date:20161213

Re: [PSES] UL Go?

2016-12-13 Thread Peter Tarver

My experience to date is that UL only has knowledge being advertised below for 
only specific product categories/countries/markets. I have witnessed/heard 
claims of expertise that when it comes time to take action, they know less than 
the client does.

When asked to provide a list of competencies relative to several countries' 
requirements for grid compliance of distributed generators, we received an 
exorbitant quote for UL to research their own capabilities.

I have been less than impressed so far with such claims of aid, so I'm 
reluctant to entertain a subscription service.


Peter Tarver

From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 09:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL Go?

Has anyone taken a look at this? It was just sent to me by my UL representative.

Here is the text, as I do not think I can send an attachment:

UL-Go
For more information, contact us today at g...@ul.com
What is UL-Go?
UL-Go is an online subscription service created to solve your problems for 
finding
current, correct and complete Global Market Access (GMA) regulatory requirements
that apply to your products for the countries you're selling or wish to sell to.
What GMA Information is provided in UL-Go?
In partnership with UL, UL-Go can be customized to meet your company's
specific needs.
* This means you tell us the products, countries and regulations you want access
to, and we'll provide you with in-effect regulations (updated quarterly) as 
well as
updates on developing requirements.*
* We provide you with the expertly organized information you'll need to 
understand
the impacts each regulation has on your product, country by country.
Is UL-Go a new Service Offering?
Yes, UL-Go is a pilot product launched with comprehensive regulatory 
information and great features and functionality. As a pilot
participant, you can help us develop UL-Go in a way that will deliver even more 
value to you!
Partner with UL
Identify your most important needs, and help validate our solutions.
* What's first on your list? Do you to know the GMA services UL provides or do 
you need mobile alerts or do you want collaborations
spaces that will help you get to your markets faster?
* We've got the basics right - now let's get the interactions right!
Are there additional benefits to subscribing to UL-Go?
* You can make side-by-side comparisons for up to three countries 
simultaneously.
* You can download, print or share results easily and bookmark your favorite 
searches.
* Your global staff can have unlimited access to GMA information they can have 
confidence in.
What does it cost to subscribe to UL-Go?
* Each subscription will be quoted separately based on your selections.
* UL-Go is a customizable subscription-you select the countries and products 
you want access to for the regulations you need most.
What if I want only a one-time delivery of the latest regulatory requirements?
We're happy to provide one-time GMA research to you at any time. Just select 
the products and countries you are interested in receiving
regulation information about, and we will provide you with a quote for services.
UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC (c) 2016

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may 
contain proprietary and privileged information for the use of the designated 
recipients named above. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
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 >

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,

Re: [PSES] UL Go?

2016-12-13 Thread Ted Eckert

It’s like the standard Pokémon Go game, except that when you take your Pokémon 
to a gym, you get points for training them in RoHS, WEEE, LVD, EMC and RED. 
There are additional species of Pokémon available, including the ISO 17025 
auditor, EMC lab technician and the old-time expert who drinks coffee all day 
and tells you what it was like running testing when he was young.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer, Nintendo, Niantic or my boss who like to tell me what it was like to 
run testing when he was young.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] UL Go?

Can someone explain to me exactly how I use this to collect Pokémon?

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Kortas, Jamison 
> wrote:
Has anyone taken a look at this? It was just sent to me by my UL representative.

Here is the text, as I do not think I can send an attachment:

UL-Go
For more information, contact us today at g...@ul.com
What is UL-Go?
UL-Go is an online subscription service created to solve your problems for 
finding
current, correct and complete Global Market Access (GMA) regulatory requirements
that apply to your products for the countries you’re selling or wish to sell to.
What GMA Information is provided in UL-Go?
In partnership with UL, UL-Go can be customized to meet your company’s
specific needs.
• This means you tell us the products, countries and regulations you want access
to, and we’ll provide you with in-effect regulations (updated quarterly) as 
well as
updates on developing requirements.*
• We provide you with the expertly organized information you’ll need to 
understand
the impacts each regulation has on your product, country by country.
Is UL-Go a new Service Offering?
Yes, UL-Go is a pilot product launched with comprehensive regulatory 
information and great features and functionality. As a pilot
participant, you can help us develop UL-Go in a way that will deliver even more 
value to you!
Partner with UL
Identify your most important needs, and help validate our solutions.
• What’s first on your list? Do you to know the GMA services UL provides or do 
you need mobile alerts or do you want collaborations
spaces that will help you get to your markets faster?
• We’ve got the basics right – now let’s get the interactions right!
Are there additional benefits to subscribing to UL-Go?
• You can make side-by-side comparisons for up to three countries 
simultaneously.
• You can download, print or share results easily and bookmark your favorite 
searches.
• Your global staff can have unlimited access to GMA information they can have 
confidence in.
What does it cost to subscribe to UL-Go?
• Each subscription will be quoted separately based on your selections.
• UL-Go is a customizable subscription—you select the countries and products 
you want access to for the regulations you need most.
What if I want only a one-time delivery of the latest regulatory requirements?
We’re happy to provide one-time GMA research to you at any time. Just select 
the products and countries you are interested in receiving
regulation information about, and we will provide you with a quote for services.
UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2016

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may 
contain proprietary and privileged information for the use of the designated 
recipients named above. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
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 
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

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

2016-12-13 Thread Ralph McDiarmid

I liked the "AlumiConn" connector mentioned in that paper.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




-Original Message-
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 4:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

The CPSC has more details on residential issues and repairs for aluminum wiring.
https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/118856/516.pdf

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 3:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

The coefficients of expansion are sufficiently different between aluminum and 
traditional wiring devices that connections would go loose over time, yielding 
a resistive connection and fire.

The outer surface of aluminum is aluminum oxide, a non-conductor.  To make a 
low-resistance electrical connection, the termination must break through the 
oxide.  (Oxidation is almost instantaneous; welding of aluminum must be done in 
an inert atmosphere.)

Best wishes for the holiday season,
Rich

> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid
> [mailto:Ralph.McDiarmid@SCHNEIDER-
> ELECTRIC.COM]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:50 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
>
> I've just come across this statement in a user
manual for a
> small inverter product:
>
> "Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 more
resistance
> than copper cable of the same size, and it is
difficult to
> make good,
> low-resistance connections to aluminum wire"
>
> I think both statements are wrong.  Science Data
Book by
> Oliver, lists resistivity of aluminum at
about 1.5X
> that of copper.  And, I don't see why electrical
connections
> would be less reliable using aluminum, although,
I do
> remember household wiring in the USA was done
with Al
> some years ago with questionable success.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
>
> 
>  This message was scanned by Exchange Online
Protection
> Services.
> 
>
> -
>
--
--
> 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: 

-

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

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

2016-12-13 Thread Ralph McDiarmid

I surprised it would have ever been 'code compliant' for building wiring.  Its 
properties must have been well understood long ago.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 6:45 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

Even 1.5 is a bit optimistic. Data in BS 7671 on voltage drop gives values 
around 1.7 for the ratio, for  the metals in the metallurgical conditions 
actually used in cables.

Aluminium wires tend to deform under contact pressure, thus relaxing the 
pressure and raising the contact resistance.

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.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 7:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

I've just come across this statement in a user manual for a small inverter
product:

"Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 more resistance than copper cable of the 
same size, and it is difficult to make good, low-resistance connections to 
aluminum wire"

I think both statements are wrong.  Science Data Book by Oliver, lists 
resistivity of aluminum at about 1.5X that of copper.  And, I don't see why 
electrical connections would be less reliable using aluminum, although, I do 
remember household wiring in the USA was done with Al some years ago with 
questionable success.

Thoughts?

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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] aluminum vs copper wiring

2016-12-13 Thread Adam Dixon

For related reading, there are reference materials from the Alumin(i)um
Association.  The handbook is a scanned copy of the 3rd edition (1989) and
is large (21.5MB). Some of the other links may be helpful as well.

http://www.aluminum.org/resources/electrical-faqs-and-handbooks/electrical


Regards,
Adam in Atlanta




On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Nyffenegger, Dave <
dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com> wrote:

> As was mentioned AL is still used for large conductors 50A or more for
> stoves/ovens/range/generator hookup, feeders to additional breaker panels.
> The service connections from the power company to the meter base and from
> meter base to main breaker are AL.  These are typically all lug connections.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 4:45 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
>
> Many people think it was a mistake to introduce it for low-current cables.
> Big cables that use swaged connectors are another matter.
>
> 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.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:38 PM
> To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
>
> I surprised it would have ever been 'code compliant' for building wiring.
> Its properties must have been well understood long ago.
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 6:45 PM
> To: Ralph McDiarmid ;
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
>
> Even 1.5 is a bit optimistic. Data in BS 7671 on voltage drop gives values
> around 1.7 for the ratio, for  the metals in the metallurgical conditions
> actually used in cables.
>
> Aluminium wires tend to deform under contact pressure, thus relaxing the
> pressure and raising the contact resistance.
>
> 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.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 7:50 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring
>
> I've just come across this statement in a user manual for a small inverter
> product:
>
> "Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 more resistance than copper cable
> of the same size, and it is difficult to make good, low-resistance
> connections to aluminum wire"
>
> I think both statements are wrong.  Science Data Book by Oliver,
> lists resistivity of aluminum at about 1.5X that of copper.  And, I don't
> see why electrical connections would be less reliable using aluminum,
> although, I do remember household wiring in the USA was done with Al some
> years ago with questionable success.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
>
> 
>  This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.
> 
>
> -
> 
> 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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> __
> 
>  This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.
> 
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society

[PSES] Positive Mechanical Action Interlock Switches

2016-12-13 Thread Kunde, Brian

Experts,

I have seen Interlock circuits using "interlock switches" (as specified by 
their manufacture), on doors, panels, and guards with hazards behind them that 
were NOT "Positive Mechanical Action" (PMA) switches. (Also known as Direct 
Contact, Forced Break, Direct opening action, Positive open action, 
Positive-mode operation, etc.).

So I'm confused. When do you have to use a PMA switch (sensor) and when it is 
ok not to?

Then there are Non-Contact switches such as Magnetic Interlock Switches. Are 
these PMA? I do not see how. But I see magnetic switches used as Safety 
Interlock Switches also.

What if you use two switches (double fault required)? Can you get away from PMA 
switches?


Also, I cannot see how a PMA switch (sensor) can be used on a removable guard 
or panel. I see examples of a cam with a notch used on hinges of doors, but how 
are they used on a panel or guard? It seems to me as if it is impossible.


Also, as many of you know, our company makes Laboratory Equipment (Test & 
Measurement) which has a Family Standard of EN 61010-1. It says nothing about 
PMA switches. Only that a Single Fault is Unlikely to occur.  Products with 
moving parts fall under the Machinery Directive in Europe but the EN 61010-1 
Safety Standard is not Harmonized (It is harmonized to the LVD).  A major 
problem I often have is with inspectors who try to apply Industrial Machinery 
standards to our products as if it is a factory machine run by uneducated 
employees.  They expect us to use expensive Sensors, Switches, PLCs, Control 
logic, etc. like what you would use in an industrial machine.  It is difficult 
to explain to inspectors that operators of our equipment are trained and 
expected to have access to hazards that would not be allowed in a factory 
environment.

Now I'm rambling.  Sorry.

Thanks to all for any explanation or guidance you can provide.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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] aluminum vs copper wiring

2016-12-13 Thread Nyffenegger, Dave

As was mentioned AL is still used for large conductors 50A or more for 
stoves/ovens/range/generator hookup, feeders to additional breaker panels.  The 
service connections from the power company to the meter base and from meter 
base to main breaker are AL.  These are typically all lug connections.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 4:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

Many people think it was a mistake to introduce it for low-current cables.
Big cables that use swaged connectors are another matter.

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.

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:38 PM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

I surprised it would have ever been 'code compliant' for building wiring.
Its properties must have been well understood long ago.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 6:45 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

Even 1.5 is a bit optimistic. Data in BS 7671 on voltage drop gives values 
around 1.7 for the ratio, for  the metals in the metallurgical conditions 
actually used in cables.

Aluminium wires tend to deform under contact pressure, thus relaxing the 
pressure and raising the contact resistance.

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.

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 7:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

I've just come across this statement in a user manual for a small inverter
product:

"Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 more resistance than copper cable of the 
same size, and it is difficult to make good, low-resistance connections to 
aluminum wire"

I think both statements are wrong.  Science Data Book by Oliver, lists 
resistivity of aluminum at about 1.5X that of copper.  And, I don't see why 
electrical connections would be less reliable using aluminum, although, I do 
remember household wiring in the USA was done with Al some years ago with 
questionable success.

Thoughts?

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.

-

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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.

-

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

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

2016-12-13 Thread John Woodgate

Many people think it was a mistake to introduce it for low-current cables.
Big cables that use swaged connectors are another matter.

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.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:38 PM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

I surprised it would have ever been 'code compliant' for building wiring.
Its properties must have been well understood long ago.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 6:45 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

Even 1.5 is a bit optimistic. Data in BS 7671 on voltage drop gives values
around 1.7 for the ratio, for  the metals in the metallurgical conditions
actually used in cables.

Aluminium wires tend to deform under contact pressure, thus relaxing the
pressure and raising the contact resistance.

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.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 7:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

I've just come across this statement in a user manual for a small inverter
product:

"Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 more resistance than copper cable of
the same size, and it is difficult to make good, low-resistance connections
to aluminum wire"

I think both statements are wrong.  Science Data Book by Oliver, lists
resistivity of aluminum at about 1.5X that of copper.  And, I don't see why
electrical connections would be less reliable using aluminum, although, I do
remember household wiring in the USA was done with Al some years ago with
questionable success.

Thoughts?

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__

 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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] UL Go?

2016-12-13 Thread IBM Ken

Can someone explain to me exactly how I use this to collect Pokémon?

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Kortas, Jamison  wrote:

> Has anyone taken a look at this? It was just sent to me by my UL
> representative.
>
>
>
> Here is the text, as I do not think I can send an attachment:
>
>
>
> *UL-**Go*
>
> For more information, contact us today at g...@ul.com
>
> *What is UL**-Go**?*
>
> UL*-Go *is an online subscription service created to solve your problems
> for finding
>
> current, correct and complete Global Market Access (GMA) regulatory
> requirements
>
> that apply to your products for the countries you’re selling or wish to
> sell to.
>
> *What GMA Information is provided in UL**-Go**?*
>
> In partnership with UL, UL*-Go *can be customized to meet your company’s
>
> specific needs.
>
> • This means you tell us the products, countries and regulations you want
> access
>
> to, and we’ll provide you with in-effect regulations (updated quarterly)
> as well as
>
> updates on developing requirements.*
>
> • We provide you with the expertly organized information you’ll need to
> understand
>
> the impacts each regulation has on your product, country by country.
>
> *Is UL**-Go **a new Service Offering?*
>
> Yes, UL*-Go *is a pilot product launched with comprehensive regulatory
> information and great features and functionality. As a pilot
>
> participant, you can help us develop UL*-Go *in a way that will deliver
> even more value to you!
>
> *Partner with UL*
>
> Identify your most important needs, and help validate our solutions.
>
> • What’s first on your list? Do you to know the GMA services UL provides
> or do you need mobile alerts or do you want collaborations
>
> spaces that will help you get to your markets faster?
>
> • We’ve got the basics right – now let’s get the interactions right!
>
> *Are there additional benefits to subscribing to UL**-Go**?*
>
> • You can make side-by-side comparisons for up to three countries
> simultaneously.
>
> • You can download, print or share results easily and bookmark your
> favorite searches.
>
> • Your global staff can have unlimited access to GMA information they can
> have confidence in.
>
> *What does it cost to subscribe to UL**-Go**?*
>
> • Each subscription will be quoted separately based on your selections.
>
> • UL*-Go *is a customizable subscription—you select the countries and
> products you want access to for the regulations you need most.
>
> *What if I want only a one-time delivery of the latest regulatory
> requirements?*
>
> We’re happy to provide one-time GMA research to you at any time. Just
> select the products and countries you are interested in receiving
>
> regulation information about, and we will provide you with a quote for
> services.
>
> UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2016
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may
> contain proprietary and privileged information for the use of the
> designated recipients named above. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
> or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
> original 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 
> 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 


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

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

2016-12-13 Thread Andrew Wood

Just to add a bit more information, not directly related to the original 
application mentioned - but might be of interest to Engineering minds... 
Aluminium gets a couple of mentions in standards related to Explosive 
Atmospheres/Hazardous Locations.

>From IEC 60079-14 Electrical installations design, selection and erection:
9 Cable systems
9.2 Aluminium conductors
Where aluminium is used as the conductor material, it shall be used only with 
suitable
connections and, with the exceptions of intrinsically safe and energy-limited 
installations, shall
have a cross-sectional area of at least 16 mm2.

Connections shall ensure that the required creepage and clearance distances 
will not be
reduced by the additional means which are required for connecting aluminium 
conductors.

Minimum creepage and clearance distances may be determined by the voltage level 
and/or
the requirements of the type of protection.

Precautions against electrolytic corrosion shall be considered.


And from IEC 60079-15 which covers the specific protection concept of 
non-sparking:
Underneath 7.1 General requirements for connections facilities and terminal 
compartments is Note 1:
NOTE 1 The use of aluminium wire may cause difficulties by compromising 
critical creepage and clearance
distances when anti-oxidant materials are applied. The connection of aluminium 
wire to terminals may be
accomplished by the use of suitable bi-metallic connection devices providing a 
copper connection to the terminal.


Best Regards,

 Andrew Wood
Compliance Manager - Hazardous Areas

LAND Instruments International | Stubley Lane, Dronfield, Derbyshire, S18 1DJ, 
England
DDI: +44 (0)1246 581592  | E-mail: andrew.w...@ametek.com| Web: www.landinst.com

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: 12 December 2016 19:50
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [Marketing Mail] Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

I've just come across this statement in a user manual for a small inverter 
product:

"Do not use aluminum. It has about 1/3 more resistance than copper cable of the 
same size, and it is difficult to make good, low-resistance connections to 
aluminum wire"

I think both statements are wrong.  Science Data Book by Oliver, lists 
resistivity of aluminum at about 1.5X that of copper.  And, I don't see why 
electrical connections would be less reliable using aluminum, although, I do 
remember household wiring in the USA was done with Al some years ago with 
questionable success.

Thoughts?

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




 This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services.


-

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] UL Go?

Re: [PSES] UL Go?

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

[PSES] Positive Mechanical Action Interlock Switches

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

Re: [PSES] UL Go?

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

10 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information