Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[Boštjan Glavič]

As mentioned by Carl, V-0 is more stringent requirement than V-1. Where is 
confusion?

Best regards,
Boštjan



From: John Woodgate 
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion


Can you please share the format of your 'document and worded' exercise? I might 
be able to get at lease a small part of IEC interested in it.
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only 
www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE 
WITH YOU
On 2020-05-06 20:40, John E Allen wrote:
IMHO & TBH. I encountered such inconsistencies in IEC standards too many times 
- which was why I "dissected" several standards (notably 60950, 60204 and 
61010-1), rigourously followed the various cross-references, and then 
documented and worded them in a form that would allow your ("average" in safety 
compliance issues but otherwise very competent!) development engineers to 
understand and then meet the  requirements of the standards in question.

Great pity that the IEC tech committees never seem to do the thing - but, if 
they did then their standards and Technical Report formats would be far more 
easily and clearly understood by everyone!

John E Allen
W.London, UK.

From: John Woodgate 
Sent: 06 May 2020 19:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion


This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It is 
extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and back 
cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to multiple 
annexes, to ensure internal consistency.
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only 
www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE 
WITH YOU
On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:

I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind 62368-1,  in 
sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014 edition.

Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, "Fire 
spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of the following 
supplementary safeguards:".  In that clause it includes, "by providing a fire 
enclosure as specified in 6.4.8."

Clause 6.4.8.2.2,  Requirements for a fire enclosure, states "For circuits 
where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 6.4.1), a fire enclosure 
shall comply with the requirements of Clause S.1."  That clause then goes on to 
say that V-1 is acceptable

Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire enclosure and a 
fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of the S.2 flame test, 
which I believe is less demanding in that only a 60 s flame is applied rather 
than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1 test method.  Clause 6.4.8.4 then goes 
on to state that a V-0 material is excluded from the requirement.  So unless 
I'm mistaken, this clause 6.4.8.4 (which addresses separation) is requiring a 
lesser flame requirement than S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0, but not V-1.

I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The most 
fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4 allow the S.2 test 
method?

Thanks,

Carl
-


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 
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 
mailto: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)

Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[John Woodgate]

Can you please share the format of your 'document and worded' exercise? 
I might be able to get at lease a small part of IEC interested in it.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 20:40, John E Allen wrote:


IMHO & TBH. I encountered such inconsistencies in IEC standards too 
many times – which was why I “dissected” several standards (notably 
60950, 60204 and 61010-1), rigourously followed the various 
cross-references, and then documented and worded them in a form that 
would allow your (“average” in safety compliance issues but otherwise 
very competent!) development engineers to understand and then meet the 
 requirements of the standards in question.


Great pity that the IEC tech committees /never /seem to do the thing - 
but, if they did then their standards and Technical Report formats 
would be far more easily and clearly understood by /_everyone_/_!_


__

John E Allen

W.London, UK.

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* 06 May 2020 19:45
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. 
It is extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of 
forward and back cross references, and text pushed off from its 
primary context to multiple annexes, to ensure internal consistency.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
 Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU


On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:

I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind
62368-1,  in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the
2014 edition.

Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states
that, "/Fire spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by
applying all of the following supplementary safeguards/:".  In
that clause it includes, "/by providing a fire enclosure as
specified in 6.4.8./"

Clause 6.4.8.2.2, /Requirements for a fire enclosure/, states
"/For circuits where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W
(see 6.4.1), a fire enclosure shall comply with the requirements
of Clause S.1./"  That clause then goes on to say that V-1 is
acceptable

Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire
enclosure and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the
application of the S.2 flame test, which I believe is less
demanding in that only a 60 s flame is applied rather than three
steps up to 120 s for the S.1 test method.  Clause 6.4.8.4 then
goes on to state that a V-0 material is excluded from the
requirement.  So unless I'm mistaken, this clause 6.4.8.4 (which
addresses separation) is requiring a lesser flame requirement than
S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0, but not V-1.

I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The
most fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4
allow the S.2 test method?

Thanks,

Carl

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail 

Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[John E Allen]

IMHO & TBH. I encountered such inconsistencies in IEC standards too many
times - which was why I "dissected" several standards (notably 60950, 60204
and 61010-1), rigourously followed the various cross-references, and then
documented and worded them in a form that would allow your ("average" in
safety compliance issues but otherwise very competent!) development
engineers to understand and then meet the  requirements of the standards in
question.

 

Great pity that the IEC tech committees never seem to do the thing - but, if
they did then their standards and Technical Report formats would be far more
easily and clearly understood by everyone!

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK.

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: 06 May 2020 19:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

 

This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It is
extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and back
cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to multiple
annexes, to ensure internal consistency.

Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk
  Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:

I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind 62368-1,
in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014 edition.

Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, "Fire
spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of the following
supplementary safeguards:".  In that clause it includes, "by providing a
fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8."  

Clause 6.4.8.2.2,  Requirements for a fire enclosure, states "For circuits
where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 6.4.1), a fire
enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause S.1."  That clause
then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable

Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire enclosure
and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of the S.2 flame
test, which I believe is less demanding in that only a 60 s flame is applied
rather than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1 test method.  Clause 6.4.8.4
then goes on to state that a V-0 material is excluded from the requirement.
So unless I'm mistaken, this clause 6.4.8.4 (which addresses separation) is
requiring a lesser flame requirement than S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0,
but not V-1.

I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The most
fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4 allow the S.2 test
method?

Thanks,

Carl

-


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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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 

Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[Scott Aldous]

Hi Carl,

The 2 tests have different purposes, as explained in the -2 rationale doc.
I think it's difficult to definitively state that either the S.1 test or
the S.2 test is more stringent than the other. Note that the pass/fail
criteria are different for the 2 tests, with only S.2 requiring that no
additional holes develop.

Note that a fire enclosure that does not meet PIS separation requirements
of 6.4.8.4 would have to comply with both S.1 and S.2, be rated V-1 and
comply with S.2, or be rated V-0 or better (no additional test).

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:46 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

> This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It is
> extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and back
> cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to multiple
> annexes, to ensure internal consistency.
> Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh,
> Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU
> On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind
> 62368-1,  in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014
> edition.
>
> Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, "*Fire
> spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of the following
> supplementary safeguards*:".  In that clause it includes, "*by providing
> a fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8.*"
>
> Clause 6.4.8.2.2, * Requirements for a fire enclosure*, states "*For
> circuits where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 6.4.1), a
> fire enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause S.1.*"  That
> clause then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable
>
> Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire enclosure
> and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of the S.2 flame
> test, which I believe is less demanding in that only a 60 s flame is
> applied rather than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1 test method.
> Clause 6.4.8.4 then goes on to state that a V-0 material is excluded from
> the requirement.  So unless I'm mistaken, this clause 6.4.8.4 (which
> addresses separation) is requiring a lesser flame requirement than S.1, yet
> goes on to exclude V-0, but not V-1.
>
> I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The most
> fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4 allow the S.2 test
> method?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carl
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 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
>


-- 
Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com |
 650-253-1994

-

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:  

Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[John Woodgate]

This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It 
is extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and 
back cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to 
multiple annexes, to ensure internal consistency.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:


I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind 
62368-1,  in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014 
edition.


Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, 
"/Fire spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of 
the following supplementary safeguards/:". In that clause it includes, 
"/by providing a fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8./"


Clause 6.4.8.2.2, /Requirements for a fire enclosure/, states "/For 
circuits where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 
6.4.1), a fire enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause 
S.1./"  That clause then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable


Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire 
enclosure and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of 
the S.2 flame test, which I believe is less demanding in that only a 
60 s flame is applied rather than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1 
test method.  Clause 6.4.8.4 then goes on to state that a V-0 material 
is excluded from the requirement.  So unless I'm mistaken, this clause 
6.4.8.4 (which addresses separation) is requiring a lesser flame 
requirement than S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0, but not V-1.


I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The most 
fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4 allow the S.2 
test method?


Thanks,

Carl

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

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

[PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[Carl Newton]

I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind 
62368-1,  in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014 
edition.


Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, 
"/Fire spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of the 
following supplementary safeguards/:". In that clause it includes, "/by 
providing a fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8./"


Clause 6.4.8.2.2, /Requirements for a fire enclosure/, states "/For 
circuits where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 6.4.1), 
a fire enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause S.1./"  
That clause then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable


Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire 
enclosure and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of 
the S.2 flame test, which I believe is less demanding in that only a 60 
s flame is applied rather than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1 test 
method.  Clause 6.4.8.4 then goes on to state that a V-0 material is 
excluded from the requirement.  So unless I'm mistaken, this clause 
6.4.8.4 (which addresses separation) is requiring a lesser flame 
requirement than S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0, but not V-1.


I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The most 
fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4 allow the S.2 
test method?


Thanks,

Carl


-

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] Anybody particularly adept at TESEQ Compliance5 Software?

[Michael Cantwell]

This reply is a test by one of the list admins.

Regards,
Mike



> On May 5, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Mike Violette, P.E.  wrote:
> 
> 
> Michael Violette, P.E.
> Director
> American Certification Body
> mi...@wll.com 
> +1 240-401-1388
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> 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 
> mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
> David Heald mailto: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 

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