Re: [PSES] NRTL label correction process?

[Adam Dixon]

Hi, Ken,

The products are large and returning to factory for relabeling would be
expensive.  I'm trying to get a picture to confirm, but I believe it's a
case of a wrong file/factory location number due to multiple factory
locations (i.e. an additional factory was brought online and there was a
label printing mix-up where an existing factory's template was used).  I
did recommend contacting the NTRL.  Hopefully it's not too expensive or
cumbersome to resolve.  My friend asked about re-labeling in the field
which brought the UL field modification thread to mind, but also wondered
if the NTRL's have a record-keeping process that would handle something
like this.  Thanks for the feedback and recommendation.

Regards,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:51 AM IBM Ken  wrote:

> Hi Adam;
> Is the product small/light enough that it could be returned to the factory
> for relabelling?
> What exactly is wrong with the labels?  You mentioned the ratings are
> correct.  Is the NRTL logo or file number incorrect? Some parts of the
> label may be changed without a field marking exercise, but I'd discuss this
> with the NRTL to see what they are comfortable with.
>
> -Ken A
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:05 PM Adam Dixon 
> wrote:
>
>> I'd appreciate feedback about steps to take if a small batch of labels
>> were printed/applied/shipped with an erroneous format.  A friend with whom
>> I worked years ago posed the question during a long overdue lunch.  I tried
>> searching a few NRTL sites and PSTC archives but didn't find a link or
>> documentation that I could pass along.  There was an early 2023 PSTC
>> discussion about maintaining UL label *with field modifications* but the
>> question was strictly about the label format (logo, unique ID).  The
>> power/voltage/current values are correct.  Seems like an odd case to me.
>>
>> Might anyone have a link, document or experience that would help clarify
>> the direction to take?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> Adam in Atlanta
>> adam.di...@ieee.org
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>>
>> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
>> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
>> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
>> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>>
>

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] NRTL label correction process?

[Adam Dixon]

I'd appreciate feedback about steps to take if a small batch of labels were
printed/applied/shipped with an erroneous format.  A friend with whom I
worked years ago posed the question during a long overdue lunch.  I tried
searching a few NRTL sites and PSTC archives but didn't find a link or
documentation that I could pass along.  There was an early 2023 PSTC
discussion about maintaining UL label *with field modifications* but the
question was strictly about the label format (logo, unique ID).  The
power/voltage/current values are correct.  Seems like an odd case to me.

Might anyone have a link, document or experience that would help clarify
the direction to take?

Many thanks,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] UL 510 Flame retardant tape

[Adam Dixon]

Charlie,

As the risk assessment and testing ensues, here are a few resources which
may have a bit of useful information:

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Hazardous-materials/rflithiumionbatterieshazard.ashx
-- good reference, though section on Battery Pack Enclosures is quite brief
while mentioning one industry where enclosure is tape.

https://ulstandards.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/108HBSDTVirtual_2021_04-Secretary2_minutes.docx
-- I don't have a Microsoft login (and may not have access regardless), but
these minutes have a Kapton tape example (don't know if a good or bad
one...)

https://62368-ul-solutions.com/engineers/per-m.4.3,-a-fire-enclosure-is-required-for-secondary-lithium-batteries.-if-the-equipment-enclosure-does-not-meet-the-criteria-of-6.4.8,-can-a-fire-barrier-fulfill-the-intent-of-the-requirement/
https://62368-ul-solutions.com/engineers/for-dc-powered-products-with-internal-ps2-circuits-and-containing-only-resistive-pis,-does-this-construction-require-a-fire-enclosure/


Are you able to share what type/size battery for this application?  It
would be interesting to understand the potential energy with which you're
working.


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta






On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 9:02 PM Ted Eckert <
07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Hi Charlie,
>
>
>
> IEC TR 62368-2 doesn’t provide much guidance on clause M.4.3 other than
> that lithium batteries should be considered Potential Ignition Sources.
>
>
>
> In general, a polymeric fire enclosure isn’t necessarily going to contain
> a fire. V-1 and V-0 materials will burn through, and the standard does not
> require 5-VA to completely contain a flame. However, the enclosure can slow
> the propagation of a fire. For many smaller lithium-ion batteries, a fire
> enclosure will contain the fire long enough for much of the energy to be
> released, reducing the risk that the fire will spread to flammable
> materials outside of the enclosure. A user holding or wearing a device with
> a lithium battery will likely have time to react and separate themselves
> from the device should the battery fail exothermically.
>
>
>
> I can’t state whether a thin film or tape would be suitable. I can only
> suggest a risk analysis.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer or TC 108.
>
>
>
> *From:* Charlie Blackham 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 10, 2021 8:02 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] UL 510 Flame retardant tape
>
>
>
> Rich, Ted, All
>
>
>
> The product has an outer enclosure that provides suitable mechanical
> strength and the battery is IEC62133 compliant charged and discharged via a
> suitable chip
>
>
>
> There’s a product requirement for a yellow enclosure, and we can’t find a
> suitable yellow plastic with enough fire retardancy.
>
>
>
> The issue is that Clause M.4.3 mandates a fire enclosure and it’s never
> clear (to me anyway) whether some batteries actually have their own fire
> enclosure as I don’t see this listed anywhere, and you might get for
> Conditions of Acceptability for a Recognised Component PSU.
>
>
>
> If a LiIon battery really does “cook off” I’m not sure what enclosure
> would actually contain it – I guess it might be as much about whether the
> enclosure provides more fuel, but I’m not sure as to the intent of the
> clause in the standard
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
> 
> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Nute 
> *Sent:* 08 October 2021 22:42
> *To:* Charlie Blackham ;
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] UL 510 Flame retardant tape
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie:
>
>
>
> Rather than guess:
>
>
>
> https://www.kaptontape.com/PDF/Kapton_Films_Datasheet.pdf
> 
>
>
> https://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/amer/us/en/products/ei-transformation/documents/DEC-Kapton-HN-datasheet.pdf
> 

Re: [PSES] EMC/EMI Cables

[Adam Dixon]

I haven’t dissected an HDMI cable in a couple of years, but the HDMI
Adopters consortium calls out lower EMI for 2.1-compliant cables:

https://www.hdmi.org/spec21sub/ultrahighspeedcable

Any cable labeled as 2.1-compliant should still be dissected.


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:14 AM John McAuley  wrote:

> There is a company called Sewelldirect that used to provide a well
> shielded HDMI cable. They had a webpage on the subject. However, I can’t
> find it on their website anymore.
>
>
>
> Apple sell a properly shielded HDMI cable.
>
>
>
> BR
>
>
>
> John McAuley
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Wyatt 
> *Sent:* 29 April 2021 15:54
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EMC/EMI Cables
>
>
>
> The only sure way to qualify an HDMI cable manufacturer is to dissect the
> connector - cable termination and check for pigtails.
>
>
>
> https://interferencetechnology.com/hdmi-cables-emi/
>
>
>
> The article references some original investigations by Begey and Altland
> (DesignCon 2008).
>
>
>
> Cheers, Ken
>
>
> ___
>
> I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any
> questions related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation.
> I'm always happy to help!
>
>
> Kenneth Wyatt
> Wyatt Technical Services LLC
> 56 Aspen Dr.
> Woodland Park, CO 80863
>
> Phone: (719) 310-5418
>
> Web Site  | Blog 
> The EMC Blog (EDN)
> 
> Subscribe to Newsletter
> 
> Connect with me on LinkedIn 
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2021, at 12:45 PM, Larry K. Stillings <
> la...@complianceworldwide.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> L-Com seems to have a good understanding on how to construct HDMI cables
> with 360 shields
>
>
>
> https://www.l-com.com/audio-video-hdmi-cable-assemblies
>
>
>
> Known problem for quite some time now
>
>
>
>
>
> Larry K. Stillings
> Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
> *Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!*
> *FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product
> Safety*
> 357 Main Street
> 
> Sandown, NH 03873
> 
> (603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
> complianceworldwide.com
>
>
> *Follow us on social media*
>
>linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc
> twitter.com/complianceww
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
> you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
> delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly
> notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your
> employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind.
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>
>
>
> *From:* Cass Carmanico
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 28, 2021 2:24 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] EMC/EMI Cables
>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> I am having issues with getting audio/video product to pass the class A
> limit. I've narrowed it down to the HDMI cables. Even the ones with the
> ferrites on both ends are inconsistent.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a recommendation on where to find good EMI/EMC HDMI
> Cables.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Cass
>
> --
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
> confidential to Ross Video.
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately by
> replying to this message. Please also delete all copies. 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 <
> 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 
>
> -
> 

Re: [PSES] HDMI distribution amplifier (1:4) and HDMI cable recommendations?

[Adam Dixon]

Ken, James and offline colleagues,

Thanks for the paper and experience-based feedback.  I appreciate it.  I
have started tracking down the hardware and hope to have some test results
shortly.  I had done a fair amount of destructive HDMI cable evaluation 5-6
years ago, but not recently enough to know if/how construction quality has
changed (i.e. cost-reduced to the point of becoming a lab testing
frustration or regulatory challenge).


Kind regards,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:27 PM Grasso, Charles 
wrote:

> Great paper Ken – Thanks for sharing!
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Wyatt 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2020 8:40 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] HDMI distribution amplifier (1:4) and HDMI cable
> recommendations?
>
>
>
>  This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
>
> This may have been one of the first papers, by Bergey and Altland
> (DesignCon 2008), that documented the EMI concern of HDMI (and other)
> commercial cables.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
> ___
>
> I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any
> questions related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation.
> I'm always happy to help!
>
>
> Kenneth Wyatt
> Wyatt Technical Services LLC
> 56 Aspen Dr.
> Woodland Park, CO 80863
>
> Phone: (719) 310-5418
>
> Web Site <http://www.emc-seminars.com> | Blog <https://design-4-emc.com>
> The EMC Blog (EDN)
> <https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/4376432/The-EMC-Blog>
> Subscribe to Newsletter
> <http://www.emc-seminars.com/Newsletter/Newsletter.html>
> Connect with me on LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/kennethwyatt/>
>
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2020, at 7:59 AM, James Pawson (U3C) <
> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> Adam,
>
>
>
> I’ve been having success with these HDMI cables. Not dissected one yet but
> they seem to be pretty good from a radiated emissions point of view. You’ll
> have to check if they are available in the USA.
>
>
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01K1X1QV2/ref=pe_3187911_189395841_TE_dp_1
>
>
>
> No experience on switches I’m afraid. A piece of equipment could meet the
> HDMI specification easily but be absolutely terrible for EMC so Adopter
> status isn’t necessarily useful from an EMC perspective. If you have HDMI
> signal integrity analysis tools available then you can verify signal
> quality but that’s out of most peoples budget. Mid price home AV equipment
> might be a good place to start as this will have to meet Class B emissions.
>
>
>
> HTH
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> James Pawson
>
> EMC Problem Solver
>
>
>
> *Unit 3 Compliance*
>
> EMC Testing / Design for EMC / Problem Solving / Pre Compliance /
> Consultancy / Environmental & Vibration
>
>
>
> www.unit3compliance.co.uk
>
> 07811 139957
>
> 2 Wellington Business Park,
>
> New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon 
> *Sent:* 31 March 2020 14:50
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] HDMI distribution amplifier (1:4) and HDMI cable
> recommendations?
>
>
>
> I would appreciate HDMI DA/splitter and cable recommendations for a test
> lab requiring a minimum of 4 HDMI displays.  There was 2017 discussion
> about "quiet" TV's and cables.  I'm interested in 1:4 distribution
> amplifiers/splitters, as well as 10' to 25' cables.  I expect I'll dissect
> cables again, but would love recommendations.
>
>
>
> For the 1:4 (or 1:8) distribution amplifier/splitter requirement, it looks
> like >50% of the manufacturers whose literature I've read are not HDMI
> Adopters.
>
>
>
> At the semiconductor level, I've read product briefs from five companies,
> all of which are HDMI Adopters.  Figuring out which IC is in which
> DA/splitter is really expensive, so am open to recommendations,
> particularly if you've peeked inside well- or poor-performing modules.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam in Atlanta
>
> adam.di...@ieee.org
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 file

[PSES] HDMI distribution amplifier (1:4) and HDMI cable recommendations?

[Adam Dixon]

I would appreciate HDMI DA/splitter and cable recommendations for a test
lab requiring a minimum of 4 HDMI displays.  There was 2017 discussion
about "quiet" TV's and cables.  I'm interested in 1:4 distribution
amplifiers/splitters, as well as 10' to 25' cables.  I expect I'll dissect
cables again, but would love recommendations.

For the 1:4 (or 1:8) distribution amplifier/splitter requirement, it looks
like >50% of the manufacturers whose literature I've read are not HDMI
Adopters.

At the semiconductor level, I've read product briefs from five companies,
all of which are HDMI Adopters.  Figuring out which IC is in which
DA/splitter is really expensive, so am open to recommendations,
particularly if you've peeked inside well- or poor-performing modules.

Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

-

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] label/compliance questions for Android embedded systems

[Adam Dixon]

Android-based systems are new territory for me.  What are the potential
compliance requirements for customizing an Android platform with seemingly
good compliance status?

1.  Hardware and core OS functions would not change.
2.  User interface would be customized and a few end user applications
pre-loaded which are not part of the OEM factory image.

Would there be issues with an additional branding label along the lines of
"Widget ABCD powered by XYZ" where XYZ is the platform manufacturer which
maintains compliance records.  The platform manufacturer's product label
wouldn't change and they are agreeable to such additional branding labels,
but does the "powerd by XYZ" language affect compliance requirements
(Multiple Listee?).

Any recommended exploratory testing or required testing based on the new
applications and user interface changes?  Applications should not have
ability to modify low-level functions (memory bus speeds, etc.) - the
expectation is that the OEM design remains unchanged, so I/O interfaces
(LAN, video, USB, etc.) operate per the OEM's documentation.  I've started
looking at Android Developer materials but haven't come across
compliance-related documentation that I believe are due to Android's HAL
architecture for supporting a diverse range of hardware platforms.
Searching Android Developer resources with terms such as "compliance,"
"regulatory," "safety," and so on yields information similar to Windows
driver compliance for compatibility requirements and one automobile
driving-related "regulations" statement which doesn't apply:
https://source.android.com/compatibility/8.1/android-8.1-cdd

I would appreciate feedback and/or pointers to reference materials.


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

-

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] human skin resistance

[Adam Dixon]

Ah, the other skin effect.  ;-)

Not exactly what is sought, but maybe there is useful information in the realm 
of BIA research such as this papers like this (?) (apologies for the long link 
copied from iPad browsing..):

https://watermark.silverchair.com/388s.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAj4wggI6BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggIrMIICJwIBADCCAiAGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMK9rzuV_KcmVd0YYmAgEQgIIB8aE4lCFFt9fFX96v6OzuvlcLM5-2W5FoYfBkvXXT_X-3tBmqmMAyaSxzcTQE4Stexjpj4Qfc5-kxgt5BHDtWj3rSJSJEXHJgs9grXvan1pmRzK9t9zmo-cS4-cLvQ_BbPNW_5tgTDkJPDrpQTnU8S1h6CxoG1WU3CzTW45FJBPJc5iEQ48bFAAvcsbPUSXafzya-d6Wx_gsjpJ40wpXz1xfZgvKCnpuevfCOxiutn1z7S8-UwGxHsSmHQZY-0UaIVmJXQGfNSqKc6nwt8lMDhTjy3yj7F33YK_O__a1JYxAssvE0wdRo0JilmNDFGz-kqK1GtDWc7wE6hVqzWLu5LdZ8gJ8Gn5BOM-ji-2_gx_dQPSUb-HhsCuw25CZUHe8EyeUaxFah9LJaHM8AqYSphUP9RQmuXP8LFoETISL8T-tG-lHHOq57-QSHCvtOorns94lEKRncyd_BqkW-4I0DJ4545W9G0LXuGsjDOksRm6tpB4-taeLFLWb5BdZdvvO597JFE_J6rR8EUu8z-FhFtxd87-ZlyU3RfA8jIXb_pRF_I5Fhwog-c23hkQodfyHrIfxdt3n4DrHu12W-Bc6KkXKQ4jqxONOkVESRD63kp9MWFkvwRCdh4820bN1dSA5gmtEatpc1gNmlHLn9aYIyMo2Z

Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 13, 2019, at 3:11 PM, John Woodgate  wrote:
> 
> I don't know of any that Pete Perkins wouldn't know about.
> Best wishes
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>> On 2019-03-13 19:06, Richard Nute wrote:
>>  
>> John referenced “skin resistance.”
>>  
>> To my knowledge, there is no research that shows skin resistance and body 
>> resistance as separate parameters.  We only know total body resistance, and 
>> that it is a variable that changes – lowers -- with applied voltage and time.
>>  
>> Having said that, a good guess that skin resistance is the predominant 
>> parameter at low voltages.  The “body” is comprised of water-predominate 
>> organs, so is likely to be a lower resistance than skin resistance and 
>> relatively constant with voltage.
>>  
>> We also know that capacitance parallels the total body resistance.  But, as 
>> with resistance, we don’t know how to apportion the capacitance to the skin 
>> and to the body. 
>>  
>> If you know of any such research, please let me know. 
>>  
>> Best regards,
>> Rich 
>>  
>> From: John Woodgate  
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 1:30 AM
>> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [PSES] classification of the output
>>  
>> We found very great differences in human  'skin resistance' at effectively 
>> zero voltage when designing TV tuners with touch-contact channel selection. 
>> We had to make the sensitivity so high that there was a risk that houseflies 
>> would change the channel.
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
>> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
>> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>> On 2019-03-13 05:22, Pete Perkins wrote:
>> -
>> 
>> 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 

Re: [PSES] Johnson City NY - crazy street lights

[Adam Dixon]

These are LED technology from a 2015-2016 vintage conversion.

It could be any number of possible causes.  Based on the power outage, it
could be a low voltage startup behavior of the LED driver.  Could also be
comms-related as you describe.  Would be interesting if anyone has a
reference related to voltage fluctuation during various power outages/grid
designs.

In my locale, brightness sensors are not per luminaire.  They are
ganged/controlled in larger groups.  I was curious about the type installed
in my neighborhood and got the datasheet from the electrical utility.  It
appears to be a common supplier/type from reading articles about street
light LED conversions and health/environmental concerns.  I inquired w/the
supplier about in-rush performance of their driver having seen a few
descriptions of hundreds of amps depending on the driver design.

I've seen similar frequency pulsing behaviors with individual LED lights
during an early morning commute as well as a couple of bulbs in my home.
The in-home case, along with a couple of other electronics failures were
due to failed electrolytic caps on the primary side.

Regards,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org



On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:58 PM Doug Powell  wrote:

> I tend to agree with your statements.
>
> I have worked in a volunteer capacity in TV production studios and doing
> stage design using LED lighting.  I am familiar with the stroboscopic
> effects the more economical (Alibaba) multiplexed LED drivers have on TV
> camera sensors and I believe this flashing is far too low frequency,  This
> was part of the reason I suggested communications issues.  Since street
> lighting falls under a public safety category, many of the companies who
> produce these products are exempt from EMC considerations and the equipment
> is made as cheaply as possible. I believe this is why years ago, we often
> heard a lot of interference on AM radio when stopped near traffic lights.
> Nowadays it is likely these fixtures are on a DMX512 universe and
> individually controlled by digital address.  But now that I think it over,
> DMX512 is not two-way communications as such and would not be able to
> report a defective fixture needing maintenance, the next level protocol
> they may be used is called "RDS" which does have two-way data
> communications.  If the main controller were damaged in some way or if
> there is intermittent loss of communication, the lights may behave in a
> wonky manner by starting and stopping each time their digital address is
> polled.
>
> Of course this is all speculation on my part.  I hope to finally learn
> what is found in the investigation.
>
> All the best, Doug
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:03 PM Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Doug:
>>
>>
>>
>> Each individual light is blinking at its own pace.  You can see this by
>> pausing the video; at each pause, some lights are on, while some are off.
>> (At first, I thought they were blinking in sequence, but you can see that
>> this is not the case by pausing the video at different times.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that the lights are probably LEDs because they have none of the
>> start-up and shut-down partial illumination of other lamp technology.  (I
>> think there is very little stroboscopic effect of the TV camera.)
>>
>>
>>
>> LEDs have different start-up times depending on the individual drive
>> circuitry.  Hence, they will come on at different times after application
>> of the supply.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is one hypothesis:  The LED driver circuitry has automatic excessive
>> voltage protection, and shuts down the circuitry in the event of an
>> overvoltage.  Then, it auto-starts, the LED comes on, but shuts down as the
>> voltage is too high.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another hypothesis:  Street lights are/were in series to cut down on wire
>> size for a large string.  But, to prevent all lights from going out if one
>> is burned out, each lamp is supplied by an individual transformer or a film
>> cut-out.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light  In the video, the
>> street lights have a common controller somewhere, that is, they don’t have
>> individual light-dark sensors.  The controller may have malfunctioned,
>> creating the effect of a relaxation oscillator.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other hypotheses?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
> -
> 
>
> 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 

Re: [PSES] Red phosphorus flame retartants

[Adam Dixon]

I agree that it's an older paper, but the data are still relevant IMO.
Here are a few more recent ones from different US gov't organizations with
a pyrology focus (so not solely focused on Scott's original question, but
still informative):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5445781/

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/pcb_ch1.pdf (I
think the EPA info has been shared on the list previously - just substitute
2 through 7 at the end of the URL to get all chapters).

https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf  (2005, so not quite as recent)



Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org



On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:31 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

> It is a good paper, but the sentence:
>
> *The European Union's risk assessment of TBBPA is currently ongoing and
> will not be completed until 2003 [9]*
>
> indicates that it is not exactly up-to-date.
>
> Best wishes
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2019-01-02 00:16, Adam Dixon wrote:
>
> Here's a good article focused on component reliability with some
> discussion of how red phosphorus is produced and comparison to several
> alternate fire retardant chemistries:
>
>
> https://www.dfrsolutions.com/red-phosphorus-induced-failures-in-encapsulated-circuits
>
>
> Cheers,
> Adam in Atlanta
> adam.di...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 5:46 PM John Woodgate  wrote:
>
>> Well, there wouldn't be any mention of white phosphorus, of course,
>> because that would indicate that the technique is not safe at all. I just
>> wonder how they stop it happening; it appears to be just a mechanical
>> envelopment by the polyamide (e.g. Nylon).  If so, prolonged moderate
>> heating over several years might cause migration and subsequent conversion
>> to the other allotrope at surfaces.
>>
>> The BASF document is quite informative:
>> *In a report by the German Federal Environment Agency, it is stated that
>> the red phosphorus used in polymers can only be released into the
>> environment at the plastic interfaces, where it reacts with water to form
>> phosphorus oxides and** phosphoric acids.*
>>
>> Actually, it's a two-step process; first we get oxidation: 4P +3O2 >2P2O3,
>> then the trioxide dissolves in water to make 'phosphorous acid' (the quotes
>> are because it exists in two forms with different formal chemical names).
>>
>> I just hope that this isn't another case like CFCs, where a highly
>> undesirable effect was not recognized until it became serious.  The
>> Wikipedia article on allotropes of phosphorus says:
>>
>>   *However, for electronic/electrical systems, red phosphorus flame
>> retardant has been effectively banned by major OEMs due to its tendency to
>> induce premature failures. There have been two issues over the years: the
>> first was red phosphorus in epoxy molding compounds inducing elevated
>> leakage current in semiconductor devices[5] and the second was acceleration
>> of hydrolysis reactions in PBT insulating material.*
>>
>> I think that's a wrap!
>>
>> Best wishes
>> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
>> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
>> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>>
>> On 2019-01-01 21:24, Richard Nute wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If the hype is true, and my interpretation is correct, red phosphorous as
>> a flame-retardant additive is much better than bromine-based additives.  I
>> don’t know of cost differential.  (In the two websites I looked at, there
>> was no mention of degradation to white phosphorus.)
>>
>>
>>
>> BASF:
>> https://www.plasticsportal.net/wa/plasticsEU~en_GB/function/conversions:/publish/common/upload/technical_journals/electronics_and_mechatronics/Umwuchtsensor.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Rinka:
>> http://www.rinka.co.jp/english/products/flame-retardant/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes for the New Year,
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
>> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics 

Re: [PSES] Red phosphorus flame retartants

[Adam Dixon]

Here's a good article focused on component reliability with some discussion
of how red phosphorus is produced and comparison to several alternate fire
retardant chemistries:

https://www.dfrsolutions.com/red-phosphorus-induced-failures-in-encapsulated-circuits


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org



On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 5:46 PM John Woodgate  wrote:

> Well, there wouldn't be any mention of white phosphorus, of course,
> because that would indicate that the technique is not safe at all. I just
> wonder how they stop it happening; it appears to be just a mechanical
> envelopment by the polyamide (e.g. Nylon).  If so, prolonged moderate
> heating over several years might cause migration and subsequent conversion
> to the other allotrope at surfaces.
>
> The BASF document is quite informative:
> *In a report by the German Federal Environment Agency, it is stated that
> the red phosphorus used in polymers can only be released into the
> environment at the plastic interfaces, where it reacts with water to form
> phosphorus oxides and** phosphoric acids.*
>
> Actually, it's a two-step process; first we get oxidation: 4P +3O2 >2P2O3,
> then the trioxide dissolves in water to make 'phosphorous acid' (the quotes
> are because it exists in two forms with different formal chemical names).
>
> I just hope that this isn't another case like CFCs, where a highly
> undesirable effect was not recognized until it became serious.  The
> Wikipedia article on allotropes of phosphorus says:
>
>   *However, for electronic/electrical systems, red phosphorus flame
> retardant has been effectively banned by major OEMs due to its tendency to
> induce premature failures. There have been two issues over the years: the
> first was red phosphorus in epoxy molding compounds inducing elevated
> leakage current in semiconductor devices[5] and the second was acceleration
> of hydrolysis reactions in PBT insulating material.*
>
> I think that's a wrap!
>
> Best wishes
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2019-01-01 21:24, Richard Nute wrote:
>
>
>
> If the hype is true, and my interpretation is correct, red phosphorous as
> a flame-retardant additive is much better than bromine-based additives.  I
> don’t know of cost differential.  (In the two websites I looked at, there
> was no mention of degradation to white phosphorus.)
>
>
>
> BASF:
> https://www.plasticsportal.net/wa/plasticsEU~en_GB/function/conversions:/publish/common/upload/technical_journals/electronics_and_mechatronics/Umwuchtsensor.pdf
>
>
>
> Rinka:  http://www.rinka.co.jp/english/products/flame-retardant/index.html
>
>
>
> Best wishes for the New Year,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> 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
>

-

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 

Re: [PSES] Frequency of Occurrence of ESD with respect to Voltage

[Adam Dixon]

Hi, Charles,

Would you be able to share a bit more context?  Are you interested in a
basic distribution of discharge event vs. voltage (lots of parameters which
affect this)?  Catastrophic or latent failures or both?  Particular classes
of devices/systems/environments?  Detectable by a human or down at the
threshold of laser diodes and a few other types of devices?

Depending on what is of most interest, there might be different information
sources (experts like Dr. Pommerenke, Doug Smith and others, the EOS/ESD
Association, some journal papers and masters/PhD theses, etc.).


Interested to know more.


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org





On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Grasso, Charles 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have been (fruitlessly) hunting down any reference to the above
> subject.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know of such a reference?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Charles Grasso
>
> (w) 303-706-5467
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 

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

Re: [PSES] IEC60950-1 Limited Power Source via IC current limiter

[Adam Dixon]

This question has been asked on TI's E2E forum for other parts in this family.  
See the 2nd 60950 report link that Eric posted in this discussion thread:
https://e2e.ti.com/support/interface/usb/f/1008/t/563031

It might be worth opening a new thread for this particular part number to see 
if there is another IEC 60950 report that TI would share.  Or maybe this report 
would suffice.


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 5, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Ted Eckert 
> <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Mr. Woodgate and I can add a little more information. UL 2367 is 
> generally considered equivalent as Test Program 2 of Annex CC. Most NCBs will 
> accept it as such and you should be able to place a statement in your report 
> indicating the equivalency. Not all NCBs will necessarily accept the 
> equivalence, but I have yet to run into an issue with integrated circuits 
> approved under UL 2367.
>  
> Ted Eckert
> Microsoft Corporation
>  
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
> employer.
>  
> From: John Woodgate  
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 1:07 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC60950-1 Limited Power Source via IC current limiter
>  
> The standard says '...meets a suitable test program as given in Annex CC' 
> [not Annex C].  It does not say 'shall meet the test program given in Annex 
> CC'. As you know, the manufacturer is permitted  to decide (and document) 
> that a part meeting UL2367 is acceptable, and it would be up to a regulatory 
> authority to challenge that. It seems unlikely that UL 2367 would be 
> deficient, since this is a precaution against fire, which is a major concern 
> of UL, of course.
> 
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
> On 2018-03-05 20:11, Charlie Blackham wrote:
> All
>  
> Client has designed a USB port with the DC power protected by a TI TPS2052B 
> Current limiter:
> Component details: www.ti.com/product/TPS2052B/description
> Component is UL recognised component under QVGS2.E169910 which is based on UL 
> 2367
>  
>  
> 2.5 Limited power sources
> c) a regulating network, or an integrated circuit (IC) current limiter, 
> limits the output in compliance with Table 2B, both with and without a 
> simulated single fault (see 1.4.14) in the regulating network or the IC 
> current limiter (open circuit or short circuit). A single fault between the 
> input and output is not conducted if the IC current limiter meets a suitable 
> test program as given in Annex CC;
>  
> Annex CC requires appears to require quite extensive testing of the 
> component, and I can’t tell whether a component recognised against UL2367 
> would meet this or not.
>  
> The issue, is that if they s/c the protection component, the output may no 
> longer be LPS – we have provision to fit a suitable fuse on the board, but 
> would prefer not to, so would be grateful for any advice
>  
> Thanks
> Charlie
>  
>  
> Charlie Blackham
> Sulis Consultants Ltd
> Mead House
> Longwater Road
> Eversley
> RG27 0NW
> UK
> Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
> Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com
> Web: www.sulisconsultants.com
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>  
> -
> 
> 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: 

Re: [PSES] ESD question

[Adam Dixon]

Doug,

How significant are differences between the telephone/radar operators cases
and Ken's experience?  Equipment capacitances (higher pF for
telephone/radar operators), discharge location and voltage (Ken's in-ear
ear buds vs. "on/over ear" for operators), wire lengths and floating vs.
earthed configurations?  Both deal with energy transfer to/from cells that
are likely more sensitive (electrically/neurally/perceptually) than the
human hand.   Sounds (pun intended) like an interesting neuroscience topic!

Maybe this could be an occasional benefit to not having a 3.5mm audio jack
on a hand set.

And this probably isn't a good idea for a new experiment at your
workshops.  ;-)


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta


On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Douglas Smith  wrote:

> Thus is a common occurrence. The iPhone was not actually connected to you
> so the large E field induced a different charge on you than on the phone
> and hence the discharge through your ear (the lowest breakdown between the
> iPhond and you.
>
> Such discharges have led to claims of injury that ended up in court.
> Telephone operators and radar operators (such as in air traffic control)
> experience this effect. The first case I was involved with was 20 years ago
> and since have provided expertise to lawyers on legal cases involving this
> effect. The discharge is not dangerous, but people have been convinced they
> were nearly electrocuted and have been hauled off to the hospital on a
> stretcher!
>
> Doug Smith
> Sent from my iPhone
> IPhone:  408-858-4528 <(408)%20858-4528>
> Office:702-570-6108 <(702)%20570-6108>
> Email: d...@dsmith.org
> Website: http://dsmith.org
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 18:21, Ken Javor 
> wrote:
>
> Just curiosity.
>
> Spent a week in the cold frozen north. Single Fahrenheit digits (above and
> below zero) outside, snow on the ground, 70 degrees inside – dry air.  Was
> able to generate some pretty decent lightning simulations walking around
> and especially stripping a bed that had some sort of fuzzy (no doubt
> synthetic material) blanket.  While stripping the bed, I was listening to a
> podcast on an iPhone, through wired earbuds.  I could hear the discharges
> through the earbuds. That was some sort of interference, but not the
> question of interest here. What was interesting is that the bigger sparks
> not only zapped where I made contact (typically hands) but also from the
> earbuds to my inner ear (ouch)!  That’s not what I said, but close enough.
>
> The iPhone was in a leather pouch suspended from by belt. The hook around
> the belt was metal, the belt was leather, and there were (denim cotton)
> pants between the hook on the inside of the belt and my skin.  To my
> understanding, the iPhone and earbuds should have been at near or the same
> potential I was, and even if not, it was certainly no sort of ground –
> completely isolated from anything except me.
>
> So the question is why was there such a potential difference between
> iPhone and earbuds and me that my ears were zapped?
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> -
> 
>
> 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 

Re: [PSES] CI Software Flicker/Harmonics

[Adam Dixon]

Both VMWare and college CS/engineering intern are good recommendations in
my opinion.

Here's a MATLAB code sample for the DIY 61000-4-7 route (not checked for
correctness, but see the 'Functions' tab):
https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/43496-iec-61000-4-7-for-harmonics-calculations


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta



On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Ralph McDiarmid <
ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com> wrote:

> A co-op computer science student on a work term would probably wrestle
> that to the ground in short order.
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:26 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CI Software Flicker/Harmonics
>
> SECOND RESPONSE
> I see you asked about writing software. The math involved in IEC 61000-4-7
> and IEC 61000-4-15 is incredibly complicated. Of course, it could be
> re-coded, but it would be a major undertaking. The Block 5 math of
> 61000-4-15 is in fact under review at present, not for the first time.
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates http://www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
> On 2017-12-20 21:13, Kunde, Brian wrote:
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Li-Fi

[Adam Dixon]

I am skeptical about 100's of Mbps+, but is application-dependent and will
be well-above that of a Naval signalman's morse code.  ;-)  I wouldn't want
to have many/all the lights in my home on, even if highly dimmed, just so
laptop can talk with printer in the next room, let alone if I am in the
basement where WiFi works fine.  Bulb cost burden is a consideration.  For
industrial/office environments where lights are always on, perhaps it's a
good application for building infrastructure/M2M comms where the bit rate
attainable from reflected signal rather than line of sight is sufficient.
But there again we already have wireless comms built into luminaires (at
some cost), so it's back to application parameters:  noise immunity,
distance, localization, security, cost and so on.

The concept is similar to what occurs in laser barcode scannersfor the
past 25+ years.  A well-designed physical layer transmitter/receiver to
handle ambient conditions (line of sight vs reflected, distance) + higher
layer protocol functions (filtering/signal extraction/error correction to
build on photodiode transimpedance amplifier performance, point-to-point vs
mesh, etc.) and the architecture takes shape.  The laser barcode scanner is
very short distance (inches) by comparison.

There is enough LiFi IP on record to where a push to commercialize seems to
be progressing.  Will be interesting to see if it develops into a
sustainable technology.


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Amund Westin 
wrote:

> I try to see Li-Fi as a good idea, but is it realistic to make such devices
> / system within the next years  ?
> And what is next years? ... I find it hard that Li-Fi should outperform
> regular radiocommunication (kHz to GHz).
>
> Cheers
> Amund
>
>
>
>
>
> -Opprinnelig melding-
> Fra: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
> Sendt: 11. desember 2017 20:36
> Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Emne: Re: [PSES] Li-Fi
>
> Three observations.
> 1. would have side-effects somewhat analogous to BPL on EMC. And the
> up/down
> rate would probably have same problems and delay as satellite internet.
> 2.  different modality of old tech - remember the science fair projects
> using laser com from bazillions years past?
> 3. Ted said that he 'discounted' TED talks  (we had thought they were named
> for him).
>
> Some references
> 0. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_light_communication
> 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communication
> 2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi
> 3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RONJA
>
> Brian
>
>
> From: Edward Price [mailto:e...@jwjelp.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 10:44 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Li-Fi
>
> I seem to recall HP was touting some kind of optical link system back in
> the
> 90's. (IIRC, it was omni-directional infrared.) I think they were
> suggesting
> it for sharing of a printer within a multi-computer office, or for linking
> test equipment into a lab's mini-computer.
>
> While I can see some uses where a modulated light source, powerful yet
> inexpensive, would be a good data link, I can also see a few problems, the
> first of which is bi-directionality and the second is data capacity ahead
> of
> the optical links. As for his hints of vehicular applications, we still
> haven't eliminated rain, smoke and fog.
>
> Call me cynical, but whenever somebody puts a box on stage and does magic
> engineering, I become skeptical. Whaddya mean, you don't want to get into
> the details?
>
> Altogether, Li-Fi is yet another path. Ubiquitous LED's make it more
> attractive, but not quite a standing ovation quality concept.
>
> Ed Price
> WB6WSN
> Chula Vista, CA USA
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:21 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Li-Fi
>
> I haven't studied it, but seems to me that one would need to modulate the
> light very quickly to get any sort of usable BAUD rate, unless you settle
> for transmission of text only.  (like the good old Bell 202 modems over
> voice band land lines)
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 12:51 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Li-Fi
>
> I came over this video 
> https://www.ted.com/talks/harald_haas_a_breakthrough_
> new_kind_of_wireless_in
> ternet#t-432451
>
> Anyone who have studied this tech?
>
> Cheers,
> Amund
> 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 

Re: [PSES] Pilot rating

[Adam Dixon]

I only pilot paper airplanes and this isn't my area of expertise, but it
looks like this potential requirement originates in NEMA ICS 5 "Industrial
Control and Systems:  Control Circuit and Pilot Devices" and perhaps also
in IEC 62314 (Solid State Relays - as a "control" relay though the word
'pilot' isn't specifically stated)

NEMA ICS-5-2017 has these NEMA and UL standards in the Section 1.1
Reference Standards list:

NEMA ICS 1-2000 Industrial Control and Systems: General Requirements
NEMA ICS 1.1-1984 (R1998) Safety Guidelines for the Application,
Installation, and Maintenance of Solid State Control
ICS 1.3-1986 (R2001) Preventive Maintenance of Industrial Control and
Systems Equipment
ICS 6-1993 (R2001) Industrial Control and Systems: Enclosures

UL 310-1995 Electrical Quick-Connect Terminals
UL 353-1994 Limit Controls
UL 486E-1994 Equipment Wiring Terminals for Use With Aluminum and/or Copper
Conductors
UL 508-1999 Industrial Control Equipment
UL 698-1995 Industrial Control Equipment for Use in Hazardous (Classified)
Locations
UL 873-1994 Temperature-Indicating and -Regulating Equipment

This link gives short but interesting descriptions of the contact
constructions for mechanical "pilot duty" and "power" types (though
unrelated to SSR).
https://www.totaline.com/dl/PAGE%20D6%20-%20RELAY%20APPLICATION%20DATA.pdf


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org



On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Jon Keeble  wrote:

> We are getting a somewhat innovative product through UL at the moment.
> So there has been quite a lot of discussion and feedback from UL.
> But when UL said they thought my little board needed a pilot rating I
> really thought they were joking.
>
> Jon Keeble
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 8:31 AM,  wrote:
>
>> I looked at the subject line and thought about something completely
>> unrelated – pilot ratings.  I have a PP-ASEL IA.  Private Pilot – Airplane,
>> Single Engine, Land  Instrument Airplane.    And you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ghery S. Pettit
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jon Keeble [mailto:j...@wattwatchers.com.au]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 7, 2017 12:29 PM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* [PSES] Pilot rating
>>
>>
>>
>> I am using a Panasonic AQH3213A PhotoMOS optical isolator to control a
>> small contactor.
>>
>>
>>
>> At 110VAC the contactor coil draws 30mArms.
>>
>> The coil contacts are wired to a PCB via a terminal block plug and socket.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the PCB is a series 10ohm fusible resistor, and a SMBJ400AC
>> bidirectional zener.
>>
>>
>>
>> When the switch opens at peak current (42mA) there is 0.1J of energy in
>> the coil that gets absorbed by the zener.
>>
>>
>>
>> The zener
>>
>> * clamps at a voltage way below the voltage rating of the optoMOS switch.
>>
>> * is rated at 600W for 8.3msec and is subject to only 13W for a similar
>> period.
>>
>>
>>
>> The UL test engineer says that the optoMOS should be "pilot duty" rated
>> (the part I am using does have this rating).
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know what triggers the requirement for a "pilot duty" rating?
>>
>> Is this defined in a standard somewhere?
>>
>>
>>
>> This useful link identifies "contact rating codes"
>>
>> https://na.industrial.panasonic.com/blog/what-pilot-duty-
>> rating-how-it-obtained
>>
>>
>>
>> The lowest rating E300 is for 110V 1.8A (make) 0.3A (break)
>>
>>
>>
>> Technically speaking, my switch is not connected to the contactor ..
>> there is a two-component network in between
>>
>> Does UL have the capacity or procedures in place to understand and accept
>> a circtuit analysis that shows my circuit as safe?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jon Keeble
>>
>>
>>
>> Wattwatchers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> 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 

Re: [PSES] power strip details

[Adam Dixon]

>From K.98:
3.1.4 multiservice surge protective device (MSPD) [ITU-T K.85]: A surge
protective device (SPD) containing both telecommunications and mains
protection. It may also include port protection for video or Ethernet

Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta


On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, John Woodgate 
wrote:

> Good info. What is an MSPD?
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
> UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mickm [mailto:mjmay...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 8:51 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] power strip details
>
> IEEE Std. C62.41.1 (2002 - reaffirmed 2008) contains a mountain of
> information. If you go to A.2.2.3 Voltages induced in cables adjacent to
> down-conductors, it covers the induced voltage in an open-circuit loop by a
> nearby lightning current. The induced voltage table gives values ranging
> from 50 V to 500 V. Do the same calculation for Ethernet cables and you end
> up with voltages in the kV region. The inclusion of a voltage limiter is
> not covered. The poor coupling between the source and victim means that the
> voltage limiter current is surprisingly small.
>
> My previous comments are comprehended with statements like "The resulting
> voltages induced in the loop by the fast-changing surge currents flowing in
> the grounding system can cause a large voltage difference between the power
> port and the telecommunications port".
> Hence paving the way for the use of MSPDs to reduce the inter-service
> voltage differences for equipment or equipment clusters.
>
> At the time of document creation, MSPDs where not widely used and in Annex
> D called "surge reference equalisers". To understand how the MSPD transfers
> the surge on one service to another you need to look at more modern
> documents like ITU-T recommendation K.98 (08/2014) Overvoltage protection
> guide for telecommunication equipment installed in customer premises. This
> Recommendation covers direct strikes to the incoming service feed, mains
> configuration types of TN-S, TN-C, TN-C-S, TT and IT together with effects
> of various earthing system lead lengths and earth electrode resistances.
>
> Time is running out for IEEE Std. C62.41.1, under new IEEE rules the life
> of a standard is 10 years. If nothing is done to revise C62.41.1 it with be
> withdrawn in 2018. Hopefully the IEEE PES Surge Protective Device Committee
> will take up this challenge and, as part of the revision rational,  replace
> the 10/350 with the more realistic values from CIGRÉ Technical Bulletin
> (TB) 549 (2013) Lightning Parameters for Engineering Applications
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mick Maytum
>
> Safety and Telecom
> Standards
>
> mjmay...@gmail.com
>
> https://ictsp-essays.info
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Richard Nute" 
> To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
> Sent: 18/09/2017 18:58:00
> Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details
>
> >Hi Ralph:
> >
> >Thanks for the reference.  My comments are validated by ANSI C62.41.1 .
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Rich
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> >Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:01 AM
> >To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details
> >
> >Pardon me, the correct reference is ANSI C62.41.1  (finger trouble on
> >keyboard)
> >
> >Ralph McDiarmid
> >Product Compliance
> >Engineering
> >Solar Business
> >Schneider Electric
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Ralph McDiarmid
> >Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 8:55 AM
> >To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: RE: [PSES] power strip details
> >
> >While I agree that an SPD at the service entrance seems to be the way
> >to suppress surges resulting from direct/near/far lightning strokes,
> >ANSI C62.4.1 writes about switching transients on circuits which cause
> >oscillatory surges on the mains.  SPD at service entrance might be less
> >effective for those.  The ANSI standard seems a very good summary of
> >what is a complex topic.
> >
> >Ralph McDiarmid
> >Product Compliance
> >Engineering
> >Solar Business
> >Schneider Electric
> >
> >
> >From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
> >Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 12:30 PM
> >To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details
> >
> >
> >I believe the principal culprit is the extreme magnetic field that
> >surrounds the conductors when the surge protector operates rather than
> >the current in the PE conductor.  This field can generate high voltages
> >in adjacent and nearby low-voltage conductors such as telephone and
> >data cables.  Think air-core transformer.
> >
> >If the surge protector is at the service entrance, then the high
> >current is in the electricity supplier wires, and the coupling to
> >telephone, cable, and data cables is 

Re: [PSES] Flicker from LED and CFL light bulbs

[Adam Dixon]

Several standards have been developed.  Besides SMPS behaviors, there is
also consideration of upstream/downstream dimming functions.

https://www.led-professional.com/resources-1/articles/flicker-standards-and-test-methods
.
http://www.ul.com/newsroom/pressreleases/ul-launches-verification-service-for-low-optical-flicker/

In the last 4-5 months I've disassembled 10-12 LED bulbs from a wide range
of suppliers.  There definitely are construction/circuit design differences
with a continuous push to reduce cost.

For an individual LED bulb with a single SMPS, I'm not familiar with
conducted/radiated energy that would affect the LEDs in the flicker
frequency region.  Keep the LEDs cool and avoid reverse biasing and they
tend do to well.  Cree and OSRAM have good technical data available from
the LED die semiconductor level up through finished luminaire.

Perhaps a group of bulbs for a common lighting area where something like a
beat frequency occurs is possible.  Speculation on my part and I expect
others on the forum w/lighting expertise will chime in.

Where to get data for a particular luminaire is another issue...


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta






On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Pete Perkins <peperkin...@cs.com> wrote:

> Ken, et al,
>
>
>
> Hopefully someone will supply some data showing that there
> isn’t (or is) some interaction between the line input and the light
> output.
>
>
>
> Seems like a pretty simple test: a photodiode looking at
> the output while the bulb is running.
>
>
>
> Looking at this makes sense since we know that simple SMPS
> generate a lot of conducted and radiated stuff which might affect the
> downstream behavior of the LED itself.
>
>
>
> If there is no SMPS driving the LEDs then the problem becomes more complex
> as far as getting out what seems to be continuous light.
>
>
>
> A teardown will separate the design scheme out to support the results.
>
>
>
> When you look at it, let us know what you find.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201 <(503)%20452-1201>
>
>
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 29, 2017 2:10 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Flicker from LED and CFL light bulbs
>
>
>
> For reading somewhat more reliable than the particular UK media cited, try
> the Wikipedia article for "flicker fusion threshold."  ;-)
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold.  Reference 11 is
> a good relevant refereed journal article.
>
> In the LCD panel world, there is a factory adjustment process to minimize
> 50/60Hz flicker with the backlight.
>
> There is also human vision research pointing to visual artifact perception
> at 500+ Hz, but it's focused more on visual displays vs. lighting.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam in Atlanta
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
> wrote:
>
> I would generalize Mr. Woodgate’s assertion, at least for the US, as: “It
> is unwise to give too much credence to anything reported in the press these
> days.”  That is why I turned to this august body for an interpretation. It
> was interesting that Mr. Roman cited an example of a luminary sans power
> supply, which would in fact cycle on and off at twice line frequency.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
> --
>
> *From: *John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> *Reply-To: *John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> *Date: *Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:42:47 +0100
> *To: *<EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Flicker from LED and CFL light bulbs
>
> It is unwise to give too much credence to anything ‘scientific’ reported
> in British newspapers these days.
>
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/>
> <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/>  J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh
> England
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
> *From:* Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]>
> *Sent:* 29 July 2017 16:43
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Flicker from LED and CFL light bulbs
>
> Just read an article here:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4739766/Low-
> energy-LED-lightbulbs-giving-HEADA

Re: [PSES] Flicker from LED and CFL light bulbs

[Adam Dixon]

For reading somewhat more reliable than the particular UK media cited, try
the Wikipedia article for "flicker fusion threshold."  ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold.  Reference 11 is a
good relevant refereed journal article.

In the LCD panel world, there is a factory adjustment process to minimize
50/60Hz flicker with the backlight.

There is also human vision research pointing to visual artifact perception
at 500+ Hz, but it's focused more on visual displays vs. lighting.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Ken Javor 
wrote:

> I would generalize Mr. Woodgate’s assertion, at least for the US, as: “It
> is unwise to give too much credence to anything reported in the press these
> days.”  That is why I turned to this august body for an interpretation. It
> was interesting that Mr. Roman cited an example of a luminary sans power
> supply, which would in fact cycle on and off at twice line frequency.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *John Woodgate 
> *Reply-To: *John Woodgate 
> *Date: *Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:42:47 +0100
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Flicker from LED and CFL light bulbs
>
> It is unwise to give too much credence to anything ‘scientific’ reported
> in British newspapers these days.
>
>
> 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:* Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> 
> *Sent:* 29 July 2017 16:43
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Flicker from LED and CFL light bulbs
>
> Just read an article here:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4739766/Low-
> energy-LED-lightbulbs-giving-HEADACHES.html#newcomment
>
> It says that mains frequency flicker (in the light output) from subject
> luminaries causes headaches.  At least in the USA, I see power supplies
> converting ac mains to a dc potential driving the light element.  Is it
> different somehow in the UK at their higher mains potential and lower mains
> frequency?  Is there anything to such flicker?  Could it be ac ripple
> riding on the dc?  But that doesn’t agree with the article, which says LEDS
> basically turn off when ac mains potential goes to zero.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> -
> 
> 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 
> 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:
> 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62133 Question

[Adam Dixon]

It's not my area of expertise, but here's one application guide that does
differentiate between tab attachment methods with regard to potential cell
damage recommending welding over soldering:
http://data.energizer.com/pdfs/lithiuml91l92_appman.pdf.  None of the
welding methods articles that I have read discuss cell damage to suggest
that IEC 62133 performance would change, but wouldn't one still need
confirmation for Section 5.5 for mechanical strength of terminal contacts
of the new construction (i.e. weld strength)?

https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/how-lithium-polymer-batteries-are-made
-- informative article about LiPo battery fabrication.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150014504.pdf --
good Resistance Sport Welding presentation from NASA.


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org






On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:40 AM, John Woodgate 
wrote:

> I think the OP means that he welds the product's terminals to the battery
> tabs.
>
> 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: Leber, Jody (Suwanee) [mailto:jody.le...@sgs.com]
> Sent: 07 July 2017 11:30
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62133 Question
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I am having trouble understanding your situation.  Is it a cell or battery?
> What do you mean by new product?  Was it somehow approved with another
> product?  Welding tabs to a cell would have no impact on the cell approval
> and is the normal way of making the connection.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jody Leber
> Consumer and Retail
> Global Battery and Accumulator Technical Manager Battery and Performance
> Laboratory Manager
>
> Direct: 770.570.1838
> Main: 770.570.1800
> Mobile: 678.469.9835
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin.Richardson [mailto:kevin.richard...@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 3:30 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] IEC 62133 Question
>
> I think I know the answer but I was wondering if the battery specialists
> among us could advise if a battery that has already been issued with a
> certificate of compliance to IEC 62133 would require
> retesting/recertification if the terminals of a new product it is used in
> are welded to the cell?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Kevin Richardson
>
> Stanimore Pty Limited
> Compliance Advice & Solutions for Technology
> (Legislation/Regulations/Standards/Australian Agent Services)
> Ph:   02-4329-4070   (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070)
> Fax:  02-4328-5639   (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639)
> Mobile:  04-1224-1620   (Int'l: +61-4-1224-1620)
> Email:kevin.richard...@stanimore.com  or  kevin.richard...@ieee.org
> URL:  www.stanimore.com 
>
>
> Confidentiality
> This material (this email including all attachments) may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information intended to be read or used by
> the addressees only.  If you are not one of the intended recipients or you
> have received this material in error, any copying, disclosure,
> distribution,
> use of or reliance upon this material is prohibited.  Please immediately
> notify Stanimore Pty Limited and delete/destroy all copies (electronic and
> hardcopy) of this email and all attachments.  While the sender tries to
> ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this material,
> Stanimore
> take no responsibility for any actions taken as a result of receiving this
> material or for any consequence of its use.
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
> 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: 
> Information in this email and any attachments is confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed or
> otherwise
> directed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email
> are
> solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
> Company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments
> for the presence of viruses. The 

Re: [PSES] Metal back of US fridge - Grenfell Tower Fire

[Adam Dixon]

Here's another good UK data source for incidents, not recalls:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/fire-statistics-data-tables

The "Domestic appliance fires dataset" file near the bottom can be parsed
by appliance type.


Cheers,
Adam
adam.di...@ieee.org



On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 7:42 AM, John Allen <
09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Scott
>
>
>
> Look on the EU Commission RAPEX site:
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumers_safety/safety_
> products/rapex/alerts/
>
>
>
> Actually, don’t if you want to sleep tonight!
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W.London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 25 June 2017 12:34
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Metal back of US fridge - Grenfell Tower Fire
>
>
>
> Hi Adam,
>
>
>
> The info supplied is interesting!  Yes, it aligns with John’s thought.
> However, the recalled units are quite different – 5,200 vs 1.2 m.  In the
> UK, there are a few million recalls of clothes dryers in last few years –
> that is quite different from US data.  Is there similar data of UK and/or
> EU?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Adam Dixon <lanterna.viri...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 25 June 2017 at 7:06 PM
> *To: *Scott Xe <scott...@gmail.com>, <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> *Cc: *<EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Metal back of US fridge - Grenfell Tower Fire
>
>
>
> Here's a slightly dated but popular US magazine article with a table near
> the end that supports John's closing thought about rarity of fridge fires
> compared to tumble-dryer fires (1:9 ratio).
>
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/03/
> appliance-fires-is-your-home-safe/index.htm
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
> adam.di...@ieee.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Scott Xe <scott...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> John, thanks for background info!
>
> LFB said one fire every day in London is caused by white goods.  It is a
> horrible figure!
>
> Grenfell Tower Fire is a bit different from previous ones and had another
> risk of non-approved insulation and cladding tiles on the outer wall of
> building.  It is still unclear how the fire spreads from the fridge to the
> cladding titles.  Was the fridge close to the windows?
>
> From the video, the metal back seems to work delaying the fire spread.  It
> may trigger the standard body to think it again.  The capacitor incident
> prevention has been incorporated into the safety standard, why not this
> one?  LFB may take this case to reinforce their warning alert in 2015.
>
> Scott
>
> On 25/6/2017, 5:25 PM, "John Woodgate" <jmw1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> It's not quite 'resistance', it's more a matter of different
> priorities. US safety standards major on protection against fire because
> they were originated by the insurance industry (Underwriters Laboratory)
> for obvious financial reasons, while European  safety standards major on
> prevention of electric shock, because 230 V is more dangerous than 120 V
> (but of course not more dangerous than 240 V!), and timber-framed buildings
> are relatively rare in Europe.
>
> I guess that the applicable safety standard (IEC/EN 60335-2-xxx)
> isn't strongly influenced by US experts (US may even have voted for it) and
> thus doesn’t require a metal back panel, whereas the UL standard (which may
> be the IEC standard with a modification or several) does require one.
>
> All the Sections of IEC 60335-2 are under continuous review as
> technologies change, and the recent incidence of fires may well result in
> significant changes.
>
> However, unlike the tumble dryer case, where numerous fires were
> reported, this fridge-freezer fire is just one incident, and may be due to
> a 'one-off' fault' or obstruction of the ventilation. Even the enquiry that
> is being held may not be able to assign a definite cause. I suspect that
> fridge fires are very much rarer than tumble-dryer fires, even if, to be
> fair, the epidemic dryer fires are excluded.
>
> 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: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 25 June 2017 09:35
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Metal back of US fridge - Grenfell Tower Fire
>
> According to London Fire Brigade, they are calling for manufacturers
> to use metal rather than 

Re: [PSES] Metal back of US fridge - Grenfell Tower Fire

[Adam Dixon]

Here's a slightly dated but popular US magazine article with a table near
the end that supports John's closing thought about rarity of fridge fires
compared to tumble-dryer fires (1:9 ratio).

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/03/appliance-fires-is-your-home-safe/index.htm


Cheers,
Adam
adam.di...@ieee.org


On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Scott Xe  wrote:

> John, thanks for background info!
>
> LFB said one fire every day in London is caused by white goods.  It is a
> horrible figure!
>
> Grenfell Tower Fire is a bit different from previous ones and had another
> risk of non-approved insulation and cladding tiles on the outer wall of
> building.  It is still unclear how the fire spreads from the fridge to the
> cladding titles.  Was the fridge close to the windows?
>
> From the video, the metal back seems to work delaying the fire spread.  It
> may trigger the standard body to think it again.  The capacitor incident
> prevention has been incorporated into the safety standard, why not this
> one?  LFB may take this case to reinforce their warning alert in 2015.
>
> Scott
>
> On 25/6/2017, 5:25 PM, "John Woodgate"  wrote:
>
> It's not quite 'resistance', it's more a matter of different
> priorities. US safety standards major on protection against fire because
> they were originated by the insurance industry (Underwriters Laboratory)
> for obvious financial reasons, while European  safety standards major on
> prevention of electric shock, because 230 V is more dangerous than 120 V
> (but of course not more dangerous than 240 V!), and timber-framed buildings
> are relatively rare in Europe.
>
> I guess that the applicable safety standard (IEC/EN 60335-2-xxx)
> isn't strongly influenced by US experts (US may even have voted for it) and
> thus doesn’t require a metal back panel, whereas the UL standard (which may
> be the IEC standard with a modification or several) does require one.
>
> All the Sections of IEC 60335-2 are under continuous review as
> technologies change, and the recent incidence of fires may well result in
> significant changes.
>
> However, unlike the tumble dryer case, where numerous fires were
> reported, this fridge-freezer fire is just one incident, and may be due to
> a 'one-off' fault' or obstruction of the ventilation. Even the enquiry that
> is being held may not be able to assign a definite cause. I suspect that
> fridge fires are very much rarer than tumble-dryer fires, even if, to be
> fair, the epidemic dryer fires are excluded.
>
> 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: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 25 June 2017 09:35
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Metal back of US fridge - Grenfell Tower Fire
>
> According to London Fire Brigade, they are calling for manufacturers
> to use metal rather than cheaper plastic to make the backs of fridges in
> order to protect flammable polyurethane insulation from components that
> could cause a blaze.  They added US fridges have metal back while the EU
> has not regulated this requirement.  What is the resistance for EU to adopt
> this requirement?
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Scott
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
> emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail
> to 
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
> site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics
> (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>
>
>
> -
> 
> 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:  

Re: [PSES] AC/DC power conversion and system architecture (in-rush limiting, reliability, cabling)

[Adam Dixon]

Thanks for the details, Brian!  I have Pressman's 3rd edition and didn't
see any significant discussion of initial transient/charging behaviors, but
perhaps haven't read closely enough yet.

My experience w/50% FL de-rating has been different but seems related to
your comments regarding component temperatures/airflow.  One supplier has
public qualification data that includes e-cap lifetimes versus load % and
ambient temperature and has told me that e-cap stress is their biggest
reliability concern.  Another supplier has provided predicted reliability
at different load %'s (but not demonstrated).  I am fairly familiar w/HALT
and SR322 (had a reliability engineer role at one time).

For the in-rush behavior, I have thought it to be a function of the primary
side circuit design (capacitors & current limiters) in the 1ms range.  Did
you mean AC bus or DC bus charging for the multiple cycles case?  I am
interested to do a bit more testing of an existing design under different
load conditions based on your description.  I have disassembled supplies
from different suppliers in the past in the 100W to 300W load range in
order to compare input/output capacitors and overall designs.  On the
primary side, all capacitances have been within a 2X range (80uF to 164uF @
420/450V) and on the output side a 10X range (1000uF to 1uF and with
very different e-cap voltage de-rating from 1.5x to 7x of Vout).

For the upstream protection, there are definitely differences in CB
performance whether thermal or combined thermal/magnetic. Depending on the
installation location, I have seen instances of local supplementary
protection (UL1077 CB's) in addition to branch protection, so I am wanting
to make sure the whole power distribution system is well understood for a
range of system designs/sizes.

 Thanks again!

-Adam

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Brian O'Connell <oconne...@tamuracorp.com>
wrote:

> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 19, 2017 9:59 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] AC/DC power conversion and system architecture (in-rush
> limiting, reliability, cabling)
>
>
>
> Long post from this weekend's studies I have been thinking about power
> distribution system tradeoffs for large systems where multiple AC/DC power
> supplies are used.  Surveying 5 or 6 suppliers, picking an arbitrary 100W -
> 200W range for comparison, I see in-rush current specs with a very wide
> range (14A to 80A) and a bit of variation in the specified voltages.  Some
> like to specify at 200VAC, others at 230VAC -- all are auto-switching
> universal input, so the datasheet numbers must be scaled to make an
> equivalent comparison.
>
> The first one or two cycles are mostly to fill up the DC bus caps. Some
> PFC implementations could increase the period of inrush to three to ten
> cycles. That said, the peak for the inrush current is (at least for my
> employer’s stuff) is well under 1mSec for one or two cycles. Auto-switch
> designs are not same as ‘universal’ input. Some auto-switch units will also
> have another inrush condition during transition from 120V to 230V input. In
> any case, the inrush number is useless unless for the least favorable
> normal operating condition, which is typically 230V.
>
> Targeting a 50-70% of full load rating for improved reliability seems
> reasonable from reviewing qualification data, as well as past discussions
> with two suppliers.  That will in some cases increase the number of power
> supplies in the system based on mounting location, ease of manufacture and
> cabling for a large physical structure.  Voltage drop on the DC output is
> another parameter that affects power supply location.
>
>
>
> Reduced FL will not necessarily increase MTBF; and for many SMPS designs,
> output load does not necessarily affect the peak inrush current, but can
> affect the period of initial high input current. Input V and source Z are
> the dominate factors for inrush, but for power supplies that have a
> de-rating for some operating conditions, the 50% load can be an interesting
> test condition.
>
>
> I'd appreciate feedback about in-rush current limiting hardware at the
> system level.  I've seen power supply specifications with block diagrams
> that identify in-rush limiting circuitry which I expect are mostly either
> NTC's or planar surge resistors. At the system level, it looks like three
> main options:  a hybrid surge resistor/bypass relay module (European
> suppliers(?)), a softstart controller (targets motor applications) and
> switched outlet PDU's for data center applications.  I think the hybrid
> module is best for a largely capacitive inputs and these modules'
> datasheets give a capacitive load rating (1500uF up to 1uF from what
> I've seen so far).  Networ

[PSES] AC/DC power conversion and system architecture (in-rush limiting, reliability, cabling)

[Adam Dixon]

Long post from this weekend's studies I have been thinking about power
distribution system tradeoffs for large systems where multiple AC/DC power
supplies are used.  Surveying 5 or 6 suppliers, picking an arbitrary 100W -
200W range for comparison, I see in-rush current specs with a very wide
range (14A to 80A) and a bit of variation in the specified voltages.  Some
like to specify at 200VAC, others at 230VAC -- all are auto-switching
universal input, so the datasheet numbers must be scaled to make an
equivalent comparison.

Targeting a 50-70% of full load rating for improved reliability seems
reasonable from reviewing qualification data, as well as past discussions
with two suppliers.  That will in some cases increase the number of power
supplies in the system based on mounting location, ease of manufacture and
cabling for a large physical structure.  Voltage drop on the DC output is
another parameter that affects power supply location.

I'd appreciate feedback about in-rush current limiting hardware at the
system level.  I've seen power supply specifications with block diagrams
that identify in-rush limiting circuitry which I expect are mostly either
NTC's or planar surge resistors. At the system level, it looks like three
main options:  a hybrid surge resistor/bypass relay module (European
suppliers(?)), a softstart controller (targets motor applications) and
switched outlet PDU's for data center applications.  I think the hybrid
module is best for a largely capacitive inputs and these modules'
datasheets give a capacitive load rating (1500uF up to 1uF from what
I've seen so far).  Network access for the smart switched outlet PDU is
probably not an option for the system design.

There also look to be moderate cost differences by technology
type/application.

Any good reference material beyond supplier datasheets and application
notes?  I've done some searching this weekend and have seen one general
lighting reference with estimates for rectifier/PFC topologies of being
30-100x of operating current for in-rush, which doesn't mate well with how
the circuit breakers are spec'd (10x to 30x for the millisecond range
in-rush transient).  I've also seen a few data center-oriented papers and
quite a few pages/papers for inductive motor in-rush applications which is
not what I am considering.

Any suppliers of preference worth evaluating for in-rush limiting for a
12-16A operating current application with common AC/DC open/closed frame
supplies?

Is the 50-70% FL de-rating for improved reliability a common design
target?

Other design attributes that jump to the forefront for you?

Thanks for reading the whole way through and giving it some thought!


Cheers,
Adam

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

[Adam Dixon]

It's been awhile, but at the time when wanting to understand modular test
requirements, the 2dB asymptote/leveling off  was a reference in FCC Part
15 Section 15.31 (a) (3)  pointing to ANSI C63.4-2003.

Regards,
Adam in Atlanta

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Sundstrom, Mike 
wrote:

> Regan,
>
> In regards to the daisy chaining:
>
> Hook up equipment (daisy chaining) until such a time as you don’t get a 2
> dB increase of any unwanted signals. I think this is in ANSI or CISPR?
>
> Everyone,
>
> What am I remembering partly here?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Michael Sundstrom
>
> Garmin Compliance Engineer
>
> 2-2606
>
> (913) 440-1540
>
> KB5UKT
>
>
>
>
> *"We call it theory when we know much about something but nothing works,
> and practice when everything works but nobody knows why."  *-- Albert
> Einstein
>
>
>
> *From:* Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2017 11:50 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question
>
>
>
> Hi Bill. Thanks for this great info! Much appreciated.
>
>
>
> The second part of my original email was merely philosophical discussion
> points. Let me clarify. I would love to hear what people think:
>
>
>
> 1. How many different types of ancillary equipment shall you test
> with your main EUT? i.e. PCs or laptops with HDMI & USB ports……the sky’s
> the limit as to the myriad of devices that now can be connected. Where does
> one ‘stop’?
>
> a. Also, not all devices (that claim to be Class B) are noise free.
> I’ve personally experienced extremely noisy devices using a reputable brand
> name (yes, FCC logo on the device), but had to exchange it for their
> competitor to ensure no unintentional emissions, so my main EUT passes.
> (Moral of the story….don’t believe everything you read on the label – lol)
>
>
>
> 2. Another related question: what about identical devices that can be
> daisy chained? i.e. some devices allow a daisy chain of up to 12 or more.
> (i.e. telecom trunk card). Does one use the chamber table as the
> determination for the quantity of daisy chained samples to test? Or does
> one compile all the max # of daisy chained devices on the table despite the
> congestion of I/O & power cables (not recommended)? Or is there a rule of
> thumb that one shall prove that there will not be an increase in emissions
> past a certain number of devices? (The latter is my preference).
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2017 6:54 AM
> *To:* Regan Arndt ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* RE: EMC co-location distance question
>
>
>
> Regan,
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, but I will try to
> provide an answer.  ANSI C63.4 is used when testing for FCC part 15 subpart
> B compliance for unintentional radiators. When testing a table-top system,
> the collocated equipment should be spaced at 10cm, unless this is not
> typical of normal operation. If so, then the EUT and its
> accessories/peripheral devices should be placed as they would be in typical
> applications.  It is important to read the text of the ANSI standard, as it
> goes into great detail on how to set up and select accessories for
> testing.  The drawings are for general reference only and the text always
> takes precedence. As for EN/CISPR standards, they mostly accept similar
> setup conditions to ANSI C63.4, but you will have to verify the specific
> requirements in each standard.   The *<*20cm you refer to was at one time
> unofficially (FCC) considered the distance for collocation of transmitter
> antennas, but this is no longer the case.  The FCC considers that two
> transmitters/antennas are collocated if they are in the same product /
> enclosure.  I hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 08, 2017 1:50 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] EMC co-location distance question
>
>
>
> Greetings members,
>
>
>
> Can anyone shed any light on what ANSI defines as the max distance/limit
> of a ‘co-located’ piece of ancillary equipment or other support equipment
> (on the table) to the main EUT being tested for FCC Part 15 class B for
> ‘unintentional radiators’. I seem to recall 20 cm but I think this was
> referring to ‘intentional’ radiators.
>
>
>
> Is there a similar requirement in the EMC directive and/or EN/CISPR
> standards? Or is this really dictated on your recommended set-up? Shall
> that device be removed from the test bed if typical installation indicates
> that it will be greater than 20cm from the main EUT?
>
>
>
> I believe that the set-up in ANSI only showed the PC, printer, mouse,
> keyboard & monitor but that’s it. There are so many other/different
> electronic devices that connect to a laptop/PC/other, etc. (i.e. 

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Adam Dixon]

ery cost effective.
>
>
>
> For the situation you brought up, I have always required no more than one
> or two conductors in a single crimp terminal of any kind and no more than
> two ring lugs per fastener.  IPC 620 has requirements that require
> inspection of the wire strands on the far side of the wire crimp portion
> and for the wire insulation under the insulation crimp portion.  For
> example, IPC 620 makes statements like this, "*When attaching multiple
> wires to a single terminal, each wire shall meet the same acceptability
> criteria as a single wire termination. When attaching single or multiple
> wires to a terminal the combined circular mil area of the wires shall
> comply with the circular mil area range for the terminal*" and "*If
> multiple wires are used insulation from all wires extend past the
> insulation crimp ...*". In one place, "*Two wires into a single contact
> ..." *is listed as a defect, "*unless the contact or connector
> specifications indicate that this is acceptable.*"
>
>
>
> ​Hope this helps,  Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:12 AM, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> It only helps to show that this is a 'grey area', suggesting that for a
> quiet life, do not use more than one wire.
>
>
>
> In practice, two solid wires are very troublesome, but two stranded wires
> are nowhere near as difficult. The more strands the better, within the
> capacity of the crimp.
>
>
>
> 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:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:48 PM
> *To:* John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
>
>
>
> Thanks, John.
>
> IEC 60352-2 Section 10.2 "Crimped connections made with more than one wire
> in a crimp barrel" briefly addresses general considerations and closes with
> the requirement for full testing to Section 5.3.3.  There is an additional
> comment "in some industries, the use of more than one wire is deprecated."
> which doesn't help.  All of the illustrations in the standard are single
> wire, too.  ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:02 AM, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> IEC 60352-2 may help. Or not.
>
>
>
> 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:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:45 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
>
>
>
> I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp
> hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.
>
> I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed
> a quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors
> provided that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  The
> other said that they don't have any such hardware.  The conversations
> occurred after sorting through datasheets, tracking down crimp guides,
> looking at qualification data, etc.  My search method may be sub-optimal
> and I am open to suggestions.
>
> I am more interested in ring terminals at this point.  Feel free to reply
> off-line if there are an issues with mentioning supplier names.
>
> I also read these archive threads where it appears that crimping has been
> discussed to some extent, but I didn't catch any "multiple conductor per
> crimp" commentary.
>
> 2015 "Shrink-wrap on soldered connections"
> 2004 "EN 60950 earth terminal requirements"
> 2001 "Double Crimp - History Request"
> 2000 "Double Retention"
> 1999 "Ground lugs"
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Adam
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachmen

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Adam Dixon]

Thanks, John.

IEC 60352-2 Section 10.2 "Crimped connections made with more than one wire
in a crimp barrel" briefly addresses general considerations and closes with
the requirement for full testing to Section 5.3.3.  There is an additional
comment "in some industries, the use of more than one wire is deprecated."
which doesn't help.  All of the illustrations in the standard are single
wire, too.  ;-)



Cheers,
Adam


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:02 AM, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> IEC 60352-2 may help. Or not.
>
>
>
> 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:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:45 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
>
>
>
> I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp
> hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.
>
> I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed
> a quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors
> provided that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  The
> other said that they don't have any such hardware.  The conversations
> occurred after sorting through datasheets, tracking down crimp guides,
> looking at qualification data, etc.  My search method may be sub-optimal
> and I am open to suggestions.
>
> I am more interested in ring terminals at this point.  Feel free to reply
> off-line if there are an issues with mentioning supplier names.
>
> I also read these archive threads where it appears that crimping has been
> discussed to some extent, but I didn't catch any "multiple conductor per
> crimp" commentary.
>
> 2015 "Shrink-wrap on soldered connections"
> 2004 "EN 60950 earth terminal requirements"
> 2001 "Double Crimp - History Request"
> 2000 "Double Retention"
> 1999 "Ground lugs"
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Adam
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Adam Dixon]

I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp
hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.

I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed
a quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors
provided that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  The
other said that they don't have any such hardware.  The conversations
occurred after sorting through datasheets, tracking down crimp guides,
looking at qualification data, etc.  My search method may be sub-optimal
and I am open to suggestions.

I am more interested in ring terminals at this point.  Feel free to reply
off-line if there are an issues with mentioning supplier names.

I also read these archive threads where it appears that crimping has been
discussed to some extent, but I didn't catch any "multiple conductor per
crimp" commentary.

2015 "Shrink-wrap on soldered connections"
2004 "EN 60950 earth terminal requirements"
2001 "Double Crimp - History Request"
2000 "Double Retention"
1999 "Ground lugs"


Thanks!

-Adam

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] IEC 60320 adapter cable question

[Adam Dixon]

To what standard(s) are you certifying?  60950, 62368 or other?

Are you able to use hardware to hold the two power cords together?  I would
expect this to be required to meet the protective earth requirement for
60950 Section 3.2.5 Power Cords since you are working with a detachable AC
mains configuration, though I don't have standards handy to reference the
potential country-specific requirements.



Regards,
Adam

>From UL 60950
3.2.1.1 Connection to an a.c. mains supply
For safe and reliable connection to an AC MAINS SUPPLY, equipment shall be
provided with one of
the following:
NOTE In many countries, it is a legal requirement to provide a plug that
complies with the national wiring rules.
– an appliance inlet for connection of a DETACHABLE POWER SUPPLY CORD;

3.2.5 Power supply cords
3.2.5.1 AC power supply cords
A MAINS SUPPLY cord shall be of the sheathed type and comply with the
following as appropriate:
NOTE 1 There is no limit on the mass of the equipment if the equipment is
intended for use with a DETACHABLE POWER
SUPPLY CORD.
• for equipment provided with a DETACHABLE POWER SUPPLY CORD, be not lighter
than light PVC sheathed flexible cord according to IEC 60227-1:2007
(designation 60227 IEC 52);

– other types of cords may be used if they have similar or better
electro-mechanical and fire safety properties as above.

NOTE 3 Where national or regional standards exist, they can be used to show
compliance with the above paragraph.
For equipment required to have protective earthing, a PROTECTIVE EARTHING
CONDUCTOR shall be
included in the MAINS SUPPLY cord.


On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:53 AM, David Gelfand <david.gelf...@kontron.com>
wrote:

> My question in particular is, will we comply with local requirements
> using a country-approved power cable in combination with this type of
> adapter?
>
>
>
> *De :* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* 13 février 2017 18:59
> *À :* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Objet :* Re: [PSES] IEC 60320 adapter cable question
>
>
>
> I have used Stayonline and have been pleased with their breadth and
> quality of cord options.  I don't think they carry part numbers for all of
> the countries that David mentions for mating with a C16 inlet ("notched
> C15" is the description on their site), but definitely worth a good look.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> This company seems to make what you want (cord with C-15 plug), but I have
> no experience of them:
>
>
>
> http://www.stayonline.com/
>
>
>
> 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:* David Gelfand [mailto:david.gelf...@kontron.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 9:52 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] IEC 60320 adapter cable question
>
>
>
> Esteemed colleagues,
>
>
>
> We have a product rated 1500W with a keyed IEC 60320 C-16 inlet.   The
> C-16 inlet is used for 15A cables for North America (120Vac).
>
>
>
> For countries that use 230Vac, we have been trying to locate power cords
> with keyed C-15 plugs with little success.  Someone has asked if we can use
> a C-14 to C-15 adapter cable, to allow connection of standard C-13 power
> cords.
>
>
>
> The adapter cable has CE, UL and CSA approvals, and is rated at 15A
> 250Vac.  You can see a spec here: http://internationalconfig.
> com/documents/98715X3FT.pdf
>
>
>
> I know next to nothing about power cord requirements.  If we use a
> country-approved power cable and this adapter, would we comply with local
> requirements?  In particular we are looking at Europe, Argentina, UK,
> Australia and Switzerland.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *David Gelfand ing./Eng.*
>
> EMI specialiste en conformité
>
> EMI Specialist Conformity
>
> *Kontron*
>
> 4555 Rue Ambroise-Lafortune | Boisbriand (Québec) J7H 0A4 | Canada
>
> T/P: + 1 (450) 437-4661 x2449 <%28450%29%20437-4661>
>
> *david.gelf...@kontron.com <david.gelf...@kontron.com>*
>
>
>
> *Website <http://www.kontron.com/>** | Blog <http://blog.kontron.com/> |
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/Kontron> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kontron> | YouTube
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXkp_1gJbG0Um1vzdowlqww> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/kontron> *
>
>
>
> En ouvrant ce courriel, vous acceptez la politique de Kontron relative aux 
> communications
> électroniques
> <http://www.kontron

Re: [PSES] IEC 60320 adapter cable question

[Adam Dixon]

I have used Stayonline and have been pleased with their breadth and quality
of cord options.  I don't think they carry part numbers for all of the
countries that David mentions for mating with a C16 inlet ("notched C15" is
the description on their site), but definitely worth a good look.


Cheers,
Adam

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, John Woodgate 
wrote:

> This company seems to make what you want (cord with C-15 plug), but I have
> no experience of them:
>
>
>
> http://www.stayonline.com/
>
>
>
> 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:* David Gelfand [mailto:david.gelf...@kontron.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 9:52 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] IEC 60320 adapter cable question
>
>
>
> Esteemed colleagues,
>
>
>
> We have a product rated 1500W with a keyed IEC 60320 C-16 inlet.   The
> C-16 inlet is used for 15A cables for North America (120Vac).
>
>
>
> For countries that use 230Vac, we have been trying to locate power cords
> with keyed C-15 plugs with little success.  Someone has asked if we can use
> a C-14 to C-15 adapter cable, to allow connection of standard C-13 power
> cords.
>
>
>
> The adapter cable has CE, UL and CSA approvals, and is rated at 15A
> 250Vac.  You can see a spec here: http://internationalconfig.
> com/documents/98715X3FT.pdf
>
>
>
> I know next to nothing about power cord requirements.  If we use a
> country-approved power cable and this adapter, would we comply with local
> requirements?  In particular we are looking at Europe, Argentina, UK,
> Australia and Switzerland.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *David Gelfand ing./Eng.*
>
> EMI specialiste en conformité
>
> EMI Specialist Conformity
>
> *Kontron*
>
> 4555 Rue Ambroise-Lafortune | Boisbriand (Québec) J7H 0A4 | Canada
>
> T/P: + 1 (450) 437-4661 x2449 <(450)%20437-4661>
>
> *david.gelf...@kontron.com *
>
>
>
> *Website ** | Blog  |
> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | YouTube
>  | Facebook
>  *
>
>
>
> En ouvrant ce courriel, vous acceptez la politique de Kontron relative aux 
> communications
> électroniques
> 
>
> By opening this email you are agreeing to Kontron’s *Electronic
> Communications
> 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 <
> 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
>

-

This message is from the 

Re: [PSES] safety standard - mobile inverters

[Adam Dixon]

What about IEC 62109-2 with emphasis on standalone (i.e. not
grid-connected)?

Regards,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

IEC 62109-2:2011 Safety of power converters for use in photovoltaic power
systems - Part 2: Particular requirements for inverters

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:31 AM, John Woodgate 
wrote:

> I don't think there is one. A search on the IEC web site shows IEC
> 61204-7:2016, which is not about inverters but might be sufficiently
> applicable.
>
> 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: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:37 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] safety standard - mobile inverters
>
> Dear group,
>
> I am looking for suggestions on best-fit product safety standard for LVD
> for a 230V inverter intended for vehicular use only. (buses & small trucks)
>
> Test lab suggests EN60950, which I dismissed.  EN50178 and EN60335-1 don’t
> appear to be suitable.  I’m really looking for an IEC equivalent to UL458
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
> -
> 
> 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 
> 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] add 60950 to a new supplier's product which only has FCC?

[Adam Dixon]

Jim, Rich and all who replied,

Thanks for the feedback.  There is no intentional transmitter.  I don't
believe it's a case of wanting to hide Company A -- it appears to be a case
of economics and differing views of safety & liability,which has surprised
me a bit.


Cheers,
Adam


On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Adam,  depends on how well you want company A hidden from company B's
> customers. As Rich commented on safety I will comment on FCC.
>
> On the FCC depends on whether there is a transmitter involved as to what
> path can be used and how to address.  If there is no transmitter,  you can
> just issue a cover letter explaining the difference between the two
> versions of the product and why the first report is valid.  If you are
> trying to hide the first company,  most labs for a fee will rewrite the
> report listing company B instead of company A in a new set of reports.  The
> labs will want copies of agreements and other paper work to make sure it is
> only labels/model numbers that are different.
>
> Jim
>
> On Jan 29, 2017 4:18 PM, "Adam Dixon" <lanterna.viri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Similar to last year's Company A/B Multiple Listee for CE discussion, is
>> there a good path to take a finished product built by Company A which only
>> has FCC certification and have Company B add 60950 safety certification?
>> Seems like it should be an "all or nothing" proposition (i.e. Company B
>> repeats FCC?) for proper traceability in the North American market similar
>> to the final relationships and checks that Rodney, Charlie and Steve mapped
>> out for the EU.  Thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] add 60950 to a new supplier's product which only has FCC?

[Adam Dixon]

Similar to last year's Company A/B Multiple Listee for CE discussion, is
there a good path to take a finished product built by Company A which only
has FCC certification and have Company B add 60950 safety certification?
Seems like it should be an "all or nothing" proposition (i.e. Company B
repeats FCC?) for proper traceability in the North American market similar
to the final relationships and checks that Rodney, Charlie and Steve mapped
out for the EU.  Thoughts?

Cheers,
Adam

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

[Adam Dixon]

I added the FCC search option initially based on my first search returning
one example from a supplier whose North American office is near me in the
Atlanta area.  I tried a couple other big names and didn't want to sort
through hundreds of entries, so there was an early morning WalMart trip
today to look at labels.  The FCC ID portion of current generation smart TV
labels now gives the WiFi module supplier's ID with "Contains  ID
yy" language.  Oh well

Also, am interested to know if anyone has comparison data with respect to
TV size?  From comments thus far and looking at a handful of tear down
videos/pictures, I wonder how dramatic the differences may be between a 40"
and a 70".  Integrated speakers and button controls would give a nice range
of internal cable lengths, as well as the raw panel size and power supply
differences.  I have seen differences in raw panel grounding schemes.

With your cables and couplers experience, any feedback from the suppliers
and are they all current HDMI adopters?  It might be worth contacting the
Lattice Semiconductor ATC for feedback.  You never know if you are working
with a part number which is different from the initial sample required by
the HDMI testing policy.  I had one experience in the DisplayPort world
where a repeater was not certified though the main silicon inside was.


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Brent DeWitt <bdew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Excellent suggestion about the teardown sites!  I hadn’t thought of that.
> The problem with FCC filings is there really aren’t any.  TVs are
> verification only devices.  There isn’t a reason for them to be posted to
> the FCC site (wish there was).
>
>
>
> Good thoughts on the evolution of the display world.
>
>
>
> One thing of particular note is the characteristics of 4k (or even 1080p)
> HDMI.  It has four high speed differential pairs (TMDS) that have specified
> transition times between 85 and 45 psec.  It takes only the slightest skew
> in this signal to create significant CM voltage on the system.  I’ve found
> any number of commercially available cables and couplers that blow through
> the emissions limits when used between an otherwise compliant source and
> sink.
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 7:23 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?
>
>
>
> In addition to the recommendations such as James', it may be worth some
> time looking at teardown videos (YouTube, iFixit, etc.) and FCC filings
> (the internal photos entry among all of the documents) to get an idea of
> construction.  You won't know if you get a similarly well-performing sample
> like James' or an out-of-spec dud when you make the purchase
> decision.unless 17 other PSTC members recommend the same make/model. ;-)
>
> Also, maybe a colleague on the list would have insight for the
> construction of medical class 4K displays versus consumer class in the
> event there are better regulatory margins that accompany the
> grayscale/color rendering performance requirements (whether implemented in
> hardware or firmware).
>
> From my experience, there has been a shift in the display industry when
> looking at internal construction where ferrite beads, metal foil tapes,
> outer metal chassis have disappeared and it's now an LCD panel with its own
> regulatory behaviors and several PCBs (power supply, TCON, scaler, WiFi,
> etc.) bolted on the back with a mix of flex and discrete wire
> harnessesall covered by a rear plastic cover.  Some of the shift is a
> function of moving from CCFL to LED backlighting, some from having strictly
> digital I/O and probably a few other factors like better PCB design/layout
> to ensure robust high speed I/O performance.
>
> And a last option depending on time/$$ for comparison testing may be to
> use a different display load (projector, HDMI extender, etc.) to understand
> the relative behaviors.
>
>
>
> -Adam in Atlanta
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Pawson, James <james.paw...@echostar.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Brent,
>
>
>
> I’ve had some success with a (now slightly old) Samsung 4k TV that wasn’t
> too noisy, model UE48JU7000T.
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
> *Sent:* 10 January 2017 01:57
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?
>
>
>
> Hi group,
>
>
>
> Any suggestions on the best available 4k TV for emissions testing
> support?  We seem to be in a continuous churn of looking for good,
> commercially available, sources and sinks.  It would be 

Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

[Adam Dixon]

In addition to the recommendations such as James', it may be worth some
time looking at teardown videos (YouTube, iFixit, etc.) and FCC filings
(the internal photos entry among all of the documents) to get an idea of
construction.  You won't know if you get a similarly well-performing sample
like James' or an out-of-spec dud when you make the purchase
decision.unless 17 other PSTC members recommend the same make/model. ;-)

Also, maybe a colleague on the list would have insight for the construction
of medical class 4K displays versus consumer class in the event there are
better regulatory margins that accompany the grayscale/color rendering
performance requirements (whether implemented in hardware or firmware).

>From my experience, there has been a shift in the display industry when
looking at internal construction where ferrite beads, metal foil tapes,
outer metal chassis have disappeared and it's now an LCD panel with its own
regulatory behaviors and several PCBs (power supply, TCON, scaler, WiFi,
etc.) bolted on the back with a mix of flex and discrete wire
harnessesall covered by a rear plastic cover.  Some of the shift is a
function of moving from CCFL to LED backlighting, some from having strictly
digital I/O and probably a few other factors like better PCB design/layout
to ensure robust high speed I/O performance.

And a last option depending on time/$$ for comparison testing may be to use
a different display load (projector, HDMI extender, etc.) to understand the
relative behaviors.


-Adam in Atlanta


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Pawson, James 
wrote:

> Hi Brent,
>
>
>
> I’ve had some success with a (now slightly old) Samsung 4k TV that wasn’t
> too noisy, model UE48JU7000T.
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
> *Sent:* 10 January 2017 01:57
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?
>
>
>
> Hi group,
>
>
>
> Any suggestions on the best available 4k TV for emissions testing
> support?  We seem to be in a continuous churn of looking for good,
> commercially available, sources and sinks.  It would be a real plus if it
> also had ARC capability!
>
>
>
> I’m also wondering if there would be much support for a WIKI site for the
> EMC community to post their findings on support devices.  Nothing
> proprietary, just measurements of “off the shelf” support equipment like
> TVs, monitors and sources.
>
>
>
> Thanks all!
>
>
>
> Brent DeWitt
>
> Milford, MA
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> 
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> 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
>

-

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 

Re: [PSES] aluminum vs copper wiring

[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 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

[Adam Dixon]

John didn't say if the flying cars were self-flying or not.  Some of us on
the list might remember this episode

"The Jetsons: A Date with Jet Screamer (#1.2)"
 (1962) [*George gets stuck in rush
hour traffic on his way home from work*]
*George Jetson *: Well, here we go
again. Another night, another traffic jam. Boy, this spaceway traffic gets
worse every night. Hey, looks like an opening up ahead.
[*he finds the opening and takes it, only to get stuck in more traffic*]
*George Jetson *: There's another one.
[*he tries to take that one, only to find someone else has taken it first.
He crashes with it*]
*George Jetson *: Space hog! I better
cut around and try and slide in.
[*he does just that*]
*George Jetson *: Sunday astronaut!
[*he then looks forward with a start*]
*George Jetson *: Yikes!
[*he crashes through a sign advertising for Cosmic Cola*]
*Traffic Cop *: Hey, you! What do you
think this is, the Indianapolis 500,000?
[*he gets George to pull over*]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Gary McInturff <
gary.mcintu...@esterline.com> wrote:

> That just adds a third dimension to the issue
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 12:26 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.
>
> By that time, flying cars will be normal.
>
> 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: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 4:10 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.
>
> Regardless of consumer inclination, the inclination of the increasingly
> authoritarian powers-that-be will be to mandate such automation when it is
> available, so that regardless of the consumer's preferences, automation
> will be all that is available. This will be done in the name of "public
> safety"
> and I can see a day when the remaining non-automated cars will be ordered
> off the roads as a danger to the modern fleet.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
> -
> 
> 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:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.
> ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=
> RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=
> wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=fjYhPx0QysZsaaOUH1gY-
> cAMLJmugXuh9AbQ1kvZoFc=
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-
> 2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=
> RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=
> wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=72tJjFONrtgv5K1oEX2mj2aqtk0-
> NxC7idqKLxIqkpg=  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats),
> large files, etc.
>
> Website:  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.
> ieee-2Dpses.org_=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=
> RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=
> wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=
> yz0NhhtB9z7vWfPmKZhhIlgybUX4wkEFiyYd-jdLkmY=
> Instructions:  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.
> ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=
> RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=
> wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=
> EAwdqsLSSoseRXWdPKMXqvhOoo3WSSsEzfWyYiRr4pU=  (including how to
> unsubscribe) List rules: https://urldefense.proofpoint.
> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=DgICAg=
> 0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=
> wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=
> d08TMyJEvPvMbJYscAruIV65Vd1Gq-4XuKy6Tf5_UuI=
>
> 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 

Re: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer electronics & electrical appliances

[Adam Dixon]

Hi, Scott,


Apple informs its customers about temperature extremes and battery/device
performance in an easy-to-find article titled "Keeping iPhone, iPad, and
iPod touch within acceptable operating temperatures."  Apple users in
Norway should have the same hardware as those in the US, so should be no
unique thermal design for Norway.

All consumer electronics manufacturers should have
transportation/storage/operating
temperature ranges, though it is difficult sometimes to locate the numbers
in their documentation.  I designed with LCD panels for several years and
there are similar design challenges with liquid crystal temperature
behavior at high/low temperature extremes.  There was one panel design for
worldwide use.  Only when the panel was being designed into a product for
outdoor use (ex:  digital signage), were additional heating/cooling
hardware added to ensure the panel itself stayed within the required liquid
crystal temperature range.

In the case of EU consumer electronics, the TV's listed on Tesco's site
look quite similar to those on WalMart's and both have travelled from
factories in Asia, so the temperature ranges are likely identical or very
similar (though difficult to locate!).  I expect your concern is more for
portable electronics like cell phones and tablets?

For larger appliances like the refrigerator and washer that you mention,
there typically would be a temperature transition time associated with the
delivery and installation which would likely satisfy the operating range
(i.e. warm up to within operating range before being powered on for the
first time).  While not related to the EU consumer electronics market,
there are some easy to find articles on NEBS compliance that describe the
transition temperature times/rates to which NEBS hardware is tested  --
just a comparison reference specific to the transition temp/time behavior
since your concern seems more related to portable electronics and lithium
batteries.  Also, Panasonic has a short article describing Mil-Std-810G
testing of their Toughbook family, but that's a "ruggedized" laptop
compared to what most consumers use.


Regards,
Adam



On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Scott Xe  wrote:

> John,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your sharing!  It is really beyond our knowledge and
> experience.  I thought UK is seldom to have such low temperature.
>
>
>
> It seems most of normal electrical appliances may really not work in some
> countries where their lowest temperature below 0 degC such as Norway.  Do
> they have specially designed products for their markets?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *John Woodgate 
> *Date: *Saturday, 5 November 2016 at 4:33 PM
> *To: *'Scott Xe' , 
> *Subject: *RE: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer
> electronics & electrical appliances
>
>
>
> It's largely unknown in Britain, I think. In recent years in the south of
> the island, an interior temperature near 0 C has probably been very rare,
> but that would not apply much further north, in the Highlands of Scotland.
>
>
>
> 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:* Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 5, 2016 8:16 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer
> electronics & electrical appliances
>
>
>
> Hi Ted,
>
>
>
> I am referring to general electrical products such as TVs, audios,
> refrigerators, washing machines, etc. for indoors use.  The lowest
> operating temperature of lithium battery triggered us to talk about this
> subject.  The lithium battery is not allowed to operate at 0 degC or less –
> it is actually not working well below 10 degC.  We found most of electrical
> products are claimed to operate from 0 to 35-40 degC.  If the users return
> home at night in winter and find all electrical products become
> malfunctioned.  They have to turn on the heater and wait for the ambient
> temperature going upto 0 degC or higher.  Is it *a norm and acceptable
> user experience in EU*?
>
>
>
> For the products used outdoors, the mobile devices using lithium battery
> are very common nowadays.  How can they survive for outdoors use?
> Understand EV cars do have a heater helping the starting up but most of
> mobile devices do not have such luxury facility.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ted Eckert 
> *Date: *Saturday, 5 November 2016 at 8:04 AM
> *To: *Scott Xe , "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> *Subject: *RE: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer
> electronics & electrical appliances
>
>
>
> Hi Scott,
>
>
>
> What is the product type? If this is something that could be used
> outdoors, you need 

Re: [PSES] HDMI questions

[Adam Dixon]

742MHz sounds suspiciously like a harmonic of the 74.25MHz max TMDS clock
rate for a Category 1 cable per the HDMI 1.3a spec.  I don't have the HDMI
2.0 spec (not an adopter), but would love to know more about the test
configurations.  A few thoughts/tests:

4K resolution at lowest color depth (no Deep Color) and lowest frame rate
(i.e. lowest bit rate remaining at 4K resolution)?

Video sources with and without HDCP support?  HDMI test pattern generator
(Quantum Data, Kramer, etc.)?

Comparison of several cables with Category 2 grade?
http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/Premium_HDMI_Cable_Participant_List.aspx
-- specific mention of EMC testing as part of qualification; see
Participants list of you haven't already confirmed your cables

Do you have a tool/development environment to access Sil9777 registers for
lower level debug?


Will be interested to hear what others have to say on this.


Regards,
Adam


On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Brent DeWitt  wrote:

> I’ve been working with some Silicon Images (Lattice Semi) 9777 multiplexer
> chips lately and would appreciate any insight list members might have.
> When used at any resolution below 4k, there seems to be a 10 dB emission
> “pedestal” that stands out of the baseline emission at several frequencies,
> 742 MHz in particular.  The pedestal is 666 usec long and repeats at
> whatever frame rate is selected.  At first, I thought it was correlated
> with the SPI bus activity, since the timing was identical, but further
> experiments show that not to be true.
>
>
>
> My question is, is this inherent to HDMI, or to the 9777?  As is probably
> obvious, I don’t have a whole lot of experience with HDMI video.
>
>
>
> Thanks all!
>
>
>
> Brent DeWitt, AB1LF
>
> Milford, MA
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>

-

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] SV: [PSES] RE from Flat Panel ICs

[Adam Dixon]

The National Semi/TI parts have been used in dozens (perhaps hundreds) of
laptop and LCD monitor designs over the past 12 years or so.  The video
scaler suppliers are very protective of their IP, so you are likely to find
the most detailed information from the LVDS driver suppliers.  You should
have already seen that you can only get a product brief from
Intersil/Techwell, which is true for the other  video scaler suppliers,
most of which are in Asia.

Besides all of the helpful comments from Amund, Alfred, Brian and John,
take a really good look at the designs of the LCD panels which which you
are trying to interface.  There are major differences in panel design with
respect to grounding, power distribution, connector robustness, LVDS
layout, etc. which may affect RE performance when coupled with the cable
and drive electronics.  The panels have been through cost reduction cycles
over the years, too, which hasn't always helped with regulatory.  ;-)

If the TW8804 is your target scaler, it sounds like you are working w/a
smaller form factor panel given its resolution range.  What panel
manufacturers/models are you using?

Also, if you have the opportunity to look at a few physical designs (i.e.
tear down some old monitors/broken laptops from a thrift store, look for
tear down blogs online with photos), you'll see that shielding LVDS cables
is quiet common, particularly in designs which have longer cable lengths.
There is also frequently a lot of foil tape or extra sheet metal associated
with grounding/shielding at the panel-end, too.

Regards,
Adam




On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Amund Westin 
wrote:

> LVDS issues … exactly the same lenght / impedance on all I/O lines and add
> common mode chokes on all lines aswell.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Amund
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com]
> *Sendt:* 15. oktober 2016 07:41
> *Til:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Emne:* Re: [PSES] RE from Flat Panel ICs
>
>
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
> Jokes aside, may be the meaning of general recommendations have different
> meanings to us so let's clarify that and see if it takes us any closer to
> finding help for you.
>
> By focusing on chips specific causes to the RE problem implies that you
> have ruled out all other causes of the RE problems. One way to draw such
> conclusion is having a number of different designs differing only in the
> LVDS drivers chip being used. All other aspects such as circuit design, PCB
> layouts, peripheral connections, enclosures, environments, etc. are all
> significantly the same or identical. Thus the only variable is the LVDS
> drivers. Only then could we be blaming the chip and looking for chip
> specific causes. Otherwise you may risk chasing the wrong tail.
>
> It's worth stating my favorite statement about debugging: if one made the
> wrong assumption, one may never find the problem, so when you are facing a
> dead end, re-examine your assumptions. The most famous example is the
> software bug that causes the computer not to boot is an unplugged power
> cord:)
>
> I apologize if I am merely repeating everything you already know very
> well. Again, wrong assumption leads to dead end and that helps nobody.
>
> Best of luck debugging.
>
> Sincerely
> Alfred
>
> On October 14, 2016 3:17:26 PM PDT, John Woodgate 
> wrote:
>
> The ICs themselves are too small to produce significant RE. The RE comes
> from the PCB tracks and external cables. But of course you know that.
>
>
>
> 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:* MARINA PEYZNER [mailto:epeyz...@sbcglobal.net
> ]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 14, 2016 10:25 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RE from Flat Panel ICs
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually, my question was about Flat panel driver ICs, particularly about
> chips Intersil Techwell TW8804 and National Semiconductor DS90C385A. I had
> hope that somebody has valuable experience with this problem.
>
>
>
> Thank you anyway,
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 2:12 PM, alfred1520list <
> alfred1520l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> And general recommendation! s also say to reduce common mode current. But
> obviously this shouldn't have been said too:)
>
> On October 14, 2016 9:24:36 AM PDT, John Woodgate 
> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that claiming familiarity with general recommendations
> severely restricts what anyone can add. The general recomm! endation for
> reducing RE is to minimise the areas of current loops by pairing 'go' and
> 'return' conductors on adjacent layers of the PC board. But you obviously
> know that already.
>
>
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
>
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
>
>
> Sylvae in 

Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

[Adam Dixon]

Well, it wasn't a totally wasted trip since I picked up treats for our
dog.  ;-)

120VAC is within the 50-1000VAC LVD range, though I am not familiar with
120VAC or the minimum 50VAC applications in the UK.  I was thinking about
product designs which apply to worldwide markets.  So it ends up being more
a case of designing and certifying for country- or region-specific or
worldwide markets.  Attributes such as power supply cost, efficiency and
universal vs non-universal input voltage, as well as scope and cost of
regulatory compliance for one country vs worldwide, etc.  And for the
television market, NTSC or PAL or both.

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/electrical-engineering/lvd-directive_en


Cheers,
Adam



On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 10:06 AM, John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> Products that work only on 120 V obviously won't be CE marked, even if
> they meet the EMC Directive, because CE requires conformity to all
> applicable Directives and that includes the Low Voltage Directive.
>
>
>
> 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:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 1, 2016 2:39 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
>
>
> Reply to John's question about CE marking on products in US:
>
> Results from an early Saturday morning visit to local (Atlanta, GA)
> WalMart to look at product labels are:
>
> Televisions:  no CE marking (FCC + UL was common to all six models from
> five manufacturers, majority of which would be considered reputable.)
>
> Laptops:  CE marking (could only see markings on one unit the way they are
> displayed, as well as markings are typically covered by removeable battery
> pack).  Laptops @ home have CE marking.
>
> LCD monitors:  LG monitor @ home w/CE marking
>
>
>
> Power tools w/ or w/o lithium batteries:  no CE marking, first time seeing
> ANCE marking on one battery powered drill which also had NOM and CSA
> markings but no UL marking.
>
> Toaster ovens:  no CE marking
>
> Microwaves:  no CE marking
>
> Childrens' electronic toys:  don't know - got in trouble w/store security
> unboxing before I could confirm.
>
> Just kidding about the last one
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam in Atlanta
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:57 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
> Gremmen <g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote:
>
> John Allen wrote:
> >That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as
> mentioned in the previously linked >website) could not be sold elsewhere in
> the major World markets without suitable compliance and >verification, and
> yet can be sold in the US.
>
> I was wondering if that is really the case ?  Can our US collegues witness
> that product of reputable manufacturers are not wearing the CE marking in
> the US. ??
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ing. Gert Gremmen
> Approvals manager
> 
> 
>
>
> + ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
> + Independent Consultancy Services
> + Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
>  according to EC-directives:
> - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
> - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
> - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
> - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
> + Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing
> + Education
>
> Web:www.cetest.nl (English)
> Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
> ---
> This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information
> that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights
> and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.
> Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not
> limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or
> distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and
> delete the material from any computer.
> Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 15:31
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
> Dieter
>
> Yes, that's what the words state, and have done for years - but, with no
> clear requirements or guidelines as to t

Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

[Adam Dixon]

Reply to John's question about CE marking on products in US:

Results from an early Saturday morning visit to local (Atlanta, GA) WalMart
to look at product labels are:

Televisions:  no CE marking (FCC + UL was common to all six models from
five manufacturers, majority of which would be considered reputable.)

Laptops:  CE marking (could only see markings on one unit the way they are
displayed, as well as markings are typically covered by removeable battery
pack).  Laptops @ home have CE marking.

LCD monitors:  LG monitor @ home w/CE marking

Power tools w/ or w/o lithium batteries:  no CE marking, first time seeing
ANCE marking on one battery powered drill which also had NOM and CSA
markings but no UL marking.

Toaster ovens:  no CE marking

Microwaves:  no CE marking

Childrens' electronic toys:  don't know - got in trouble w/store security
unboxing before I could confirm.


Just kidding about the last one


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta


On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:57 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen  wrote:

> John Allen wrote:
> >That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as
> mentioned in the previously linked >website) could not be sold elsewhere in
> the major World markets without suitable compliance and >verification, and
> yet can be sold in the US.
>
> I was wondering if that is really the case ?  Can our US collegues witness
> that product of reputable manufacturers are not wearing the CE marking in
> the US. ??
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ing. Gert Gremmen
> Approvals manager
> 
> 
>
>
> + ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
> + Independent Consultancy Services
> + Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
>  according to EC-directives:
> - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
> - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
> - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
> - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
> + Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing
> + Education
>
> Web:www.cetest.nl (English)
> Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
> ---
> This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information
> that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights
> and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.
> Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not
> limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or
> distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and
> delete the material from any computer.
> Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 15:31
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
> Dieter
>
> Yes, that's what the words state, and have done for years - but, with no
> clear requirements or guidelines as to the technical requirements (tests,
> limits, pass/fail conditions etc.) or the actual need to do verification,
> then many/most suppliers appear to me to ignore those words! I think the
> same was true in Europe during the period after the original EMC Directive
> (76/889/EEC) was published but before the CE marking requirement version
> (89/336/EC) came out and required "proof" of compliance in the form of test
> reports, tech files and the CE marking - after that, things gradually began
> to change!
>
> The big problem in 1989, and for some years after, was the almost total
> lack of standards against which to do the tests and assessments on
> non-military products. However, some 25+ years later, the same cannot be
> said as there are many international, and even US trade-body, standards
> which could almost immediately be used as the basis for realistic sets of
> requirements to be formulated.
>
> Many multi-national and US companies already do that as normal development
> practice, but in the current US legislative environment they can then "cost
> cut" for the US market by either not doing that testing on US-market
> specific products, or "cost reducing" their internationally-sold products
> for sale in that market. That's probably why the products from some major
> multinationals (as mentioned in the previously linked website) could not be
> sold elsewhere in the major World markets without suitable compliance and
> verification, and yet can be sold in the US.
>
> John E Allen
> W. London, UK
>
> From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
> Sent: 30 September 2016 13:59
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
>
> In general I believe that changing part 15 will be very difficult since it
> is a legal  (political) document and would 

Re: [PSES] Fire ants

[Adam Dixon]

Follow the links available in Doug's original post to get to the Texas A
article which references both electric and magnetic field influences.  In
my locale (Atlanta, GA), University of Georgia folks speculate the
attraction is due to thermals (2013 AJC article:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-news/crazy-ants-the-ants-that-eat-electronics-march-int/nZ3zy/).
Looks like there are folks who have been researching this over the past 20
years or so.

The GFCI attraction may have been from alien ants like on CBS' Braindead
which are intelligent enough to realize that the GFCI is more safe. ;-)


Regards,
Adam
adam.di...@ieee.org

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:25 AM, IEEE  wrote:

> I wonder if there are any entomologists that are studying this effect? Has
> anyone looked up any of the ant specialists to see if they’ve been
> exploring this phenomena?
>
> WRT to Don’s experience, I wonder if it’s the magnetic field that is
> attracting them more than the electric field? The GFCI has some toroidal
> current transformers that might be part of the attraction…
>
> I was also wondering if the abdominal signalling/pheromone release
> behaviour following the electric shock was a call to battle with a
> perceived enemy, against which they could not win. I guess if you pile on
> enough dead ants you can eventually trip the breaker feeding the circuit,
> and the ants “win”, at least in the moment.
>
> Anyway, sounds like we need some bug guys involved in this discussion…
>
> Doug Nix
> d...@ieee.org
> +1 (519) 729-5704
>
> On Sep 15, 2016, at 06:14, Gies, Don (Nokia - US) <
> don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com > wrote:
>
> Yes.
>
> I had a GFCI 20A circuit breaker in my panel feeding my pool pump motor.
> I went to open my pool last spring and the breaker kept tripping.  So, I
> concluded that the breaker went bad.
>
> I opened up the breaker panel to change the breaker and found that the
> GFCI breaker was infested with ants (regular ones, not fire ants), but
> interestingly, the GFCI breaker was the ONLY breaker in the entire panel
> that had ants.
>
>
> *DON GIES*
>  *NOKIA Bell Labs*
> SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER
> GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY
> 600-700 Mountain Avenue
> Room 5B-104
> Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA
> Phone: +1 908 582 5978
> Mobile: +1 732 207 7828
> *don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com *
>
>
> *From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:04 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> *Subject:* [PSES] Fire ants
>
> All,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has any real experiences with fire ant
> infestation in electrical equipment that they would be willing to share.
>
>
> http://articles.extension.org/pages/30057/ants-and-electrical-equipment
>
>
> It seems to me that for high current contractors and electrical
> disconnects (not using self-wiping contacts) with contaminants between
> connection points can result in resistive connections, I^2R heating,
> potential arcing and if enough voltage is present, series arc faults which
> over time can erode connections and result in a fire.  Does anyone have
> experience with this as a real problem?
>
> Thanks  Doug
>
>
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
> -
> 
>
> 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 

Re: [PSES] AMA Warns of Harm from LED Streetlights’ Blue Light

[Adam Dixon]

Lots of good comments in this threadas with many others over the
years.

For those interested in testing the theory, take a look at f.lux which is
available for PC and tablet/cell phone environments.  They have a short
research page with some information.  You'll see the obvious shift in color
temperature when it activates in the evening.

Part of the color temperature conundrum relates to the LED fabrication
processes at semiconductor and packaging levels, balancing efficiency,
yield, cost, etc.  Fred Schubert at RPI has an informative LED site to go
with his "Light Emitting Diodes" text.   Also, the Lighting Research Center
at RPI has a wealth of information regarding color science including human
factors.  So if you read much from either of these sites late at night on
your tablet or laptop and have trouble sleeping (or more rapidly fall
asleep), we won't be able to know if it's the lighting color temperature or
the reading material as opposed to TV content like Rich mentioned.  ;-)

>From my experience designing with LCD panels, the flicker phenomenon for
which there is a wider sensitivity is a function of the liquid crystal
switching circuit which is adjusted at time of panel manufacture ("VCOM
adjustment").  That's gotten much better in the last five years.  CCFL
flicker for older panel/TV technology/fluorescent lighting is at a higher
frequency where substantially fewer people are sensitive (analagous to
refresh/frame rates for video media).  Obvious CCFL flicker is likely a
good sign of a tube, high voltage transformer or ballast beginning to fail.

50/60Hz flicker is an interesting issue as well, given how most of us grow
up at one frequency or the other, so not easy way to tell the split between
nature and nurture.  Would be interested in any pointers to good reading on
this.

And I agree w/Brian's comment about not looking at the street lights -- the
AMA article is just an intro and definitely needs more depth.  Getting the
right luminous intensity for the environment, be it on the street driving
at night, sitting at the laptop at 2PM or 2AM, in the operating room, etc.
is a worthwhile endeavor.



Regards,
Adam




On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Ed Price  wrote:

> *The most recent batch of dimmable LED light bulbs that I have bought
> contained two switchers. (These were cheap lamps, about 700 Lumens for $3,
> to replace 60 Watt incandescent bulbs.) First was a constant current DC
> source, which was followed by a variable duty cycle series switch. In
> effect, the first supply converted the AC main to a constant current DC,
> and then the second switcher duty-cycle modulated (at about 50Hz, well
> above the eye flicker threshold) the constant current DC to the LED’s.
> (This allowed the LED lamps to be controlled by a simple ON/OFF switch or a
> typical residential duty-cycle modulated lamp dimmer.*
>
>
>
> *I don’t understand how the first power supply section can supply
> “constant current” when that current is being turned on and off by the
> second power supply section, but it seems to work fine. I don’t notice any
> bad effects, but if you rapidly waggle a finger back and forth, you can see
> some strobe effect of the light. *
>
>
>
>
> *Ed Price**WB6WSN*
> *Chula Vista, CA USA*
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:22 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] AMA Warns of Harm from LED Streetlights’ Blue Light
>
>
>
> LED assembly typically powered by CC source (essentially DC), so should be
> no mains-frequency flicker. There are some dimming schemes using constant
> freq/variable duty cycle, but the unless the off period is very long, freq
> should be too high for persistency of human vision.
>
>
>
> The cheaper drivers are typically single-stage flybacks with current FB
> only, so some have EMI problems.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com
> ]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:06 PM
>
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] AMA Warns of Harm from LED Streetlights’ Blue Light
>
>
>
> This seems a reasonable idea, in an attempt to approximate the intensity
> of existing lamps.   ( turn 'em down a little! )
>
>
>
> "The AMA recommends an intensity threshold for optimal LED lighting that
> minimizes blue-rich light"
>
>
>
> Depending on how these things are powered, I wonder if there might be a
> flicker problem at 50Hz?  (similar to the CRT television frame rate flicker
> that was so noticeable to those of us used to the 60Hz rate)
>
>
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
>
> Product Compliance
>
> Engineering
>
> Solar Business
>
> Schneider Electric
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org ]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 1:07 PM
>
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and adjustable limit function with audible alarm

[Adam Dixon]

Agilent has a DMM family (U1231 is $135 on Amazon) with configurable
voltage threshold audible alert.  See p104 of the User Guide.  I don't have
any of these Agilent meters, but perhaps another PSES colleague may
elaborate?

http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/U1231-90026.pdf


Regards,
Adam


On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ken Javor 
wrote:

> Unless that scope beeps at me, it doesn’t help. The whole point is to be
> able to devote my attention as test conductor to operating the
> susceptibility test equipment and not have to be visually monitoring the
> EUT simultaneously.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *"Grasso, Charles" 
> *Reply-To: *"Grasso, Charles" 
> *Date: *Tue, 31 May 2016 14:51:26 +
> *To: *
> *Conversation: *[PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with
> built-in and adjustable limit function with audible alarm
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with
> built-in and adjustable limit function with audible alarm
>
> Hi Ken – How about a DC probe clamp (like the PSU guys use) and a scope?
> You could set a limit line and
> max hold…?? Not as high tech as James” solution. J
>
>
> Best Regards
> Charles Grasso
> Compliance Engineer
> Echostar Communications
> (w) 303-706-5467
> (c) 303-204-2974
> (t) 3032042...@vtext.com
> (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com
> (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com
>
>
> *From:* Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2016 7:51 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with
> built-in and adjustable limit function with audible alarm
>
> Functionally, that is the solution at which I have arrived.  A comparator
> whose output will drive a Sonalert.  I still can’t believe with a
> microprocessor in every handheld DVM and min/max and relative functions and
> continuity beepers as well, that one cannot find a meter where the meter
> will beep when a preset limit is exceeded.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Pawson, James" 
> *Reply-To: *"Pawson, James" 
> *Date: *Tue, 31 May 2016 08:08:30 +
> *To: *
> *Conversation: *[PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with
> built-in and adjustable limit function with audible alarm
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with
> built-in and adjustable limit function with audible alarm
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I built a device to do this for monitoring audio outputs from our products
> when performing immunity tests for the EN55020 Broadcast Receiver Immunity
> standard, measuring 1kHz breakthrough. 6 input channels with a 1kHz active
> bandpass filter on each, output rectified and fed into a comparator,
> reference level set appropriately (half the peak audio level IIRC). Output
> of comparator into a series of LEDs and diode OR’d into a very loud buzzer.
> All wrapped up in a die cast aluminium enclosure with very robust knobs to
> make it proof against regular lab use.
>
> It was most amusing listening to our technician performing the test; the
> sound of the buzzer shortly followed by an even louder annoyed huff as he
> got up from his chair to go and see what the problem was :)
>
> James
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> 
> *Sent:* 30 May 2016 16:57
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in
> and adjustable limit function with audible alarm
>
> For an EMI test, I need to monitor direct current and set a limit above
> which I get an audible alarm.  I don’t want to constantly have to watch an
> ammeter/voltmeter while also operating the susceptibility equipment. I also
> don’t want to have to connect a DVM to a PC; I want the limit setting
> function to be self-contained.  Seems as if there ought to be such a
> device, but I can’t find it. Doesn’t have to be an ammeter *per se*; if
> it can measure dc millivolts, I can use a current shunt.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> -
> 
> 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
> 

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Adam Dixon]

Thanks for the references and experience, John.  Bengtsson's work is
informative and I'll be looking at the UL standards tomorrow.

I did find another somewhat useful reference this evening on Google
books, "Polyurethane
and Fire: Fire Performance Testing" by Prager and was able to access the
ebook version of "Fire Retardancy of Polymeric Materials" by Grand and
Wilkie through my local library.  Lots to read


-Adam




On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, John Allen <john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> Also do a search for “UL flame spread test” and it should lead you to UL
> 723 (ASTM E84) amongst other things
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
>
>
> *From:* John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> *Sent:* 19 May 2016 18:31
> *To:* 'Adam Dixon'; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country
> standards
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for
> applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the
> retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment
> environments, whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last
> much longer.
>
>
>
> Did a lot of searching and found various documents which unfortunately did
> not solve that particular problem.
>
>
>
> However, here are a few documents to search for:
>
>
>
> Lars-Goran Bengtsson, Swedish Rescue Services Agency “Enclosure Fires”,
> 2001 – that’s a long document and there are a lot more references at the
> back that you could follow up on.
>
>
>
> Also:
>
> UL746C “Polymeric Materials – “Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations”
>
>
>
> The many parts of the IEC 60695 series, notably: Part 1-10 “Fire hazard
> testing – Part 1-10: Guidance for assessing the fire hazard of
> electrotechnical products –
>
> General guidelines”
>
>
>
> John E Allen.
>
>
>
> W.London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com
> <lanterna.viri...@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* 19 May 2016 13:44
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards
>
>
>
> Apart from purchasing multiple standards, are there reference materials
> that may guide preliminary in-house fire safety testing (flame spread) for
> materials categorized as building components?  I have come across summary
> descriptions of multiple test standards (BS476, ISO9705, ISO5660, DIN-4102,
> etc.) and some "comparison of standards" documents.  I would like to get an
> idea of the relative flame/temperature/time/energy parameters (i.e. may
> rudimentary testing be done with a candle, Bunsen burner or propane torch
> with appropriate precautions for fumes?).
>
> For example, DIN-4102 (Germany) references -15 and -16 standards for the
> test apparatus and method and I have seen multiple test reports and a few
> apparatus supplier catalogs, but haven't seen a good description of the
> burner used in the 'Brandschacht' (fire shaft).
>
> My only experience thus far is with UL94.  Pointers to reference materials
> or other feedback is appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
> adam.di...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES O

[PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Adam Dixon]

Apart from purchasing multiple standards, are there reference materials
that may guide preliminary in-house fire safety testing (flame spread) for
materials categorized as building components?  I have come across summary
descriptions of multiple test standards (BS476, ISO9705, ISO5660, DIN-4102,
etc.) and some "comparison of standards" documents.  I would like to get an
idea of the relative flame/temperature/time/energy parameters (i.e. may
rudimentary testing be done with a candle, Bunsen burner or propane torch
with appropriate precautions for fumes?).

For example, DIN-4102 (Germany) references -15 and -16 standards for the
test apparatus and method and I have seen multiple test reports and a few
apparatus supplier catalogs, but haven't seen a good description of the
burner used in the 'Brandschacht' (fire shaft).

My only experience thus far is with UL94.  Pointers to reference materials
or other feedback is appreciated.


Cheers,
Adam
adam.di...@ieee.org

-

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] power quality monitors/analyzers

[Adam Dixon]

I would appreciate recommendations for power quality monitors/analyzers to
use for occasional field use.  There are a couple of archive threads
related to this (1999 and 2006) where a few manufacturers are shared.  I've
searched the web several times in the past few weeks and it appears that
there is a wide cost range depending on sample rate, single vs. three
phase, low voltage only, networked, etc. and that the marketing term 'low
cost' is relative.  ;-)

The power supplies with which I am working have a 20ms hold-up spec and are
85-264VAC rated.

Ideally it would be networked in some fashion, whether built-in Ethernet
(TCP/IP) or tethered via USB or RS232 to a PC that is networked which may
remain in-situ for hours to weeks depending on the test requirement.

Is there a make/model that you think has an obvious price/performance
benefit and/or one that is quite low cost if evaluating rent vs purchase?

I have read datasheets from Fluke, Dranetz, Yokogawa, Hiok, Megger, PSL,
Setra, Rockwell Automation, ACScout, ACR Systems and a few others which
escape me at the moment.

Thanks for reading.


Cheers,
Adam

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] AC power cord label/traceability (UL)?

[Adam Dixon]

Nevermind my recent inquiry for power cord traceability.  I looked at the
UL White Book and see the alternate bulk marking allowance (excerpt pasted
below.).

Regards,
Adam



"Power-Supply Cords.’’
UL MARK
The Certification Mark of UL on the product is the only method provided by
UL to identify products manufactured under its Certification and
Follow-Up Service. The Certification Mark for these products includes the
UL symbol, the words ‘‘CERTIFIED’’ and ‘‘SAFETY,’’ the geographic
identifier(s),
and a file number.

All Certification Marks are applied to each individual piece except
for‘‘Power-supply Cord,’’ ‘‘Outdoor-use Power-supply Cord’’ and ‘‘Detach-
able Power-supply Cord.’’ These products are bulk labeled (label applied to
smallest container indicating number of pieces) and are not intended
for field application. The Certification Mark for this category requires
the use of a holographic label.


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Adam Dixon <lanterna.viri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am trying to get a better understanding of cable traceability and would
> appreciate any references to expand the four page UL ELBZ Guide Info
> document for cord sets/power cords and a slightly longer UL Traceability
> Guide.
>
> I see a holographic label requirement but haven't located any detail
> regarding individually versus bulk-packed cord set labeling?
>
> I have some cables from a major power cord supplier that were ordered from
> a major components distributor that do not have the holographic label.  All
> UL file numbers for plug/receptacle/wire are visible in the overmolds/wire
> jacket, though (standard NEMA 5/15P, IEC 320-C13, 14AWG cord sets).  The
> power cord supplier told me that there are labels on the bulk-packaging
> (likely 1 label per 10 power cords).  The distributor told me that because
> they break up the bulk packaging based on customers ordering 1 to much
> larger quantities, that it's not possible to provide the label (or other
> associated paperwork in the bulk-packed box).  Seems like a traceability
> issue from my limited understanding at present.
>
> Out of curiousity, I went to two large computer/electronics stores
> yesterday to survey the retail market for individually packaged power cords
> and see a mix of with and without holographic labels.  A few cord sets with
> holographic labels, a few where labels were put on the exterior of the
> plastic packaging, not on the cord set itself, many without labels and two
> with non-holographic CSA labels only.
>
> I searched the archives with several combinations of terms for
> traceability, wire harnesses, labeling et al. and didn't come across a
> closely related discussion thread.
>
> Does this experience sound familiar?
>
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] AC power cord label/traceability (UL)?

[Adam Dixon]

I am trying to get a better understanding of cable traceability and would
appreciate any references to expand the four page UL ELBZ Guide Info
document for cord sets/power cords and a slightly longer UL Traceability
Guide.

I see a holographic label requirement but haven't located any detail
regarding individually versus bulk-packed cord set labeling?

I have some cables from a major power cord supplier that were ordered from
a major components distributor that do not have the holographic label.  All
UL file numbers for plug/receptacle/wire are visible in the overmolds/wire
jacket, though (standard NEMA 5/15P, IEC 320-C13, 14AWG cord sets).  The
power cord supplier told me that there are labels on the bulk-packaging
(likely 1 label per 10 power cords).  The distributor told me that because
they break up the bulk packaging based on customers ordering 1 to much
larger quantities, that it's not possible to provide the label (or other
associated paperwork in the bulk-packed box).  Seems like a traceability
issue from my limited understanding at present.

Out of curiousity, I went to two large computer/electronics stores
yesterday to survey the retail market for individually packaged power cords
and see a mix of with and without holographic labels.  A few cord sets with
holographic labels, a few where labels were put on the exterior of the
plastic packaging, not on the cord set itself, many without labels and two
with non-holographic CSA labels only.

I searched the archives with several combinations of terms for
traceability, wire harnesses, labeling et al. and didn't come across a
closely related discussion thread.

Does this experience sound familiar?


Regards,
Adam

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] wet environment AC termination

[Adam Dixon]

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

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


Cheers,
Adam





On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Brian O'Connell <oconne...@tamuracorp.com>
wrote:

> Not aware of specific products, but as you probably know, NEC section
> 330.10 has stuff for wet environment. UL has CCNs for this particular
> classification, but cannot remember.
>
> Brian
>
>
> From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 10:33 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] wet environment AC termination
>
> I am looking at a design requiring a multi-branch AC cable for a wet
> environment.  Is there a tiny form factor enclosure that would
> protect/terminate unused branch(es) for a minimal system configuration
> (i.e. using 3 of 4 branches)?
> I see a variety of hardware that are a bit too large (ex:  generic 1 gang
> box + cable gland, or bulky/long extension cord plug protectors).  The
> smallest option that I have come across is a 1/2" NPT rigid conduit body
> instead of 1 gang box.
> Might there be a clamp on-type protective housing for the unused AC plug?
> Or could I change the AC plug type to one that has an approved cap/cover
> (which I haven't found yet -- the ones I have seen are expecting panel
> mount mates or another mating cable rather than a standalone cap/cover)?
> I've done a fair bit of distributor/supplier website searching, as well as
> looking at local electrical supply companies but haven't landed on an
> obvious option.
>
> Pointers to any suppliers or references are appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Adam
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] wet environment AC termination

[Adam Dixon]

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

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

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

Pointers to any suppliers or references are appreciated.


Cheers,
Adam

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] hi-pot test for modular hardware?

[Adam Dixon]

Where would I find hi-pot test requirements for modular ITE (60950)
hardware where multiple modules may be assembled into a larger system?

I am getting first experience with a 100VA-rated AC hi-pot tester and have
100W power supplies with ~4-5mA leakage @ 2500VAC.  I am wondering about
modular system designs using 5 or more modules from a single AC source.  5+
power supplies collectively would fail a dielectric withstand test test
based on the 20mA limitation of the 100VA-rated tester, but would easily
pass individually.  Does this necessitate using a larger 500VA-rated tester
alone or are there other issues to consider with such a configuration?

I see an archive post where 6 or 8 power supplies were put on a long term
test to evaluate insulation breakdown, but there wasn't mention of the
tester capabilities.  I've read most of the archive postings for search
term = 'hi-pot.'.  I have read several hi-pot articles discussing
challenges with setting proper pass/fail thresholds (i.e. false negatives
vs test confidence).

Reading references and any other feedback are greatly appreciated.


Cheers,
Adam

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

[Adam Dixon]

First-time post with an application question after getting guidance from
many of you earlier this year about how/where to learn more about safety.
So here goes.I would appreciate recommendations for either reference
materials I should read or hardware options to convert a 208V/30A/3PH
branch circuit to support qty. 6 of 208V/15A/1PH loads while trying to
minimize the hardware volume.

Loads do not have internal supplementary protection devices, so I cannot
rely on the 30A branch circuit protection w/simple disconnect switch for
service support, similar to my home 240V air conditioning compressor
circuit.

I've searched the PSES archives with a variety of terms (208V, 3 phase,
load center, molded case breaker, DIN rail, NEMA, etc.) and have been
looking at online (well-known load center/circuit breaker suppliers,
electrical supply companies, Mike Holt forums, etc.) and just started
calling/visiting local electrical supply companies and big box home
improvement stores.  Haven't landed on a clear option yet.  3PH load
centers all appear rated for 100A or larger capacity requiring larger AWG
supply conductors than what I am told the branch circuit will have (10AWG
or possibly 8AWG depending on final building construction plans).

Descriptions of DIN Rail circuit breakers/supplementary protection devices
sounded promising for the smaller form factors, but I haven't found a
source that puts all of the hardware pieces together (supplementary
protection devices, DIN rails, housing, etc.) into a system that meets NEC
requirements -- this doesn't look like a common configuration.

I also looked at suppliers of rack mount PDU gear and found one option that
is about the size of a 12 circuit load center, but doesn't have a NEMA 3R
requirement (surprise..) and would require a larger housing.  The 208V
PDU's that I have seen and in a couple of cases, peeked inside, have
double-pole breakers with C19 outlets rated for 12A continuous load.

Are there other options worth investigating or aspects of the power
distribution design that I likely am not understanding?


Kind regards,
Adam

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

[Adam Dixon]

Thanks for the suggestion, Brian.  I just contacted the company that did
some of my office building's infrastructure, so will see how that goes.


Regards,
Adam


On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
wrote:

 Have you talked to a certified industrial electrician?

 Had a customer that bought several 250kVA distribution transformers that
 also wanted some custom wiring harness and downstream panel boxes. So hired
 an industrial electrician to advise us on materials and build it up. Passed
 on-site assessment with no problems. Probably saved hundreds of hours of
 engineering time, and $ in wasted material costs.

 Brian


 From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:39 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

 First-time post with an application question after getting guidance from
 many of you earlier this year about how/where to learn more about safety.
 So here goes.I would appreciate recommendations for either reference
 materials I should read or hardware options to convert a 208V/30A/3PH
 branch circuit to support qty. 6 of 208V/15A/1PH loads while trying to
 minimize the hardware volume.

 Loads do not have internal supplementary protection devices, so I cannot
 rely on the 30A branch circuit protection w/simple disconnect switch for
 service support, similar to my home 240V air conditioning compressor
 circuit.

 I've searched the PSES archives with a variety of terms (208V, 3 phase,
 load center, molded case breaker, DIN rail, NEMA, etc.) and have been
 looking at online (well-known load center/circuit breaker suppliers,
 electrical supply companies, Mike Holt forums, etc.) and just started
 calling/visiting local electrical supply companies and big box home
 improvement stores.  Haven't landed on a clear option yet.  3PH load
 centers all appear rated for 100A or larger capacity requiring larger AWG
 supply conductors than what I am told the branch circuit will have (10AWG
 or possibly 8AWG depending on final building construction plans).
 Descriptions of DIN Rail circuit breakers/supplementary protection devices
 sounded promising for the smaller form factors, but I haven't found a
 source that puts all of the hardware pieces together (supplementary
 protection devices, DIN rails, housing, etc.) into a system that meets NEC
 requirements -- this doesn't look like a common configuration.
 I also looked at suppliers of rack mount PDU gear and found one option
 that is about the size of a 12 circuit load center, but doesn't have a NEMA
 3R requirement (surprise..) and would require a larger housing.  The 208V
 PDU's that I have seen and in a couple of cases, peeked inside, have
 double-pole breakers with C19 outlets rated for 12A continuous load.
 Are there other options worth investigating or aspects of the power
 distribution design that I likely am not understanding?

 Kind regards,
 Adam


 -
 
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
 discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
 emc-p...@ieee.org

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

 Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
 http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
 well-used formats), large files, etc.

 Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
 Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
 unsubscribe)
 List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

[Adam Dixon]

A sincere thanks to all who responded to my educational query.

@John A. - thanks for the detailed guidance  perspective.  I'll take a
look for the sources while making an attempt at the one-by-one delving
that you recommend.  I have bookmarked the IECEE site and will take a
closer look.

@Dan R. - thanks for the ISPCE link and follow-up about the Monday
introductory track.  It dawned on me after our email exchange that my bride
 I will be celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary that week, so perhaps
2016 is a better fit.  My oldest son is doing IC design in San Diego, so it
would make a nice trip in addition to the education and networking
opportunities.  :-)

@ Dave N. - I'm interested in electrical shock hazard mostly for both
design and production test.  I looked at the Schmersal site and didn't see
applicable content at first review.  I'll take a closer look and also
search for the EU directives.

@Rich N. - thanks for the IEEE info.  I hadn't culled IEEE resources yet
and do see a large newsletter list!

@Brian O. - I haven't come across the ISPCE presentations yet -- thanks.  I
watched too much Buggs Bunny as a young kid (no one is recommending ACME
gear are they?), so will look forward to what YouTube has to offer!  ;-)


Regards,
Adam


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
wrote:

 John Allen's approach and advice is reasonable.

 Some our more experienced denizens such as Rich Nute and Pete Perkins and
 have written some articles on safety engineering principles for the PSES
 newsletter.

 Ted Eckert did a session on compliance and regulatory sources at a recent
 ISPCE. Cannot remember which year, but most of the presentations are
 available online. And Gary Tornquist did a session on component power
 supply evaluation at a previous ISPCE. Cannot remember whom (all of the MS
 people look alike to me) did some sessions on basic stuff such as fuse
 selection, power strips, building code analysis, and probably other
 fundamental topics.

 This listserv has had a few threads on knowledge resources. There are
 other on-line discussions, such as the numerous LinkedIn groups. And the
 many Bugs Bunny videos available on youtube.

 Brian


 From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:18 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

 For the design engineer who wants to learn more about safety regarding
 both product design (systems using 85-264VAC sources; mostly digital logic
 but including an Ethernet physical layer interface) and production test,
 but is on a very tight budget, are there recommended references?  Soft
 and/or hardcopy are fine.  I have searched the archives using a variety of
 terms to locate recommended references but didn't locate any lists.

 I've read the discussions about lowest cost sources for standards.  IEC
 60950-1:2013 is 707 Euros from what I see on the Estonian site.  The UL
 version is $493 for starters.  Purchasing any number of standards certainly
 is a moderate to significant investment for the individual.  I checked out
 the HBSE per Rich's post about how it came to be, but don't have $1050 for
 the two day workshop at this time either.

 There look to be a handful of texts on Amazon.  Electrical Safety
 Handbook, 4th edition looks like the most appropriate title -- any benefit
 with something from Amazon or other publishing house/distributor compared
 to the actual standards?

 If I've missed pertinent discussions in the archives or if you would
 consider sharing a recommended reading/standards list, I would appreciate
 any guidance/feedback.


 Kind regards,
 Adam Dixon
 adam.di...@ieee.org

 -
 
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
 discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
 emc-p...@ieee.org

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

 Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
 http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
 well-used formats), large files, etc.

 Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
 Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
 unsubscribe)
 List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments

Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

[Adam Dixon]

For the design engineer who wants to learn more about safety regarding both
product design (systems using 85-264VAC sources; mostly digital logic but
including an Ethernet physical layer interface) and production test, but is
on a very tight budget, are there recommended references?  Soft and/or
hardcopy are fine.  I have searched the archives using a variety of terms
to locate recommended references but didn't locate any lists.

I've read the discussions about lowest cost sources for standards.  IEC
60950-1:2013 is 707 Euros from what I see on the Estonian site.  The UL
version is $493 for starters.  Purchasing any number of standards certainly
is a moderate to significant investment for the individual.  I checked out
the HBSE per Rich's post about how it came to be, but don't have $1050 for
the two day workshop at this time either.

There look to be a handful of texts on Amazon.  Electrical Safety Handbook,
4th edition looks like the most appropriate title -- any benefit with
something from Amazon or other publishing house/distributor compared to the
actual standards?

If I've missed pertinent discussions in the archives or if you would
consider sharing a recommended reading/standards list, I would appreciate
any guidance/feedback.


Kind regards,
Adam Dixon
adam.di...@ieee.org


On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org wrote:

 Many years ago, a group of RD engineers came to
 me and said:  We want to learn about product
 safety, but we don't want to read the standards.
 The result was the HBSE course.

 If the product safety engineer does his job, there
 will be no test failures.


 Best regards,
 Rich


  -Original Message-
  From: Nyffenegger, Dave
  [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 12:41 PM
  To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
  Subject: Re: [PSES] Estonian Standards MultiUser
  License
 
  Same message I've been communicating here
 internally
  as well.  Management certainly supports and
 expects to
  have it right the first time but educating on
 what needs to
  happen and by who to accomplish that seems to be
 a
  recurring theme.
 
  -Dave
 
  -Original Message-
  From: John Woodgate
  [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
  Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:48 PM
  To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
  Subject: Re: [PSES] Estonian Standards MultiUser
  License
 
  In message
  BLUPR0701MB8208F224B64620D128B43E9E31E0@
  BLUPR0701MB820.namprd07.prod.out
  look.com, dated Wed, 4 Mar 2015, Brian Ceresney
  bceres...@delta-q.com
  writes:
 
   As a matter of  fact, it is very difficult to
 get our
  engineers to
  take an interest in reading and understanding
 the
  standards at all,
 
  That is BAD. I forestalled it with my group by
  explaining that while the safety and EMC experts
 did the
  tests, THEY were responsible for THEIR designs
  conforming. They were, of course, free to ask
 advice and
  assistance from the experts, but when the
 designs came to
  be tested, I said that I did not expected them
 to fail.
 
  Senior managers found this arrangement seriously
  intellectually challenging. Of course, what it
 does is
  eliminate almost all friction between the
 designers and
  the 'testers' - they are all in the same boat,
 which is as it
  should be.
  --
  OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the
  sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J
 M
  Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
 

 -
 
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
 discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
 emc-p...@ieee.org

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

 Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
 http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
 well-used formats), large files, etc.

 Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
 Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
 unsubscribe)
 List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com


-

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

Re: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables

[Adam Dixon]

I third this sentiment.  I've seen wide variation in cable construction
with respect to shell grounding and raw cable shield construction (foil
types, braid % coverage).

HDMI cables with ferrite cores are available at places like Monoprice, but
they are definitely in the minority.  A web search similar to HDMI cables
with ferrite yields some interesting and at times humorous A/V forum
discussions.  Also, if you search on 'ferrite' alone on the HDMI site,
there's a vintage press release about a patented shielding can design which
removes the need for ferrites and if you find the associated company's
site, the technology (shell/can design) shows up on page one of their
catalog.

It seems as though the HDMI and DisplayPort interfaces have gone through
change such that early cables more commonly had ferrites and later ones do
not, perhaps due to what has been learned along the way about the
transmitter and receiver PCBA/module designs.


Cheers,
Adam



On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Pawson, James james.paw...@echostar.com
wrote:

 I'm with Ghery on this one.

 All HDMI cables are not created equal.
 Screening of the backshell and connection of the cable shield is critical.

 James

 -Original Message-
 From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
 Sent: 04 September 2014 08:46
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables

 You are highly unlikely to find the ferrite prayer beads at Best Buy.  If
 you don't specify which ones to get you have no idea what the result will
 be.  I think you are correct, the beads must be shipped with the product.
 The right ones, to boot.

 Now, how does the designer know that he needs ferrite beads?  My
 experience has been that many (most?) HDMI cables do not have their shields
 terminated properly, if at all.  Once the shields are terminated correctly
 problems go away.  Could this be a better solution?

 Ghery S. Pettit

 -Original Message-
 From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 11:31 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables

 Fellow List persons...

 Please help refresh a tired brain. A designer of a product tells us that
 he passes FCC emissions testing if he puts ferrite sleeves (beads?) on the
 four HDMI cables connected at the rear panel of the product.

 He tells us that all he needs to do is add a statement in the user manual
 to the effect that the HDMI output cables must have ferrite sleeves
 (beads?) on them.

 He says he does not need to specify manufacturer name and part number of
 the ferrites.

 He says he does not need to provide the ferrites with the product.

 He also does not plan to include the HDMI output cables with the product
 because every installation will have different length HDMI cables needed.

 Now, my old brain thinks the above is not acceptable and that the FCC says
 that anything special needed to pass FCC testing must be provided with the
 product. And I am thinking that ferrites are special as you can't get them
 at Walmart or Radio Shack or Ace Hardware. And not all ferrites are the
 same.

 Can anyone confirm my memory and maybe give a pointer to the part of the
 FCC Rules that clarify this? Or have the rules changed over the years and I
 just missed that part?

 Thank you in advance for any and all comments, on list or off.

 Best regards,
 Scott

 -
 
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
 discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

 -
 
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
 discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
 emc-p...@ieee.org

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the 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