or degrades
>> channel separation, but at least we can understand what is
>> being claimed.
>> 
> 
> The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential.
> It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is
> addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message,
> in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
> error, please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of
> this message!
> 
> -
> 
> 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: 

-

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

Re: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!

[Peter Tarver]

I have heard of and known a few audiophiles that go to great lengths to have 
sound reproduced as accurately as possible and spend enormous sums to 
accomplish that.

The term that was most silly in my view was holography; but I understood what 
was meant. The aforementioned audiophiles claim to recreate the spatial 
relationship between the physical locations musical instruments when recorded. 
The needs for recording and reproduction are entirely impractical and don't 
seem achievable for simple stereophonics, so it seems on the bovine 
scatological side of the olfactory sense.

BUT, I have stood in and moved about a room that was carefully put together. In 
one part of the room one instrument (say clarinet) could be heard more 
distinctly than in other areas, and so on for other instruments, giving the 
impression that one was moving from musician to musician on a sound stage.

Pretty clever, but outlandishly expensive.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor
> [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 19:55
>
> Next, the terms are not entirely gibberish. They may be
> unfamiliar to those not in the hi-fi hobby, but I can make out
> all but one of these terms:
>
> Sound staging means stereo separation.  Or whatever
> passes fro that in the age of five and six different channels (I
> haven't kept up with this stuff since it departed from two
> channels).  I don't know how a fuse aids or degrades
> channel separation, but at least we can understand what is
> being claimed.
>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] EU Enforcement of CE Marking Directives

[Chuck August-McDowell]

You might try the EU rapex database of products with removal / recalled from 
market (do not meet Directive requirements).
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumers_safety/safety_products/rapex/alerts/main/?event=main.search#

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.
Direct: 510-540-4670

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU Enforcement of CE Marking Directives

The stringency, and the enforcement procedures, vary in the different Member 
States. For example, in Britain, prosecution is a last resort, because it is 
very costly and the outcome may be uncertain. But the authorities can be VERY 
persuasive. Non-compliant products are confiscated, and the thought of a future 
involving a watch on every new product introduction easily convinces 
manufacturers and importers that co-operation is the best policy.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU Enforcement of CE Marking Directives

Hi,

I am interested in understanding how stringent the enforcement of CE marking 
directives is within the EU.  Is there someplace where we can find enforcement 
actions that have been taken against companies for placing products on the 
market that don't fully meet the applicable Directives?   I am most interested 
in the EMC, LVD, MD, and R Directives.

Thank you.

Jim Hulbert




-


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 >
-


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 >

NOTICE: This email may contain confidential information.  Please see 
http://www.meyersound.com/confidential/ for our complete policy.

-

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] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts

[John Woodgate]

RE: finding the temperature at which the 2.0 mm dimple forms.
 
I suspect that was abandoned because it's almost impossible to do in practice. 
In any case, it's not what you want to know for safety purposes. You want to 
know what the current test tells you; is the material overly soft at 125 C.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 10:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts
 
Kristiaan –
 
Most of the responses agree with my understanding.
 
I will add that my recollection of the origins of the test in 60950 was related 
to electrical connections under compressive loading where the compression is 
needed to establish and ensure an electrical connection. Some custom made 
terminal blocks were made using inexpensive materials, including polyamide 
without inorganic fillers (like glass). As time moved on, the application of 
the testing expanded to cover other design features.
 
http://www.ulttc.com/en/solutions/test-methods/physical/ball-pressure-test.html
 
It appears the testing was simplified to a single temperature with the 
pass/fail criterion simply being the 2.0 mm diameter dimple, rather than 
finding the temperature at which the 2.0 mm dimple forms.
 
Maybe Pete Perkins or Rich Knute recall further back than I do.
 
 
Peter Tarver
 
From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 05:58
 
Hi group,
 
Does any-one know the reason/background of the ball pressure test of 
thermoplastic parts (IEC60950-1, clause 4.5.5) and the chosen temperature of 
125C.
This test is performed - for example – on the plastic parts of a direct plug-in 
power supply as these parts “carry” the mains power supply pins. I can’t 
imagine a situation there that requires such a test and certainly not at 125C.  
Thanks for your feedback!
 
Best regards
Kris Carpentier
-
 
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message! 
-

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  > 

-

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] EU Enforcement of CE Marking Directives

[John Woodgate]

The stringency, and the enforcement procedures, vary in the different Member
States. For example, in Britain, prosecution is a last resort, because it is
very costly and the outcome may be uncertain. But the authorities can be
VERY persuasive. Non-compliant products are confiscated, and the thought of
a future involving a watch on every new product introduction easily
convinces manufacturers and importers that co-operation is the best policy.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU Enforcement of CE Marking Directives
 
Hi,
 
I am interested in understanding how stringent the enforcement of CE marking
directives is within the EU.  Is there someplace where we can find
enforcement actions that have been taken against companies for placing
products on the market that don't fully meet the applicable Directives?   I
am most interested in the EMC, LVD, MD, and R Directives.
 
Thank you.
 
Jim Hulbert
 
 
  _  

 
-

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  > 

-

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] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts

[Peter Tarver]

Kristiaan –

Most of the responses agree with my understanding.

I will add that my recollection of the origins of the test in 60950 was related 
to electrical connections under compressive loading where the compression is 
needed to establish and ensure an electrical connection. Some custom made 
terminal blocks were made using inexpensive materials, including polyamide 
without inorganic fillers (like glass). As time moved on, the application of 
the testing expanded to cover other design features.

http://www.ulttc.com/en/solutions/test-methods/physical/ball-pressure-test.html

It appears the testing was simplified to a single temperature with the 
pass/fail criterion simply being the 2.0 mm diameter dimple, rather than 
finding the temperature at which the 2.0 mm dimple forms.

Maybe Pete Perkins or Rich Knute recall further back than I do.


Peter Tarver

From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 05:58

Hi group,

Does any-one know the reason/background of the ball pressure test of 
thermoplastic parts (IEC60950-1, clause 4.5.5) and the chosen temperature of 
125C.
This test is performed - for example – on the plastic parts of a direct plug-in 
power supply as these parts “carry” the mains power supply pins. I can’t 
imagine a situation there that requires such a test and certainly not at 125C.
Thanks for your feedback!

Best regards
Kris Carpentier
-

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] EU Enforcement of CE Marking Directives

[Jim Hulbert]

Hi,

I am interested in understanding how stringent the enforcement of CE marking 
directives is within the EU.  Is there someplace where we can find enforcement 
actions that have been taken against companies for placing products on the 
market that don't fully meet the applicable Directives?   I am most interested 
in the EMC, LVD, MD, and R Directives.

Thank you.

Jim Hulbert





-

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] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

[John Allen]

Evening all

 

The Wheelmark Directive did cross my mind earlier at the time of the question 
but I was too “lazy” to follow-up on it right then! L (and I was busy working 
on installing another satellite dish – which my wife hates!!)

 

The Wheelmark comes under Directive 2014/90/EU “DIRECTIVE 2014/90/EU OF THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 July 2014 on marine equipment and 
repealing Council Directive 96/98/EC (Text with EEA relevance)”

 

The Scope is 

“Article 3

Scope

1. This Directive shall apply to equipment placed or to be placed on board an 
EU ship and for which the approval of the flag State administration is required 
by the international instruments, regardless of whether the ship is situated in 
the Union at the time when it is fitted with the equipment.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that the equipment referred to in paragraph 1 may 
also fall within the scope of instruments of Union law other than this 
Directive, that equipment shall, for the purpose set out in Article 1, be 
subject only to this Directive.”

 

Looks a bit different to many other Directives in that it seems that the 
standards and requirements are listed in the various Amendments to the 
Directive rather than as lists of Harmonised Standards per the CE marking 
Directives – so that’s where you need to look!

 

John E Allen

W.London UK

 

 

From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com] 
Sent: 25 August 2016 14:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

 

John,

 

For marine applications, there is a “Wheelmark” that may be applicable in place 
of CE Marking. I don’t know too much about it, other than to say that I have 
run across references to it.

 

Doug Nix

d...@mac.com

 

"If people don’t have an understanding of what science is and what scientists 
do, then they can tend to think that global warming, for example, is just a 
matter of opinion."

 

Brian Cox in Seed magazine

 

 

 

On 25-Aug-16, at 08:27, Charlie Blackham  wrote:

 

John

 

The rumour may be based on some fact, but might not be applicable to your 
product

 

MD Article 1. 2. The following are excluded from the scope of this Directive:

(f) seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units and machinery installed on board 
such vessels and/or units;

(g) machinery specially designed and constructed for military or police 
purposes;

 

 

Clarified in the guide:

§ 58 Seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units and machinery installed on

board such vessels and/or units

Seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units such as, for example, mobile 
drilling rigs, and machinery installed on them are excluded from the scope of 
the Machinery Directive by Article 1 (2) (f) since they are subject to the 
Conventions of the International Maritime Organisation.

Some of the equipment concerned by this exclusion may also be subject to the 
Marine Equipment Directive 96/98/EC18 as amended by Directive 2002/75/EC19 A 
mobile offshore unit is an offshore unit that is not intended to be located on 
the oil field permanently or for the long term, but is designed to be moved 
from location to location, whether or not it has a means of propulsion or of 
lowering legs to the seafloor.

However, floating units intended for production, such as, for example, FPSOs 
(Floating Production, Storage and Offloading installations - usually based on 
tanker designs) and FPPs (Floating Production Platforms - based on 
semi-submersible vessels) and the machinery installed on such units are not 
excluded from the scope of the Machinery Directive.

Machinery intended to be installed on fixed offshore platforms such as, for 
example, oil production rigs, and machinery which may be used on both fixed and 
mobile offshore units is also subject to the Machinery Directive.

 

§ 59 Machinery for military or police purposes

The exclusion set out in Article 1 (2) (g) applies to machinery specially 
designed and constructed for defence purposes or for the purpose of maintaining 
order. Ordinary machinery used by the armed forces or by the police but which 
is not specially designed for defence purposes or for the purpose of 
maintaining order is subject to the Machinery Directive.

In some countries, certain fire services belong to the military, however 
machinery designed for use by such fire-fighters is not thereby considered to 
be designed and constructed for military purposes and is thus subject to the 
Machinery Directive.

 

Regards

Charlie

 

From: John Allen [  
mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] 
Sent: 25 August 2016 12:52
To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

 

Hi,

 

We're working with a client that supplies Oil Spill response equipment.  We're 
evaluating the pumps and systems to the Machinery Directive, among others.  
However, I 

Re: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

[Douglas Nix]

John,

For marine applications, there is a “Wheelmark” that may be applicable in place 
of CE Marking. I don’t know too much about it, other than to say that I have 
run across references to it.

Doug Nix
d...@mac.com

"If people don’t have an understanding of what science is and what scientists 
do, then they can tend to think that global warming, for example, is just a 
matter of opinion."

Brian Cox in Seed magazine



> On 25-Aug-16, at 08:27, Charlie Blackham  wrote:
> 
> John
>  
> The rumour may be based on some fact, but might not be applicable to your 
> product
>  
> MD Article 1. 2. The following are excluded from the scope of this Directive:
> (f) seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units and machinery installed on 
> board such vessels and/or units;
> (g) machinery specially designed and constructed for military or police 
> purposes;
>  
>  
> Clarified in the guide:
> § 58 Seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units and machinery installed on
> board such vessels and/or units
> Seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units such as, for example, mobile 
> drilling rigs, and machinery installed on them are excluded from the scope of 
> the Machinery Directive by Article 1 (2) (f) since they are subject to the 
> Conventions of the International Maritime Organisation.
> Some of the equipment concerned by this exclusion may also be subject to the 
> Marine Equipment Directive 96/98/EC18 as amended by Directive 2002/75/EC19 A 
> mobile offshore unit is an offshore unit that is not intended to be located 
> on the oil field permanently or for the long term, but is designed to be 
> moved from location to location, whether or not it has a means of propulsion 
> or of lowering legs to the seafloor.
> However, floating units intended for production, such as, for example, FPSOs 
> (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading installations - usually based on 
> tanker designs) and FPPs (Floating Production Platforms - based on 
> semi-submersible vessels) and the machinery installed on such units are not 
> excluded from the scope of the Machinery Directive.
> Machinery intended to be installed on fixed offshore platforms such as, for 
> example, oil production rigs, and machinery which may be used on both fixed 
> and mobile offshore units is also subject to the Machinery Directive.
>  
> § 59 Machinery for military or police purposes
> The exclusion set out in Article 1 (2) (g) applies to machinery specially 
> designed and constructed for defence purposes or for the purpose of 
> maintaining order. Ordinary machinery used by the armed forces or by the 
> police but which is not specially designed for defence purposes or for the 
> purpose of maintaining order is subject to the Machinery Directive.
> In some countries, certain fire services belong to the military, however 
> machinery designed for use by such fire-fighters is not thereby considered to 
> be designed and constructed for military purposes and is thus subject to the 
> Machinery Directive.
>  
> Regards
> Charlie
>  
> From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com 
> ] 
> Sent: 25 August 2016 12:52
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> Subject: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??
>  
> Hi,
>  
> We're working with a client that supplies Oil Spill response equipment.  
> We're evaluating the pumps and systems to the Machinery Directive, among 
> others.  However, I heard a "rumor" there is an exemption for Emergency 
> Response Equipment.  Has anyone heard this or knows of this exemption?  I 
> searched on europa and cannot find anything.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> John
>  
>  
>  
> John Allen | President | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.
> Your Outsourced Compliance Department®
> http://www.productsafetyinc.com 
> 630-238-0188
>  
> Visit us at the D2P Show in Marlborough, MA.
> Booth 537 Sept 28th & 29th
>  
> -
> 
> 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:
> 

Re: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

[john Allen]

Charlie & Friends

 

Whilst those exemptions do exist, the reality is, or could well be, that
other requirements will come into play:

-  The shipping assessment bodies (Bureau Veritas, Lloyds, DNV,
etc.) will have their requirements which could well parallel requirements to
those of the MD – therefore, in this instance, John A in the States should
get his customer to discuss these aspects with their own customers who will
operate any vessels on which the equipment is to installed.

-  The majority of European Armed Forces will require rigorous
documented safety assessment processes, such as the UK MoD Safety Case
requirements, and might even require MD compliance, albeit with possible
detail exemptions where compliance cannot be achieved because of
role-specific requirements which take an equipment outside permissible MD
limitations.

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: 25 August 2016 13:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

 

John

 

The rumour may be based on some fact, but might not be applicable to your
product

 

MD Article 1. 2. The following are excluded from the scope of this
Directive:

(f) seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units and machinery installed on
board such vessels and/or units;

(g) machinery specially designed and constructed for military or police
purposes;

 

 

Clarified in the guide:

§ 58 Seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units and machinery installed on

board such vessels and/or units

Seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units such as, for example, mobile
drilling rigs, and machinery installed on them are excluded from the scope
of the Machinery Directive by Article 1 (2) (f) since they are subject to
the Conventions of the International Maritime Organisation.

Some of the equipment concerned by this exclusion may also be subject to the
Marine Equipment Directive 96/98/EC18 as amended by Directive 2002/75/EC19 A
mobile offshore unit is an offshore unit that is not intended to be located
on the oil field permanently or for the long term, but is designed to be
moved from location to location, whether or not it has a means of propulsion
or of lowering legs to the seafloor.

However, floating units intended for production, such as, for example, FPSOs
(Floating Production, Storage and Offloading installations - usually based
on tanker designs) and FPPs (Floating Production Platforms - based on
semi-submersible vessels) and the machinery installed on such units are not
excluded from the scope of the Machinery Directive.

Machinery intended to be installed on fixed offshore platforms such as, for
example, oil production rigs, and machinery which may be used on both fixed
and mobile offshore units is also subject to the Machinery Directive.

 

§ 59 Machinery for military or police purposes

The exclusion set out in Article 1 (2) (g) applies to machinery specially
designed and constructed for defence purposes or for the purpose of
maintaining order. Ordinary machinery used by the armed forces or by the
police but which is not specially designed for defence purposes or for the
purpose of maintaining order is subject to the Machinery Directive.

In some countries, certain fire services belong to the military, however
machinery designed for use by such fire-fighters is not thereby considered
to be designed and constructed for military purposes and is thus subject to
the Machinery Directive.

 

Regards

Charlie

 

From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] 
Sent: 25 August 2016 12:52
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

 

Hi, 

 

We're working with a client that supplies Oil Spill response equipment.
We're evaluating the pumps and systems to the Machinery Directive, among
others.  However, I heard a "rumor" there is an exemption for Emergency
Response Equipment.  Has anyone heard this or knows of this exemption?  I
searched on europa and cannot find anything.

 

Thanks,

 

John

 

 

 

John Allen | President | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.

Your Outsourced Compliance Department®

  http://www.productsafetyinc.com

630-238-0188

 

Visit us at the D2P Show in Marlborough, MA.

Booth 537 Sept 28th & 29th

 

-


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

Re: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

[Charlie Blackham]

John

The rumour may be based on some fact, but might not be applicable to your 
product

MD Article 1. 2. The following are excluded from the scope of this Directive:
(f) seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units and machinery installed on board 
such vessels and/or units;
(g) machinery specially designed and constructed for military or police 
purposes;


Clarified in the guide:
§ 58 Seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units and machinery installed on
board such vessels and/or units
Seagoing vessels and mobile offshore units such as, for example, mobile 
drilling rigs, and machinery installed on them are excluded from the scope of 
the Machinery Directive by Article 1 (2) (f) since they are subject to the 
Conventions of the International Maritime Organisation.
Some of the equipment concerned by this exclusion may also be subject to the 
Marine Equipment Directive 96/98/EC18 as amended by Directive 2002/75/EC19 A 
mobile offshore unit is an offshore unit that is not intended to be located on 
the oil field permanently or for the long term, but is designed to be moved 
from location to location, whether or not it has a means of propulsion or of 
lowering legs to the seafloor.
However, floating units intended for production, such as, for example, FPSOs 
(Floating Production, Storage and Offloading installations - usually based on 
tanker designs) and FPPs (Floating Production Platforms - based on 
semi-submersible vessels) and the machinery installed on such units are not 
excluded from the scope of the Machinery Directive.
Machinery intended to be installed on fixed offshore platforms such as, for 
example, oil production rigs, and machinery which may be used on both fixed and 
mobile offshore units is also subject to the Machinery Directive.

§ 59 Machinery for military or police purposes
The exclusion set out in Article 1 (2) (g) applies to machinery specially 
designed and constructed for defence purposes or for the purpose of maintaining 
order. Ordinary machinery used by the armed forces or by the police but which 
is not specially designed for defence purposes or for the purpose of 
maintaining order is subject to the Machinery Directive.
In some countries, certain fire services belong to the military, however 
machinery designed for use by such fire-fighters is not thereby considered to 
be designed and constructed for military purposes and is thus subject to the 
Machinery Directive.

Regards
Charlie

From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sent: 25 August 2016 12:52
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??


Hi,



We're working with a client that supplies Oil Spill response equipment.  We're 
evaluating the pumps and systems to the Machinery Directive, among others.  
However, I heard a "rumor" there is an exemption for Emergency Response 
Equipment.  Has anyone heard this or knows of this exemption?  I searched on 
europa and cannot find anything.



Thanks,



John







John Allen | President | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.

Your Outsourced Compliance Department®

http://www.productsafetyinc.com

630-238-0188



Visit us at the D2P Show in Marlborough, MA.

Booth 537 Sept 28th & 29th

-


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 >

-

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

[PSES] Oil Spill recovery equipment for CE - Exemption??

[John Allen]

Hi,


We're working with a client that supplies Oil Spill response equipment.  We're 
evaluating the pumps and systems to the Machinery Directive, among others.  
However, I heard a "rumor" there is an exemption for Emergency Response 
Equipment.  Has anyone heard this or knows of this exemption?  I searched on 
europa and cannot find anything.


Thanks,


John




John Allen | President | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.

Your Outsourced Compliance Department®

http://www.productsafetyinc.com

630-238-0188


Visit us at the D2P Show in Marlborough, MA.

Booth 537 Sept 28th & 29th


-

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] EMC & its role in reliability

[Cortland Richmond]

On 8/24/2016 8:15 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
What I meant was that with a very high volume product, it is important 
to minimize the costs associated with each product unit (recurring 
costs) and thus it would be more economical when faced with an EMC 
noncompliance to find the source and snub it, as compared to adding a 
band-aid type fix. So in this case they would go back and re-layout 
the PCB in order to reduce the source of the emissions that was being 
snubbed by the ferrite cores.  But in a very low volume product line, 
there isn’t enough volume over which to spread a nonrecurring cost 
like re-laying out a board, and it is less expensive to just add those 
ferrites and ship.


EMC compliance can be and often is a measure of quality. Compliance with 
emission standards and building for immunity requirements requires it; 
that care and diligence in design, procurement and processes, both of 
assembly and test, cannot be  achieved easily or consistently unless an 
organization is structured to include it as a matter of course.


I've been working on a paper/article how organizational structure and 
cultures can adversely affect quality, and I draw parallels to the Flint 
Michigan water crisis to point out that the rewards for being tight with 
resources, and coming in ahead of schedule and under budget promote 
disregard for risks that will actually be realized and marginal designs, 
as well as test practices that only imitate evaluation of performance a 
product is supposed to deliver.


To save $100/day, someone  decided to not require an anti-corrosive be 
added to the new water source when it was chlorinated, which resulted in 
foul-smelling and tasting biomass and skin rashes, and lead leaching 
into drinking water at levels far higher than can be tolerated, levels 
that can require lifelong monitoring of brain function for many of 
Flint's residents.   His "savings" will cost tens or hundreds of 
millions of dollars in remediation and replacement of Flint's water 
delivery system -- but it would have helped come in ahead of schedule 
and under budget.


We might look back at our own careers and be able to summon instances of 
EMC saves and successes achieved only after we've done something we were 
told not to do, or ignored organizational barriers we  weren't supposed 
to transgress.  Quality and reliability depend on how organizations 
wants to do things, and how well they keep to it.



Cortland Richmond

-

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] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Thanks all for the better insight given!

Best regards
Kris Carpentier,

From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sent: woensdag 24 augustus 2016 22:25
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts


My interpretation of the rationale is from my 60335 experience.  The idea is 
the same as Mold Stress testing.  When molded, Polymeric materials have stress 
lines/points in them.  The temperature exposure relieves these stresses which 
can move the material.  The temperature is higher for polymeric parts 
supporting live parts vs an enclosure.  We're looking for reduction of 
spacings, openings that allow the finger probe, etc.  Following is from 
IEC60335-1, 4th Edition





30.1 External parts of non-metallic material, parts of insulating material 
supporting LIVE PARTS including
connections, and parts of thermoplastic material providing SUPPLEMENTARY 
INSULATION or REINFORCED INSULATION,
shall be sufficiently resistant to heat if their deterioration could cause the 
appliance to fail to comply with
this standard.
This requirement does not apply to the insulation or sheath of flexible cords 
or internal wiring.
Compliance is checked by subjecting the relevant part to the ball-pressure test 
of IEC 60695-10-2.
The test is carried out at a temperature of 40°C ± 2°C plus the maximum 
temperature rise determined
during the test of clause 11, but it shall be at least:
- 75 °C ± 2°C, for external parts
- 125 °C ± 2°C, for parts supporting LIVE PARTS.
However, for parts of thermoplastic material providing SUPPLEMENTARY INSULATION 
or REINFORCED INSULATION, the
test is carried out at a temperature of 25°C ± 2°C plus the maximum temperature 
rise determined during
the tests of clause 19, if this is higher. The temperature rises of 19.4 are 
not taken into account provided
that the test is terminated by the operation of a NON-SELF-RESETTING PROTECTIVE 
DEVICE and it is necessary to
remove a cover or use a TOOL to reset it.








John Allen | President | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.

Your Outsourced Compliance Department®

http://www.productsafetyinc.com

630-238-0188



Visit us at the D2P Show in Marlborough, MA.

Booth 537 Sept 28th & 29th





From: Covell, Richard >
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 3:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts


Kris-

The answers that others have provided are generally on point.

The methodology for performing this test emanates from 60695-10-2. The IECEE, 
CTL has issued a decision sheet (DSH 391C) after feedback on proficiency 
testing some years back.

You might find it an interesting read.

 http://decisions.iecee.org/iecee/SearchCMC.nsf/de_h.xsp?v=ctl

Due to the layout of the site you'll have to enter in the decision sheet # in 
the Ref. Number area.



Best Regards

Rick Covell











From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts



Hi group,



Does any-one know the reason/background of the ball pressure test of 
thermoplastic parts (IEC60950-1, clause 4.5.5) and the chosen temperature of 
125C.

This test is performed - for example - on the plastic parts of a direct plug-in 
power supply as these parts "carry" the mains power supply pins. I can't 
imagine a situation there that requires such a test and certainly not at 125C.

Thanks for your feedback!



Best regards

Kris Carpentier

-


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 >
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your