Re: [PSES] Is this common knowledge - Electrical Ratings
Fully agree with Jim! John Allen London, UK On 27 January 2012 15:39, Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.com wrote: It's probably common knowledge on THIS forum that 120-240V indicates an autoranging power supply and 120/240V indicates there is a switch setting for one or the other. I'll bet the average consumer has no idea, though. Jim Hulbert -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Robinson Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 10:20 AM To: emc-pstc Subject: Is this common knowledge - Electrical Ratings Happy Friday everyone I am asking a question that I already know the answer to, but I am trying to determine if it is common knowledge or if it was something that I picked up along the way and have always accepted as being true. If you were to see a product with a marked electrical rating of 120/240 V and another product with a marked rating of 120-240V, what would be the difference between these two products? Would a user or operator need to do anything special with one or both of these products to use it at 120V or 240V? Thanks, Kevin Robinson OSHA - 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 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
RE: product modifications by the end user
Chris I would be inclined to look at the General Product Safety Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1992/en_392L0059.html and the Product Liability Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1999/en_399L0034.html You would probably also have to look at case law which resulted from the application of these two directives - notably the latter! Probably means that you would need to talk of to relevant legal counsel (e.g. CMS Cameron McKenna = law...@cmck.com) who specialise in these directives. When you have shown how liable the company becomes under these, then maybe you can scare the pants of the marketing department! However, if for some reason, you do have to go ahead with these mod kits, then ensure you have extremely explicit instructions (what to do/not do) and diagrams - preceeed by a clear warning that the mods must only be performed by a techically trained and competant person, and that the owner should not proceed with the mods if he has any doubts on his ability to perform them safely. However, in the marketing department's defence, it must be said that even repairing your own car incorrectly can be extremely dangerous (far more so than these mod kits)- and yet you can buy the parts and the service manuals almost anywhere. So there is some case for saying that such modifications can be quite acceptable if performed by the right person with the correct tools and training. Regards John Allen Thales Bracknell (This is probably my last post on the forum as I will be leaving Thales tomorrow! You might also -Original Message- From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com] Sent: 19 March 2002 12:36 To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) Subject: product modifications by the end user Hello good people Just say someone in your marketing department came up with the bright idea of selling upgrade kits to an unqualified, untrained end user that involved removing the top cover of a product. In the process not only would the victim be exposed to hazardous voltages (if the product was still connected to the mains) but he/she would also have to wire up mains connections. There would also be a possibility that critical insulation would be disturbed. Apart from telling them that they were mad and suggesting that someone could be killed or seriously injured, would there be any black and white legislation that you could use to help bin this idea? I can't find anything specific in EN60065 or the LVD. Thanks for any input Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the
RE: CE marking of equipment for military facilities
Hi Folks Slight error in my previous message: In the Treaty of Rome, the possibility of exemptions for military equipment is now covered in Article 296 - not 226 as previously mentioned. Sorry for any confusion caused. John Allen --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE
Rich Possibly worth taking another look at my previous messages as attached. Regards John Allen Thales Bracknell -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: 04 March 2002 16:01 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE Have any European states that are not EU or EFTA members adopted the RTTE Directive and Notificaion process? In other words, will any other European countries allow a radio product to be placed on their market if the processes of the RTTE Directive are followed without the need for any other special national process to be followed? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list ---BeginMessage--- Hi folks Further to Action 33..05, anyone interested in the progress of the enlargement process should visit http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/ This has links to individual pages charting the progress and (relatively - typically November 2000) current status for each of the following countries: Bulgaria., Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania SlovakiaSloveniaTurkey The Links on the page will take you to further pages which have lists of reports on each country. Find the section headed Overview key political documents related to enlargement Then find the most recent Prohress report such as Progress Report - 8 November 2000 These documents are quite long (~ 100 pages), but look for the Section C CONCLUSION - which gives a general description of the progress to date and the prognostications for the progress of joining the EU. Then return to the country page on the website and look at the Press Releases section which has links to more up-to-date documents. Regards John ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Hi Folks I have just come across a very useful page on the NEMKO UK Ltd site, at: http://www.nemko.ltd.uk/cert/direct.htm The site is essentially advertising for NEMKO services but has tables which give thumbnail sketches of the requirements for electrical and electronic equipment approvals (including the namesof the organisations and illustrations of their approval marks), including EMC but not RTTE, in the following countries: Central East Europe: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary,Slovenia, Croatia Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Albania Romania,Bulgaria, Turkey Russia, CIS and Baltic States: Russia Ukraine Belarus Lithuania Estonia Latvia Kazakhstan South America: Argentina Mexico Brazil ColombiaChile Middle East, Africa, Asia: Saudi ArabiaIsrael South Africa India Hong Kong Australia Japan Korea China (2 versions?) Singapore ThailandMalaysia Regards John Allen Thales Defence Ltd., Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: 19 September 2001 20:43 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Request for a Compliance Matrix I generated and posted this document in 1999 and some parts are now out of date. I will update and re-post it with any corrections, updates and additions that anyone cares to send to me. Richard Woods -- From: Dave Lorusso [SMTP:dave.loru...@genband.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:59 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: FW: Request for a Compliance Matrix Thank you for the responses. Dwight sent me a copy (attached). Anyone one have a more up to date list? Best regards, Dave -Original Message- From: Dwight Hunnicutt [mailto:dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:36 PM To: 'Dave Lorusso' Subject:RE: Request for a Compliance Matrix worldwide compliance chart.pdf Dave- Was this it? Not too up to date, but this I what I have... Dwight -Original Message- From: Dave Lorusso [mailto:dave.loru...@genband.com] Sent: Wednesday,
RE: CE marking of equipment for military facilities
Alexandru Friends Been there, done that (many times!): LVD: - No exemptions in Directive, or none found in any national legislation. EMC Directive: - No Exemption in Directive, but most EU countries (Not Holland and a couple of others) have implemented exemptions in national legislation under Article 226 (was 221) of the Treaty of Rome). In UK this exemption is not automatic, but is stated to be at the iscretion of tne Secretary of State for Defence. Nevertheless we do not have any trouble with our UK MoD Customers when we just claim exemption on the basis that we will meet the equivalent DEF 59-41 EMC standards. Other countries may or may not accept the same approach Machinery Directive: - Article 1 paragraph 3 includes the following exemption - machines specially designed and constructed for military or police purposes. All national legislation is assumed to include the same exemption. (Note: RTTE Directive has a similar, but differently worded, exemption in Article 1, paragraph 5) However, watch out for: a) Equipment which is not exclusively for military use, which is then termed to be dual use - in which case it must meet the requirements for commercial sales, regards of whether it is sold to the commercial or military markets. This means that your commercial equipment must meet the CE requirements. b) Military customers who want the CE Marking regardless of the letter of the law. Regards John Allen Thales Communications Ltd Bracknell UK -Original Message- From: Alexandru Guidea [mailto:gui...@cae.com] Sent: 04 March 2002 21:13 To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: CE marking of equipment for military facilities Imp
RE: South Korean Power System Schuko Plugs
Hi Folks A few years ago I worked for BSI Technical Help to Exporters and helped to update their publication World Wide Plugs and Sockets Survey - which I assume is still available from BSI (see www.bsi-global.com) I remember looking at the Korean standards for plugs and sockets:- Yes - they were/are variations of Schuko types(both with and without earthing contacts), but I also seem to remeber some NEMA (USA/Canadian) types as well. However, as part of another large exercise for a customer I reviewed many of the European wiring rules standards to identify any conventions or requirements for the polarity of wiring-up of sockets - notably those that accept the various versions of the (generally reversible) Schuko plugs and also the somewhat similar Danish, Swiss and Italian plugs. Result : there were (and presumably still are) wiring colour codes for the building wiring to these sockets - BUT NO CONVENTION AS TO WHICH COLOUR IS CONNECTED TO WHICH CONTACT TUBE OF THE SOCKET, apart (obviously) from the requirement that the Green/Yellow insulated conductor be connected to the earthing contact. Therefore you must always assume that the Line/Neutral polarity of the wall socket is random - this is also true for the French version of the socket with the earthing pin projecting out since it is only a (more recent?) variety of the type of socket which has no such pin. Thus the equipment connected to it must have some sort of double-pole disconnect device (be it a switch, or the plug itself). Double-pole fusing requirements may depend on the product standard requirements, but is effectively required where the internal wiring of the equipment cannot deal with the full prospective fault current available from the wall socket. Hope this clarifies matters. Regards John Allen Thales Bracknell, UK. -Original Message- From: Robert Wilson [mailto:robert_wil...@tirsys.com] Sent: 20 February 2002 19:17 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: South Korean Power System Schuko plugs come in two basic versions. The original (larger) plug has two solid round pins for the AC interconnect, and two metal strips along the side of the plug (one on each side) that are grounding contacts. When inserting the plug, the body of the plug disappears into the socket recess BEFORE any electrical contact is made, making them far safer than the plugs used in North America. Ground contact to the side ground strips is made before any AC contact. These plugs have no polarization feature when used in German and most other European Schuko sockets. The plug can be rotated 180 degrees with no possibility of polarizing it. However, the Schuko plug had to accommodate the slightly different French AC socket. This socket is almost the same as the normal Shuko socket, but there is a ground pin that sticks OUT of the recessed socket, and inserts into a hole in the Schuko plug beside the 2 AC pins. This hole has a female contact (that is in parallel with the grounding strips along the edges of the plug). If the French ONLY be inserted one way around. The second type of Schuko plug is rather like the North American 2-prong plug (except is not nowhere near as cheap, flimsy or dangerous). It is flat and has no ground contact. There are two solid round pins, but they are made of plastic, with metal contacts ONLY at the very tips, so once again, no metal is exposed once contact is made. Bob Wilson TIR Systems Ltd. Vancouver. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Compliance After Repairs in the Field
Hi Folks The concept of hipotting equipment in the field after repairs may theoretically be a good one - but is fraught with both practical and safety problems. For example: a) Some equipment needs special hipot equipment or equipment settings, e.g. if it has large filter capacitors on the AC/DC input. However, most servicemen will have - at most - a physically small portable appliance tester (PAT) with very limited test voltage and current capabilities. These will often show a test failure (due to the current drawn by the filters tripping the fault indication circuit)when no actual fault exists. b) To give the serviceman a tester capable of performing the tests per the factory hipot means that he probably has a large, heavy machine (which he won't want to carry around) that has a potentially lethal output which should only be used in controlled factory conditions. c) It could be dangerous to hipot an equipment in-situ - both to the serviceman and to any other equipment that is attached, and to any people who are touching associated equipment. d) If incorrectly used, both the equipment under test and associated equipment could be damaged - which will be expensive and timeconsuming to fix. e) The serviceman will need special training, and what happens if he passes the equipment to someone who has not had the full training? f) How do you guarrantee that a serviceman will take the proper care of the tester, and what happens if someone else starts playing around with it for fun? -- and so on. I think a far better approach would be: i) Design the equipment so that it is easy to repair, with all safety critical ( or -related - see earlier discussions!) components being easy to replace, or built into service-replaceable modules. Avoid complicated wiring layouts which could be damaged, or incorrectly refitted during service. Fit appropriate warning and caution labels both inside and outside the equipment. ii) Ensure the service instructions give clear indication of how to fault-find the equipment, exactly how to repair it, and with exactly which components or modules. iii) Ensure the service instructions give an appropriate set of visual and/or simple DMM checks for the physical and electrical safety of the equipment before and after completing the service work and refitting the covers In other words: KISS. John Allen Thales Defence Bracknell UK. -Original Message- From: Anderson Cheng (TPE) [mailto:anderson_ch...@htc.com.tw] Sent: 06 February 2002 02:59 To: 'marti...@appliedbiosystems.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Compliance After Repairs in the Field If products required to have 100% production-line tests (such as Hi-pot and Ground Continuity tests), then I required that tests should be made in the field after repairs. I think it at least benefits checking out the minimum safety constructions are still functioning well. Regards, Anderson Cheng High Tech Computer Corp. -Original Message- From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com [mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:50 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Compliance After Repairs in the Field Greetings, We are a manufacturer of Laboratory Equipment. We evaluate our products to UL 3101-1, CSA 1010.0 and EN 61010. When we repair a product in the field, which may include replacing power supplies, line filters, etc., what obligations do we have to verify continuing compliance with the safety specifications we originally evaluated our products against? Do we need to perform applicable safety testing following these repairs? Traditionally, NRTL's are not concerned with the product once it leaves the factory. They do not require follow-up testing to be performed after repairs are made in the field. Since we self-certify to the LVD, should we take a different approach to repairs in the field compared to the approach NRTL's take? Does your company have a specific process that is followed when repairs are made in the field to verify continuing compliance? If so, what is that process? All responses are appreciated. Regards Joe Martin EMC/Product Safety Engineer Applied Biosystems marti...@appliedbiosystems.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are
RE: EEC compliance for a ground based radar
The RTTE Directive, Article 1 Scope and aim, Clause 5 states: 5. This Directive shall not apply to apparatus exclusively used for activities concerning public security, defence, State security (including the economic well-being of the State in the case of activities pertaining to State security matters) and the activities of the State in the area of criminal law. Therefore this Directive does not apply to equipment used EXCLUSIVELY for military use. Thus weapons aiming radar would be exempt but air-traffic control radar might not be if it was also controlling civilian traffic. Nevertheless, even if such radar were claimed to be exempt, it could still interfer with radar used for civilian purposes - and after Sept 11th, it might be every difficult to justify that an ATC radar for military use does not also have civilian applications and vice-versa! So I think an exemption could be difficult to argue legally - interpretations may vary between EU countries and their differing legal system, John Allen Thales Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: plaw...@west.net [mailto:plaw...@west.net] Sent: 31 January 2002 21:21 To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: EEC compliance for a ground based radar Does operating frequency affect the issue? If the radar system is in an official ISM frequency band, use CISPR 11, but if operating outside the those bands treat is as an RTTE device? Also, what about the market served? The original poster seems to have a position with a military contractor. Does CISPR 11 and/or the RTTE directive apply to military equipment? On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:07:02 -0500, richwo...@tycoint.com wrote: Hold on a second. Why is it considered ISM and not RTTE? Seems to me that it is subject to the RTTE Directive in that it uses the spectrum for communications with a transponder - active or passive as the case may be. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:48 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EEC compliance for a ground based radar I read in !emc-pstc that Woodcox, Edmund A edmund.a.wood...@lmco.com wrote (in 9efd49e2fb59d411aaba0008c7e675c0073a5...@emss04m10.ems.lmco.c om) about 'EEC compliance for a ground based radar', on Tue, 29 Jan 2002: I have a ground based radar that is somewhat largish and I need to obtain CE compliance for this product. I've reviewed the journal and am wondering if a product like this is considered ISM or would the generic limits apply? Anybody out there have any experience with this? It's an 'intentional radiator' and therefore ISM. EN55011 applies. ETSI standards may also apply. To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EEC compliance for a ground based radar From: Woodcox, Edmund A edmund.a.wood...@lmco.com Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:44:28 -0500 Hi Group, I have a ground based radar that is somewhat largish and I need to obtain CE compliance for this product. I've reviewed the journal and am wondering if a product like this is considered ISM or would the generic limits apply? Anybody out there have any experience with this? Edmund A Woodcox Specialty Engineering Electromagnetic Environmental Effects = LOCKHEED MARTIN Naval Electronics Surveillance Systems-Syracuse PO Box 4840 EP5-D5MD45 Syracuse, NY 13221-4840 === Phone: 315-456-2650 Fax: 315-456-0509 Email: edmund.a.wood...@lmco.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher:
RE: Power Supply Cord Plug for Saudi Arabia
Hi Folks Bear in mind that there are some import and certification formalities to be observed. See the atached two emails from a few months ago: John Allen Thales Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: WELLMAN,RON (A-PaloAlto,ex1) [mailto:ron_well...@agilent.com] Sent: 31 January 2002 13:46 To: 'Luiz Claudio Bonilla de Araujo'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Power Supply Cord Plug for Saudi Arabia There is a SASO standard for power outlets and plugs. However, I do mot have the standard number readily available. But, I do know that the standard references the UK BS 1363 plug and the US NEMA 5-15 plug. Also, to the best of my knowledge, there are no mandatory Saudi approvals required for power cords or cord sets. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-553-2412 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 54L-BB |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ | Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age | | eighteen. - Albert Einstein | +=+ -Original Message- From: Luiz Claudio Bonilla de Araujo [mailto:luizboni...@ig.com.br] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:17 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Power Supply Cord Plug for Saudi Arabia Hi friends, Can anybody inform which are the power supply cords required to be used in household appliances sold in Saudi Arabia? I know that British fused plugs are used there (for 220V/60Hz), but I want to know if this is a regulatory requirement. BTW, class OI or class II appliances are acceptable for selling there? Any comments will be highly appreciated. Regards, Luiz _ Oi! Você quer um iG-mail gratuito? Então clique aqui: http://registro.ig.com.br/ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. ---BeginMessage--- Jim, We have shipped some products to Saudi Arabia. They have a form, much like a DofC and a process to follow. My most recent work was 1995 so this may be outdated by now. The process went something like this. Contact the the Saudi Embassy or the US-ARAB Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC. They will send you some information. Fill out their format declaration and forward it with two checks to a certain person there. Ask that person to process it and then courier it to the Saudi Embassy. The first check ($21.00) covers legal and courier fees. The second check ($8.50) was for the Saudi Embassy to cover their costs. In the end, after a week or two, you will get back your original declaration with a large, and I mean large, rubber stamp on the back of it. It was all red and in Arabic. This is then copied and sent along with the customs papers for the product to Saudi Arabia. We never had any problems when following this process. I have some old files done in Quark Express that reminded me how to do this, includes addresses, etc. Remember they are 4 or more years old now. I no longer have QE so would have to get someone here to translate them. But if you think they will
FW: EOTC News: New Portal Launched! - www.ConformityAssessment.o rg ( Special Edition: January - 2002)
Hi Folks FYI for those who have'nt come across this site yet - very much regulations and standards oriented, but may well not tell many of you any more than you already know!! Regards John Allen Thales Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: EOTC News [mailto:n...@eotc.be] Sent: 31 January 2002 14:57 To: EOTC News Subject: EOTC News: New Portal Launched! - www.ConformityAssessment.org ( Special Edition: January - 2002) Conformity Assessment News Brought to you by EOTC http://www.eotc.be European Organisation for Conformity Assessment Updates on Conformity Assessment related activities Special Issue: 20.000 Subscribers New Portal Launched! The Information Source for Conformity Assessment http://www.conformityassessment.org/ www.ConformityAssessment.org (Don't forget to bookmark this site!) _ The Information Source for Conformity Assessment Responding to a market need for a one-stop information source on Conformity Assessment, EOTC - European Organisation for Conformity Assessment has developed a unique web portal exclusively dedicated to Conformity Assessment related information. The portal brings together relevant websites focused on topics related to Conformity Assessment, similar to a 'specialised Conformity Assessment library'. Try it now... http://www.conformityassessment.org/ www.ConformityAssessment.org http://www.conformityassessment.org/ and find the Conformity Assessment information you are looking for. The primary objective of the ConformityAssessment.org is to give users fast and reliable access to the Conformity Assessment information that they need. In order to do this a catalogue has been created which aims to organise Conformity Assessment related websites into useful categories. A powerful search engine has also been created to help you search through over 500.000 indexed web-pages. Below is a list of the categories that have been chosen to best organise the valuable websites dealing with Conformity Assessment. ConformityAssessment.org http://ConformityAssessment.org STANDARDISATION METROLOGY Standardisers, Catalogues, CommitteesScientific, Legal, NMIs, Reference Materials ACCREDITATIONNEW GLOBAL APPROACH Services, Accreditations, MLAs Directives, CE Marking, Notified Bodies RECOGNITION TESTING MRAs, PECA, Agreement Groups, TBTs Labs, Domains, Proficiency INSPECTION CALIBRATION Bodies, Control, VerificationLabs, Domains, Intercomparisons QUALITY, ENVIRONMENT SAFETYCERTIFICATION Management Systems, Audits Products, Systems, Personnel, Services, Marks EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS TRAINING CONSULTING Scientific Instruments, Software, Materials Consultants, Programs, Education The portal also has a number of additional features such as updated Conformity Assessment news releases, Information resources, tools, hot links and events to name but a few. The content of the portal has been assembled, evaluated, catalogued and maintained by a team of experts from EOTC. If you wish to submit your Conformity Assessment related website to the portal simply follow this link: http://www.conformityassessment.org/addsite.htm www.conformityassessment.org/addsite.htm For sponsorship opportunities please go to: http://www.conformityassessment.org/sponsor.htm www.conformityassessment.org/sponsor.htm ConformityAssessment.org was developed with the support of the European Commission (EC) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). EOTC would like to extend a special thank you to the many experts and organisations who gave us valuable feedback during the development and evaluation of the portal, namely: Mr Becker (DE) EOTC Advisor Mrs Beddard (UK) ARUP Mr Carneiro (DK) DFM Mr Craik (UK) ETSI Mr De Castro (PT) IPQ Mr De Clercq (BE) CENELEC Mr De Pauw (BE) EIC BE007Mr Ettarp (SE) SWEDAC Mr Gaddes (UK) EOTC President Mr Gundlach (NL) RvA Mr Henriksen (DK) EOTC Advisor Mr Henson (UK) NPL Mr Jacques (BE) AIB-Vincotte Mr Julin (SE) EC Mr Lindholm (SE) EC Mr Martins (PT) IPQ Mr Mattino (IT) EC Mr McDonald (UK) EOTC Advisor Mr Michaud (FR) CEN Mr Norström (SE) EC Mr Perissi (IT) ENIQ Mr Reposeur (FR) COFRAC Mr Sanson (UK) CEN Mr Sedola (IT) EOTC Advisor Mr Sjoberg (SE) EOTC Advisor Mr Swan (UK) LOVAGMr Taylor (UK) JRC - IRMM Mr Thorsteinsson (IS) EFTA Mrs Vaccaro (IT) MEDA Teams Mr Verlinden (NL) eurocer-building Last Call PECAs Opportunities in Industry EOTC/EC/EFTA Workshop 8 February, 2002 http://www.eotc.be/Events/ www.eotc.be/events Register now http://www.eotc.be/Events/ TICQA Database on Providers of Conformity Assessment Services in Europe http://www.ticqa.eotc.be/ www.ticqa.eotc.be http://www.ticqa.eotc.be/ Focus on: NORWAY 34 CABs in
RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Hi Folks To answer Jim's point: LVD Annex IV Internal Production Control states: 1) Internal production control is the procedure whereby the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community, who carries out the obligations laid down in point 2, ensures and declares that the electrical equipment satisfies the requirements of this Directive that apply to it. The manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community must affix the CE marking to each product and draw up a written declaration of conformity. 2) The manufacturer must establish the technical documentation described in point 3 and he or his authorized representative established within the Community must keep it on Community territory at the disposal of the relevant national authorities for inspection purposes for a period ending at least 10 years after the last product has been manufactured. 3) Technical documentation must enable the conformity of the electrical equipment to the requirements of this Directive to be assessed. It must, as far as relevant for such assessment, cover the design, manufacture and operation of the electrical equipment. It must include: a general description of the electrical equipment, - conceptual design and manufacturing drawings and schemes of components, sub-assemblies, circuits, etc., - descriptions and explanations necessary for the understanding of said drawings and schemes and the operation of the electrical equipment, - a list of the standards applied in full or in part, and descriptions of the solutions adopted to satisfy the safety aspects of this Directive where standards have not been applied, (and so on) The last item clearly allows a solution that does not involve full - or even partial compliance - with standards may be acceptable provided that it satisfies the essential safety aspects of the Directive. Thus strict compliance with harmonised standards is not obligatory under an LVD self-declaration process. However, bear in mind that compliance with harmonised standards does bring a presumption of conformity - and most people would thus not stray far from the standards route. John Allen Thales Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: 29 January 2002 20:11 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 It may be applied, but MUST it be applied? Does the OJ not still provide force to the use of the standard, or is that only in the EMC Directive? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 As long as we are getting picky, let's don't forget that the Directives don't have a harmonized definition of what harmonized means. The defintion in the LVD does not include the need to be referenced in the OJ. Publication is for information only. Thus, a CENELEC safety standard may be applied as soon as it is ratified and presuption of conformity to the essential requirements is provided. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Brian Jones [mailto:e...@brianjones.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:23 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 John, and everyone It is not true that all ENs are harmonised. The term, in this context, means specifically ENs which have been selected as relevant standards under one or more directives, and listed as such in the Official Journal. Thus, for example, basic standards are not harmonised. EN 61000-6-3, as a generic standard, will be listed in the OJ, but it is not in the current list published on 5 April 2001 as amended on 26 July 2001. It was published in October 2001 and will supersede EN 50081-1 on a date (the doc) which will be published when it is listed in the OJ. This may be the dow published in the front of the EN (1 July 2004) or may be a different date decided by the Commission. Note that there are differences between the IEC and EN versions. The following is an extract from the Commission's website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/vo rwort.html which explains in detail the extra requirements for harmonised standards. --- The New Approach directives are supported by harmonised standards which play a significant role in ensuring their application. Such standards have first the characteristics inherent to European Standards : The standards (typically EN, ETSs) are drafted
RE: Zero Crossing Question
Hi Folks Could this ON Semiconductors problem be something to do with: a) The fact that the neutral is generally not at ground potential, but has floated up due the current flowing in it? or b) The actual PSU has a filtering arrangement that is non-symmetrical wrt true ground? (Often evidenced by the leakage current differing when Line and Neutral are reversed) John Allen -Original Message- From: Bouse, John [mailto:john.bo...@perkinelmer.com] Sent: 21 January 2002 14:20 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Zero Crossing Question Hi Group, Our manufacturing personnel encountered a strange problem: when the mains plug used on a 230V/50Hz equipment that has an internal zero crossing reference integrated circuit (specifically, a CA3059) is reversed (this can occur in countries such as Germany, Italy, France and Switzerland), the zero crossing pulses appear with a 20 millisecond spacing, rather than the expected 10 millisecond spacing. Harris or Intersil IC's work properly regardless of the mains polarity. ON Semiconductor IC's appear to be polarity sensitive. They will produce the proper number of pulses with only one mains polarity. The incorrect spacing of these zero crossing pulses affects the normal operation of the equipment. Has anyone encountered and, hopefully, solved this problem? Regards, John Bouse PKI --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: certification mark identification
Gary That sounds like a certification mark for Hazardous/Flammable atmospherem equipment - now covered by the ATEX Directive in Europe and similar legislation and standards elsewhere (e.g in the US NEC). It is always qualified by additional characters denoting the type of protection incorporated, the surface temperatures etc., etc. I would be very careful about helping someone to select a replacement if the application is in a hazardous atmospheres location. Take advice from someone who knows the requirements in the country/location where the equipment is to be used. If the location is not hazardous atmospheres, then the problem will probably go away as the EX mark is irrelevant. So then apply the appropriate normal engineering safety/certification criteria for selection of the replacement. Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Bracknell, UK. -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: 17 January 2002 00:37 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: certification mark identification Does anybody recognize an Ex inside of a hexagon? Think it might be French. Its on a Capri part. Not even one of mine but trying to do a good dead for one of our suppliers. Thanks in advance Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: European and North American Cordage
Peter I remember this too - I think it was an Austrian/German company (possibly Feller). However, be warned, that I also seem to remember that the cordage was dual certified only as part of extension cordsets with male and female IEC60320 couplers on the ends (e.g. as used with many PC's) - not for use as actual flexible mains cords with wall-socket plugs on the supply end. John Allen -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: 07 January 2002 10:14 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: European and North American Cordage Dear All, I remember a power cordage supplied by a manufacturer which had European and North American approvals. Does anyone know the manufacturer and type of cordage? This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: An old chestnut.
Enci The need to pay for standards is not confined to the UK. Virtually all countries and organisations do the same - from ANSI and UL in the USA to SA in Australia. In some countries I understand you even have to pay to be represented on the committees that prepare standards!! This money goes towards the cost of devising, preparing and printing the standards - that all takes an awful lot of time and money. Governments do sometime contribute towards these costs, but never anywhere the full amount except possibly where there are very specific and dangerous hazards for which standards may be required for legal reasons. They do not contribute the whole cost because industry must show that they really do need these standards and are thus prepared to pay for them - and because industry is the beneficiary of standards which allows them to sell products at a profit. Otherwise, governments could be accused of providing hidden subsidies to industry. Finally, the provision of standards comes a long way down the financial priority level in government eyes - would you generally put the provision of standards before that of health, education, defence, etc? Regards John Allen Thales Defence Ltd Bracknell (and ex-BSI Standards Project Manager!) -Original Message- From: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com] Sent: 12 December 2001 13:41 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: An old chestnut. Hi Group, Can someone please remind me again why I have to pay over 1 British Pound a sheet for standards? (over 2 British pounds a page non-BSI member price) Where does the money go? Does this same situation exist outside the European Union? How much do you pay? Is membership on a committee producing a standard a paid position? For a new line of products in low volume, the costs involved in acquiring the relevant standards are steep. With the relative ease in which I can acquire datasheets online, I have often wondered why standards are not freely downloadable - would that not increase the safety of equipment produced by SME's and hobbyists alike? Also as an informed consumer I would be able to see specific details of the standards applicable to any products I buy. Enci --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
EU - Proposal for Directive on Energy Efficiency Labelling of ITE Communications Equipment
Hi Folks I came across the following Commission Document 501PC0142 Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Community Energy Efficiency Labelling Programme For Office and Communication Technology Equipment = http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/dat/2001/en_501PC0142.html Anyone know of any further progress on this proposal, or have any comments? Regards John Allen --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: WEEE Directive
John Friends For the draft directives, see http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/dat/2000/en_500PC0347_01.html Can't help with the date. Regards John Allen -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: 06 December 2001 21:39 To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: WEEE Directive I am trying to find a link to the draft of the actual WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Directive. What I found thus far at the following link is the proposal FOR developing the Directive, not the actual draft itself. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/00347_en.htm Does anyone have a link to the actual draft Directive? What is the proposed implementation date? Thanks. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
FW: Power Cord Length
Hi Folks I agree with Ron, but you should note that the two standards mentioned are standards for cordsets - not for the appliances with which they are used. John Allen -Original Message- From: WELLMAN,RON (A-PaloAlto,ex1) [mailto:ron_well...@agilent.com] Sent: 06 December 2001 13:58 To: 'Luiz Claudio'; emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: luiz_c_boni...@multibras.com.br Subject: RE: Power Cord Length Hello Luiz, Unless a specific standard specifies a length, there is no universal minimum or maximum length. However, depending on the length, some standards specify acceptable cross-sectional areas of the conductors for lengths below 2.0 meters (EN 60799) and above 15.2 meters (UL 817). If you are going to specify power cord lengths, I would go with what the power cord suppliers have off-the-shelf. Usually, these lengths are 6.0, 8.0 and 12.0 feet or 1.8, 2.5, and 3.6 meters. You should expect to get good delivery of these power cords because they are usually in stock and allows your supplier to manage your power cord inventory. Special lengths require scheduling special production runs and can extend the lead time in getting these power cords. As for price, it is always negotiable, depending on the volume you purchase. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-553-2412 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 54L-BB |WWW : http://www.agilent.com http://www.agilent.com/ | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ | Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age | | eighteen. - Albert Einstein | +=+ -Original Message- From: Luiz Claudio [mailto:luizboni...@ig.com.br] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:14 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: luiz_c_boni...@multibras.com.br Subject: Power Cord Length Dear all, I am trying to identify requirements regarding the minimum and maximum power cord length used in household appliances. I found specific requirements in UL (min 1,5 m, max 2,5m) and SASO (min 2,0 m). But I couldn't find any information for other regions (Europe, Asia, South Africa, etc.) Does anybody have this kind of information? Thanks, Luiz Claudio Bonilla de Araujo Joinville - SC - BRAZIL --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: CE-mark compliance
Amund Do you mean just the CE Mark, or the CE Mark accompanied by the appropriate DoC? Here is a an example of what can happen if you accept the Mark on its own, A few years ago, in a well-publised legal case in the UK, a PC reseller had his own badge placed on the equipment. However, when tested for the Trading Standards Office (local government enforcers!) the PC failed various EMC tests. The PC reseller was successfully prosecuted for non-compliance with the EMC Directive because he had asked for - but not obtained - the DoC from the actual manufacturer. The main the reason for the successful conviction was that he had not exercised due dilegence in obtaining the correct supporting documentation. (The manufacturer was also successfully prosecuted as well!) Therefore I would never trust the CE Mark on its own without appropriate supporting documentation - but the latter may, or may not, be a full technical report from the supplier. However, in my view, if the equipment is badged as yours, or is incorporated in your own equipment, then you should get the appropriate full reports. John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell, UK. -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: 14 November 2001 14:46 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: CE-mark compliance Hi all, Do all manufactures fulfill the EU-directives with testing in their own facilities or by an independent test lab? I guess the answer must be No. From my time working in a test lab, my experience is that big companies like Alcatel, Siemens and so on, do the required testing according to relevant requirements. I also got the feeling that small companies (I do not generalize) where a bit laid-back and often put the CE-mark into the products without any tests or with a very limited test process. Should a system builder trust a Declaration of Conformity from a big manufacturer, without asking for test reports in order to verify compliance with relevant directives ? Would you sleep well at night, if you only trusted the CE-mark 100% and build a large broadband telecom system only based on the CE-mark without any further documentation? What is your opinion? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Group:
Donald At the risk of pre-empting others with more time to give a comprehensive answer, within Europe this type of product would fall under the General Product Safety Directive 92/59/EEC http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1992/en_392L0059.html Currently this is rather vague on applicable standards, but I believe that it is in process of being amended to be harmonised standards-based directive like the LVD, RTTE Directives etc. This amendment may (already have been?)be passed this year to come into operation in 2003. As such, you would generally apply the same safety standard that would apply if the product were actually mains powered, e.g. EN60950 or EN60065. Obviously the requirements for the AC mains circuits would not apply but - in particular - the flammability requirements would be very applicable. In practice - and even if the new text is still vague - I have always thought that there was very little obvious alternative anyway - especially in countries like the UK where a due dilegence defence in law in necessary. Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Donald McElheran [mailto:don...@hq.rossvideo.com] Sent: 12 November 2001 15:41 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Group: Group: We are currently in the process of a new table top type product design which will be powered via an external internationally certified DC supply. I have been asked to determine what compliance standards will have to be applied to ensure that the product meets regulator compliance requirements. The appropriate EMC standards are quite straight forward but I am having more difficult nailing down product safety requirements. The product being supplied via an external low voltage ( 20V DC @ 6A ) appears to technically fall outside the scope of both the European LVD directive and North American NRTL certification requirements for products directly connected to the public mains. The product is similar to that of a laptop computer running from an wall mounted adapter. Questions have been raised regarding flammability of enclosure materials which will have a significant impact of the products cost. Could any member of the forum who may have had to address similar situation share there thoughts? At this point it would appear that provided we ensure the external power supply conforms to any applicable safety standards in which the equipment is to be marketed that their is no legislated (hate to use this term) requirements to safety certify the table top product. Comments? Donal McElheran Product Compliance Ross Video Ltd. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Safety Critical etc - the future
Hi Folks I agree with John W - and a single fire can (and does!) kill and injure FAR more people than a single electric shock. Additionally, a large number of products are SELV and/or battery operated where there is no shock hazard but is often a fire hazard - think of the power available from modern batteries, and especially vehicle batteries. John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: 05 November 2001 22:36 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Safety Critical etc - the future I read in !emc-pstc that CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... cet...@cetest.nl wrote (in ABEJKCKDFONELAIPOFHNMEFCEKAA.cetes t...@cetest.nl) about 'Safety Critical etc - the future', on Mon, 5 Nov 2001: Those components that encapsulate into one single component the 2 safety layers that are normally used to isolate the operator (and others) from a hazard. In electrical safety land that's mostly an electrical hazard A safety-critical component may be related to a fire hazard, not a shock hazard. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: CLASS 11(DOUBLE INSULATED) 2/3-CORE CABLE
Andrew Don't try to explain that double insulation and earthing are both acceptable alternatives - only 1 persion in 10 will understand and the public won't care! Option 1 - I think knowledgeable technical people in most countries would actually prefer this for the reasons you mention in your 2nd paragraph - but there are very few of these technical people. Option 2 - Messy open to continued confusion for everybody - including your own staff. Option 3 - Provided there is double insulation between the hazardous parts and the metal case, remove the double-insulation mark )not allowed on a Class II product) and provide installation instructions as for a normal earthed product (i.e. MUST be earthed). Then if someone does not earth it the product should still be safe. (This is the way Rich Nute often explains the use of double-insulation in many of HP's earthed products.) My preference is Option 3 - almost the least effort and probably the least customer and marketing hostile reactions (but it will cost a little more for the cable and strain relief). # Additionally it might (or might not?) help with any static control problems - which can get quite nasty in cold areas where the humidity is very low - and with any equipotentialisation problems which could occur because cold-stores are metal walled. Regards John Allen -Original Message- From: Andrew Wood [mailto:andrew.w...@landinst.com] Sent: 05 November 2001 14:27 To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: CLASS 11(DOUBLE INSULATED) 2/3-CORE CABLE All I have a piece of equipment falling under the scope of EN6010. To set the scene it is a low volume product, approx 0.5m cube, stainless steel enclosure and will sit on a bench in food cold storage areas. Mains lead connects via IP68 connector. It incorporates a SMPS for universal mains operation ( current draw approx 0.3A). Because of problems ensuring a reliable earth in some locations for its predecessor, I have specifically designed it to be Class2 (double insulated). Therefore safe for all markets. Now, ironically, I am encountering some unease with the UK sales dept. After all everyone KNOWS that a metal box should be earthed. (I don't dismiss this attitude lightly because it is no doubt shared by some of the customer base.) Technically there is no problem with providing a 3-core cable and connecting up the earth conductor. And after all if 2 levels of protection is good, 3 levels is better. Option 1 is obviously to stick with the design as is and educate sales/customers where necessary. Option 2 is to provide a 3core product for the some markets and a 2core product for others. This goes against the original intention to have a universal product. Is there an option 3? ie provide 3core cable and explain in the manual that product is designed to be safe without an earth but the earth may be fitted if desired. What about the square in square symbol? I'm sure that I'm not the first to be looking at these questions. Any and all thoughts would be appreciated. Best regards, Andy. Andrew Wood Engineer (Specials) Land Instruments International England Please excuse following message automatically inserted by server This e-mail and its contents may be confidential, privileged and protected by law. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the intended recipient, or stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are
RE: Safety Critical etc - the future
Hi Folks Having just logged on this morning, I am somewhat surprised at some of the comments against the concept of standard definitions for safety critical, compliance critical, etc. The very fact that this thread was started in one country and has spread across national boundaries with a wide range of opinions is evidence of the confusion that exists and the need for clarifications. After all we do already a huge range of definitions in the International Electrotechnical Vocabulary (IEV) - and an additional number in individual standards - for the very purpose of making life more straightforward for all us, and avoiding confusion, reinventing the wheel, etc. I was not, and am not, arguing that IEC committees and test authorites should define absolutely what is, and what is not, a safety critical, safety related, a compliance critical (etc) component. What I am saying, at least at this stage, is that the general meanings of these terms (and/or of any other terms that are chosen) shall be clarified in that forum so that - from one person/test house/authority/country to another - we can avoid confusion between component standards-compliance critical and overall equipment/system safety critical - a distinction on which most of us (at least those have realised the difference!) already seem to agree. That is not to say that there is no overlap between the terms as a single component can be one or the other - OR BOTH - dependent on what it is and what its function(s) and failure mode(s) is (are). In fact, as is quite obvious, that a component (e.g a transistor bias resistor in an SELV circuit) in a specific item of equipment may not be compliance critical for that equipment, but could be safety critical in the context of the role that equipment (or the system into which it is then integrated) such that if the component fails (etc) the overall equipment/system fails or fails to operate in a manner which ensures that safety is assured. For example: resistor in fuel feed valve in aircraft engine fails to open circuit- fuel valve does not open -engine stops but no fire, etc.- plane falls out of sky = UNSAFE condition!! After the general definitions have been agreed, then, maybe, we can go further by concensus between all the interested parties in the definitions of - particularly - compliance critical components which is what I think sparked this whole thread off! Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell, UK --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Safety Critical etc - the future
Hi Folks We have now had this discussion and it brought out a number of useful and enlightening points, and Lauren's and Rich's summaries of the various inputs are both interesting and thought-provoking. However, I now come back to a point that I made in one of my earlier messages: Where do we go from here? For most people participating in this forum, I suspect that the major contact that they have with any concept of component- criticality is in respect of simple standards (e.g. standards mandated under the LVD/EMC/RTTE or other national equivalents) compliance for a single item of equipment. Their major issue will, I guess, be the attitudes taken by the various product test and certification authorities that they deal with because those organisations directly influence what the product design and manufacturing companies need to reflect in their internal documentation and processes. Therefore, the test and certification authorities need to jointly decide and declare the following: a) The methods and criteria for identification, selection and listing of critical components for both product standards compliance and system safety compliance b) The terms they wish to use for the various aspects of criticality. Personal Comment: I think that safety critical component is fine in the system safety context - and that is how it is already referenced in many risk-assessment standards and guidance documents. However, I am not so sure/happy about Rich's suggestion of safeguard as I think that it is similar to the term safety critical in the system-safety context but will sound rather vague to many non-knowledgable people (and is not very appropriate in the context of product standards compliance). Nevertheless it seems to me that this subject does need to be debated at a very high level (of knowledgable people!)within the IEC (notably the CB Certification organisation, CENELEC and the US/Canadian NRTL organisations with the object of reaching some mutually agreed methodologies. (Once they reach some decisions, most other organisations will follow!) I know that some of the forum participants operate in these areas, and thus ask them how we should proceed from here? This will be a long process - but I think it is essential to kick it off ASAP. Over to you guys! Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division (for the moment!!) Bracknell, UK --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Definition for Safety Critical Component
George friends As I actually said in one of my earlier messages, the metal enclosure/housing CAN be a safety critical part AND can also be a compliance critical part, so I think it SHOULD show up on the critical parts list. John Allen -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: 31 October 2001 13:40 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Definition for Safety Critical Component There are at least two possible definitions of this term. Under the 60950 standards, these would be the components listed by an approving agency deemed to be safety critical. The other is any part, listed or not, that contributes to the overall safety of the device. For example, a metal housing will not show up on a critical parts list, but can have sharp edges. As pointed out earlier, even a caution label could be considered such a part. Based on the single fault theory on which the standards are based, the failure of a single safety critical component should NOT introduce a hazard. For example, if the insulation between primary and exposed metal parts fails in a Class I design, the fault current will go to ground via the earthing path, and blow the fuse. At no time should the exposed metal carry hazardous voltages. The failure of two safety critical components can result in a hazard. If in the example given the ground path does not exist (a second fault), the bare metal may bear hazardous voltages. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Definition for Safety Critical Component
Hi Folks I agree strongly with Oscar's comments and previous approach - Compliance critical is a far better term. It also means that you can have EN60950 compliance critical, EMC compliance critical etc, as you like without confusion. However the widespread existing use of safety critical component among the test and certification authorities, will still result in confusion for a long time - maybe we need an education programme for everybody? How about it: UL/VDE/BSI/etc., etc? Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] Sent: 31 October 2001 12:43 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Definition for Safety Critical Component Gregg brings up a good point. I haven't followed all of this thread and I hope I'm not repeating someone else; but, just in case: Some of the things necessary to comply with the standards have less to do with safety than they do with compliance to the standard. Or in some cases the safety implications are less obvious. At a previous place of employment, in these cases we called them Compliance Critical Components. Unfortunately this was often easier to get through the management gauntlet that a Safety Critical Component. If management could not see the safety implications (or didn't buy into the rationale) they would not buy into the term Safety Critical. When we told them that third party approval would not be obtained unless this requirement was met, they basically had to acquiesce and accept it. It was from this understanding that we coined the term Compliance Critical Component It was a cop-out but it got the job done. You just have to be careful and not overuse the term. Oscar Please note that this case in not representative of my current employer/management. These opinions are mine and are in no way to be construed to represent those of my employer. Gregg Kervill gkervill%eu-link@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/30/2001 11:25:48 PM Please respond to Gregg Kervill gkervill%eu-link@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'Doug McKean' dmckean%corp.auspex@interlock.lexmark.com, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Definition for Safety Critical Component Sorry the change to HTML was necessary to format the table. Critical Components will including Paint (colour of the product), Labels and Instructions. There can be no definitive answer - hazards are in the eye of the beholder. The following is a good starting point - use the similarity rule to identify pneumatic and other products that store or control energy - electrical connectors - securing clips for hoses REMEMBER that safety devices that OPEN pneumatic pressure can create worse hazards that they prevent. G IEC or European Component Standard UL94 Flammability Standard Component Possible Operator-Service warning 94-V2 Air Filter Y Mains Capacitors Stored Charge Y CRT's Stored Charge Y Circuit Breakers Y Conductive Coatings Y Connectors Y Transformers and PSU Y UL Recognised Fans above 30 V UL Recognised low power fans 94 VW1 Fibre optic cable Eye Damage Y Fuses and Fuse holders Replacement Y Safety Switches Y Line filters Lithium Batteries Replacement - disposal instructions Y Mains connectors UL94-various ALL Plastic Parts Y Power cords and Mains Cables Y Mains voltage motors UL94-V1 Printed Circuit boards Y Relays in safety applications or switching hazardous voltages Y Products using primary power Y Switches in safety applications or switching hazardous voltages Isolate before removing cover Y Transient voltage surge suppressers Y Thermal controls Min - Maximum Y External cables UL94-VW1 Internal equipment wiring Eurolink Ltd. -One Link-199 Countries P.O. Box 310 Reedville, Virginia 22539 Phone: (804) 453-3141 Fax: (804) 453-9039 Web:www.eu-link.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Doug McKean Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:43 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Definition for Safety Critical Component Definition for Safety Critical ComponentI'll add to Richard's definition by saying a Safety Critical Component is a component necessary for the safety approval of the product. It's a component that prevents a person (end user or service person) from being exposed to a hazardous condition either during normal operation or from a fault. - Doug McKean
RE: Definition for Safety Critical Component - Safety Critical Fe atures
Hi Folks This is sent separately to my reply regarding IEC 61508 etc., as it addresses an entirely different issue. The decision as to what should be classified as a safety critical component (SCC) in the context of 60950 (etc.) should take into account the overall construction and use of the equipment, and so we always devise another list - that of the safety critical features (SCF). The attached file gives examples of the features I would consider critical for a large cabinet (for example). This cabinet has to comply with EN60950, and also with the requirements of its specific intended application (which means that it has to be transported from time to time). However, for your own equipments and applications you might to delete some features and add other. Then, AFTER you have defined the SCF list, you can begin to list out the list of safety critical components - which are the components which are critical to ensuring compliance with the SCF list. When you look at the latter you may have a few surprises - for example, how many people realise the components forming the equipment enclosure are safety critical components? They most definitely are, and not just for flammability etc. - the enclosure openings and fixings can also be critical. The combination of the SCF and SCC lists then provides a valuable aid-memoire to the equipment designer at the time of product certification and then - later - when SOMEONE ELSE is detailed to review, modify or update that equipment, to avoid the latter operations taking the equipment out of compliance with the appropriate safety standard(s) and related requirements Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division. -Original Message- From: lcr...@tuvam.com [mailto:lcr...@tuvam.com] Sent: 30 October 2001 17:27 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Definition for Safety Critical Component All, Does anyone have a concise definition of Safety Critical Component? I understand that the definition of this term is highly dependent on context, so let me frame it a bit I am interested in the components that may be in high-tech industrial equipment such as those used in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. And as for regulatory space I am considering the typical application of electrical design standards such as EN 60204, NFPA 79, ULK 508, EN 61010 as well as similar standards that may address the design of pneumatic, mechanical and process chemical delivery systems. I am also considering three potential populations. Operators - who interact with the tool only to get it to perform its intended function (this group can also include 'passers by' Maintenance personnel - who work with the tool to perform prescribed, well document procedures intended to keep the tool in good working order. Service personnel - who do anything necessary to get a broken tool back into operating condition. Thanks for any ideas. -Lauren Crane TUV America / TUV Product Service SAFETY FEATURES LIST.doc Description: MS-Word document
RE: Definition for Safety Critical Component
Hi Folks A few words of warning on the context of the above Most of the definitions or descriptions for safety critical component given so far are reasonably accurate and straightforward in the context of strict compliance with IEC/EN/UL EQUIPMENT safety standards such as 60335, 60950 61010 etc. HOWEVER, the term takes on an entirely different meaning in the context of RISK ASSESSMENT standards such are IEC 61508 and DEF Stan 00-56. Under these standards, a safety critical component may be a small component in an equipment which may affect the overall safety of the system, in which that equipment is incorporated - nevertheless the failure of that component may not result in a fire/shock/mechanical hazard in the the context of 60950! In other words, the equipment might fail safe but the system could fail to an overall dangerous condition. This won't affect most of you but you should be aware that you might meet the term in this context - and that may become common as more large projects are subject to formal risk assessments to 61508, DEF 00-56 or MIL STD 882. Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell UK -Original Message- From: lcr...@tuvam.com [mailto:lcr...@tuvam.com] Sent: 30 October 2001 17:27 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Definition for Safety Critical Component All, Does anyone have a concise definition of Safety Critical Component? I understand that the definition of this term is highly dependent on context, so let me frame it a bit I am interested in the components that may be in high-tech industrial equipment such as those used in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. And as for regulatory space I am considering the typical application of electrical design standards such as EN 60204, NFPA 79, ULK 508, EN 61010 as well as similar standards that may address the design of pneumatic, mechanical and process chemical delivery systems. I am also considering three potential populations. Operators - who interact with the tool only to get it to perform its intended function (this group can also include 'passers by' Maintenance personnel - who work with the tool to perform prescribed, well document procedures intended to keep the tool in good working order. Service personnel - who do anything necessary to get a broken tool back into operating condition. Thanks for any ideas. -Lauren Crane TUV America / TUV Product Service --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: EMI filter hazards
Hi Enci Other Folks Comments: 1) The actual value of the capacitor may not the most significant factor - it is the actual voltage effect on the user that is most important, and that can be significant even if the filter meets the 0.1uF limit requirements. Even if the capacitor is smaller than that, the shock can be enough to cause the reflex reaction to which I previously refered. 2) If the unit has a switch, then the worst effect is often with the switch in the OFF position if it then isolates the capacitor from any internal discharge paths - So much for switch off before disconnection or similar notices! (In fact, it was due to that particular issue that I first encountered the problem - around 20 years ago!) 3) Linear transformer units are generally better than SMPU's in providing an internal discharge path as the impedences are much lower and the number of components between them and the filters are also lower. Regards John Allen -Original Message- From: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com] Sent: 29 October 2001 12:35 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMI filter hazards At 09:31 29/10/01 -, John Crabb wrote: IEC60950 requires that capacitor exceeding 0.1uF should have a means of discharge resulting in a time constant not exceeding 1 second for pluggable equipment Type A. .. a means of discharge As I understand it there is no need to blindly install a resistor. Depending on the product, it may discharge the filter caps. This is how I test when the need arises: Hook up a relay normally closed, providing power to your appliance. Connect one input of your scope (battery powered scope is best) as the trigger on the relay coil. Connect the other input in voltage capture mode across the appliance terminals. When you open the relay, the second input is triggered by the first input and captures the residual voltage across the appliance filter. (in reality you see a few mains cycles as well due to the operating time of the relay) You will also need a small dc supply for the relay. Repeat the test about 50 times and if you have a good portable scope you should be able to print off the discharge waveform and stick it in the design file. Cheap. :) Enci --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: EMI filter hazards
The normal answer is to fit filters with bleeder resistors across the Line-to-Neutral capacitor, which is the main culprit for shocks. In fact, I would ALWAYS advocate these - having known of several cases where people have picked up unplugged equipment, and then dropped it due to the reaction shock from touching the plug pins. Dropping a 20-30lb unit on you foot hurts - and you do not think very kindly of that EQUIPMENT manufacturer from then on!! John Allen Thales Defence Ltd Bracknell UK. -Original Message- From: wmf...@aol.com [mailto:wmf...@aol.com] Sent: 26 October 2001 12:42 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMI filter hazards Many of us incorporate these little babies in our designs, and good design practices require their placement at the enclosure threshhold to prevent re-radiation. This sometimes means the filter is upstream of the/any mains switch or breaker. In these cases, what can be done to mitigate the shock risk at the equipment plug for those first seconds after removal? We warn our customers at the mains terminals and in the manual, but, still --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Product Certification Approvals Specialist seeks position in So uthern UK
Hi Folks Due to possible redundancy (or enforced relocation to another part of the UK from the London and Thames Valley area) I may be available in 2-3 months, and am looking for a new and interesting position.Full CV/Resume available on request, but here is a summary: I am an experienced and versatile Product Certification/Approvals Engineering Specialist with over 25 years experience in EN/IEC/BS/UL/CSA Safety Standards, DEF Stan 00-56 Safety Cases and EMC/Environmental compliance/testing/certification aspects of design/manufacture/field upgrading of a wide range of commercial electronic and electrical equipment for fixed and vehicular applications. Notably: Information technology products, military equipment and vehicles/telecomms/radio, electronic measuring and test equipment, burglary fire alarms, central stations, radio paging equipment. A self-starter, experienced in preparing EMC Directive and LVD Technical Construction Files, DEF Stan 00-56/2 Safety Case Files, setting up/ managing certification programmes and related test/manufacturing facilities and budgets, and in liasing between engineering staff/certification bodies/customers, etc. Self-certified ITE equipment to IEC/EN standards, ran a UL Listing programmme, and successfully set up ran a CSA Category Certification scheme for safety self-certification and labeling. Experienced in establishing and operating commercial EMC (rfi emissions/immunity) environmental test facilities, using equipment from many suppliers. Accustomed to dealing with staff at all levels (Shop Floor to M.D.) in identifying and resolving unusual and difficult certification problems, and in handling sensitive issues, e.g. customer product safety alerts and recalls. Considerable experience of telephone help-line situations. Phone me at home in the evenings on (+44) 020-8581-0707, or contact me via my PERSONAL email address: john.e.al...@btinternet.com Note: I am not seeking pure EMC or telecomms approvals test engineering positions. John Allen --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Power Plugs
HI Folks Over the last few years I have had very little difficulty in buying rewireable mains plugs in high-street shops in Greece, Crete, Turkey and France - and, of course, the UK!! John Allen -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: 07 October 2001 22:44 To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Power Plugs Hi John: Not to Continental countries, AIUI, because rewirable plugs are not available (maybe in Denmark still). Oh? In April, 2001, I bought a re-wirable plug in Grenoble, France, at a major chain store. They had a nice selection! Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: LED Color Assignments
Joe See IEC/EN60073 for the major colour assignments - and any sector-specific standards (e.g. for medical see IEC/EN60601, or for industrial equipment see EN60204 - but no special requirements for IEC/EN60950). 60073 requirements are very similar to what you quote for the Telecordia spec. Regards John Allen Thales Defence Ltd Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2001 22:36 To: 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'EMC PSTC' Subject: LED Color Assignments Would anyone know of an equivalent (ETSI) requirement for the EU, and possibly rest of world, for the Telcordia requirements in GR-474 for LED color assignments? The EU requirements are most important although any additional information would be helpful. I would appreciate it if your answers could be accompanied by a document number, section, etc. The following is from GR-474: 2.2.3.2 NE Display - Visual Assignments and Meanings R2-36 [36] The colors red, yellow or amber, green, and white, indicating the severity of the trouble, shall be used on the NE's physical control/status display panel to visually represent various alarm levels and status conditions at the NE's equipment location and the OC. (See Section 2.7, Maintenance Person - NE Interface.) R2-37 [37] Color assignments for physical panels shall be as follows: a. Red shall indicate a critical or major failure, error, or danger. b. Yellow or amber shall indicate a minor failure, caution, warning, or temporary malfunction, or state for which the craftsperson should use caution. c. Green shall indicate satisfactory operation, active condition, or completion of a process or procedure. d. White shall indicate a neutral condition that implies nothing about the success or failure of system operations. Thx, Joe *** Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Request for a Compliance Matrix
Hi Folks I have just come across a very useful page on the NEMKO UK Ltd site, at: http://www.nemko.ltd.uk/cert/direct.htm The site is essentially advertising for NEMKO services but has tables which give thumbnail sketches of the requirements for electrical and electronic equipment approvals (including the namesof the organisations and illustrations of their approval marks), including EMC but not RTTE, in the following countries: Central East Europe: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary,Slovenia, Croatia Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Albania Romania,Bulgaria, Turkey Russia, CIS and Baltic States: Russia Ukraine Belarus Lithuania Estonia Latvia Kazakhstan South America: Argentina Mexico Brazil ColombiaChile Middle East, Africa, Asia: Saudi ArabiaIsrael South Africa India Hong Kong Australia Japan Korea China (2 versions?) Singapore ThailandMalaysia Regards John Allen Thales Defence Ltd., Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: 19 September 2001 20:43 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Request for a Compliance Matrix I generated and posted this document in 1999 and some parts are now out of date. I will update and re-post it with any corrections, updates and additions that anyone cares to send to me. Richard Woods -- From: Dave Lorusso [SMTP:dave.loru...@genband.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:59 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: FW: Request for a Compliance Matrix Thank you for the responses. Dwight sent me a copy (attached). Anyone one have a more up to date list? Best regards, Dave -Original Message- From: Dwight Hunnicutt [mailto:dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:36 PM To: 'Dave Lorusso' Subject:RE: Request for a Compliance Matrix worldwide compliance chart.pdf Dave- Was this it? Not too up to date, but this I what I have... Dwight -Original Message- From: Dave Lorusso [mailto:dave.loru...@genband.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:51 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Request for a Compliance Matrix Awhile back I remember seeing a post that included a Compliance Matrix listing countries vs. EMC/Safety/Telecom requirements. If someone has this matrix, would you please send me a copy - I'd really appreciate it. Normally, I would use the search feature on www.cfont.com http://www.cfont.com , for this information, but it's no longer there. Thank you and best regards, Dave --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. File: worldwide compliance chart.pdf --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line:
RE: EU Parliament Unexpectedly Votes to Ban BDEs
Hi folks There appear to be a number of documents published this year on related subjects Try this Search Engine URL http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=TITREAPP=PV2LANGUE=EN; TYPEF=TITREYEAR=01Find=restrictionsFILE=BIBLIOPLAGE=1 The key word restrictions in the arguement provides a list of about 6 documents. Regards John Allen -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: 10 September 2001 18:30 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EU Parliament Unexpectedly Votes to Ban BDEs The EU Parliament voted 6 Sept. to expand the ban on brominated flame retardants (BFR's) to include pentaBDE's, octa BDE's and deccaBDE's. The ban would be effective by 2003 rather than the previously proposed 2007 contained in the draft Restrictions on Substances Directive. Check: http://www.europarl.eu.int/plenary/default_en.htm http://www.europarl.eu.int/plenary/default_en.htm Question: are any of these BFRs commonly used today as flame retardants in wire, cable and plastics? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Military Equipment and the EU
Hi Folks Here are the URL's for the EC Commission Enterprise Websites for the lists of national implementations of the directives listed below: General site URL: European Commission Enterprise Site http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/site-map.htm This leads you on the following URL's which list the national implementationing legislation for the directives in question. LVD http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/lv/direct/transp.htm EMC Directive http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/directiv/transp.ht m RTTE Directive http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/implem.htm#Iceland Machinery Directive http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/mechan_equipment/machinery/impl.htm PPE Directive http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/mechan_equipment/ppe/transpos.htm In a very few cases (e.g. the Irish implementation of the RTTE directive) there are even hot links from there to the legislation itself. Maybe this will enable people in the various countries to look at their national legislation to see if they can identify any relevant national exemptions. As an aside - and equally relevantly - it also addresses the developing directive-implementation situations in some of the prospective new members of the EU! Regards John --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Military Equipment and the EU
Hi Folks
We have been into this subject in some detail as we supply a lot of
equipment into this market.
The situation varies enormously between Directives - there is certainly not
a common approach in the New Approach Directives.
Our current reading of the situation is
LVD
- No exemptions in the Directive, and certainly not in implementing UK
legislation, or in that of any other EU country of which we have heard.
EMC
- No exemption in the Directive, but exemptions in some national
legislation, e.g. the UK Electromagnetic Compatibility Regs 1992, Clause 20.
i.e:
Military equipment
20.-(1) These Regulations do not apply to military equipment.
(2) In this regulation, military equipment means apparatus which is
designed for use as arms, munitions and war material within the meaning of
Article 223.1(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community
(notwithstanding that it may be capable of other applications), but does not
include apparatus which is designed both for such use and for other
applications.
Note: Note the use of the word designed for - which might be interpreted
as meaning that equipment designed for military use can be used elsewhere
and yet still be excluded!
We have heard that there are exemptions in most other EU countries, notably
and - at one time - the draft European standard for dual pupose equipment
{CENELEC CLC/TC210(SEC)35/36 (BS Draft for Public Comment 97/200728) EMC
Conformity of Equipment Designed for Military and Other Purposes identified
Germany/Austria/Norway as not having exemptions. We think that the situation
has changed (especially for Germany) but we are still seeking proof.
RTTE Directive
- Exemptions in the Directive in Article 1 Scope and aim sub-para 5 This
Directive shall not apply to apparatus exclusively used for activities
concerning public security, defence, State security (including the economic
well-being of the State in the case of activities pertaining to State
security matters) and the activities of the State in the area of criminal
law.
Note: This refers to equipment used for these purposes, whether or not it
was designed for them!
Machinery Directive
- Exemptions in Directive in Article 1. Sub-article 3 machines specially
designed and constructed for military or police purposes
Note: This looks like the UK exemption from the EMC Directive - and quite
different from the RTTE Directive!
General Note:
In general, note the exclusivity clauses do not exclude equipment for
dual-use (military and non-military) as this needs to comply for
non-military sales.
Hope this helps a bit.
HOWEVER, if anyone can fill in the situation on the national legislation -
notably for the EMC Directive - in countries with which they are familiar
then we would be most grateful.
Regards
John Allen, Thales Defence Communications, Bracknell UK
-Original Message-
From: Stewart, Judd [ mailto:stewart.jud...@sd.littonisd.com
mailto:stewart.jud...@sd.littonisd.com ]
Sent: 04 September 2001 18:16
To: 'EMC-PSTC'
Subject: Military Equimpment and the EU
Good morning!
I am faced with coming up with a regulatory strategy for equipment that
will be sold to a foreign military (member of the EU). The equipment is
entirely military and has military unique attributes. The products range
from battery operated hand held devices to laptops that can use a battery
adapter which plugs into the mains.
All units have LI-ION batteries and High voltage inverters for powering the
LCD backlight.
Some have a standard PCMIA card slot which will allow the user to install a
commercial modem if he chooses. We do not provide this card
I have reviewed the LVD and EMC directives and find no exclusion for
military equipment. Is there?
What other directives may be applicable?
Thanks in advance
Judd Stewart
Northrop Grumman
San Diego Calif.
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
RE: TCF for EMC directive
Hi Folks This topic has rather drifted and I cannot remember what the original point was. But, as a reminder, the following document on the UK Department of Trade and Industry might be of some use: http://www.dti.gov.uk/strd/emcps00.pdf This is the DTI guidance note on compliance with the EMC Directive. Page 7 gives basic guidance about TCF's and ANNEX B gives guidance on the content thereof - although you might find that Competent Bodies might require more (e.g. your ISO 9000 accreditations for the design and manufacturing operations to ensure that there is some liklihood that shipped products resemble the ones described in the file!). John Allen --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Mains fusing - Purchase specifications
Hi Folks Kyle make a very valid and serious point in his last paragraph = re-engineering of vendors' products. CE Marking of a vendor's product is a minimum requirement - suitability for the intended application in YOUR system is at least as important. This means preparing an adquate purchasing specification - and demanding proof that it has been met. If you make this type of purchase regularly then it is probably worth putting together a generic set of requirements which cover your customers requirements. You might also need a set of internal design guidelines for incorporating the purchased items into your own systems. We get these problems all the time as we design AC mains-powered communications/ITE fits for road/off-road vehicles (often using on-board 230V diesel generators). What is suitable for office use is rarely suitable for these fits without a lot of additional work (shock mounting, extra grounding, additional temperature/humidity control to name but a few areas). In particular, IEC/EN/UL 60950 equipment may well not be suitable for rough environments as there is generally absolutely no environmental testing involved in most evaluations. A couple of years ago we vibrated an industrial PC (admitted for a long time!) and most of the large capacitors in the PSU fell off the PCB's . Also, a large amount of aluminium (I am English - that's how we spell it!) dust was caused by a capactor rubbing on a heatsink, and this finished up all over the primary AC tracks on the PCB's. It still worked but it was very dangerous! It is thus very important to specify exactly what you want of the products you buy - and to make any installations/usage limitations clear in the documents you supply to your customers. Conditions of Acceptability again (and again!). Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Bracknell, UK. -Original Message- From: Ehler, Kyle [mailto:keh...@lsil.com] Sent: 02 August 2001 20:57 To: 'Rich Nute'; 'EMC and Safety list' Subject: RE: Mains fusing Thank You so much Rich, Patricia, Mike, Jim, Ed, et al; Please do continue to contribute your wisdom to this forum. I spoke with my LES engineer and good friend at UL. [a good friend at UL is a handy thing!] Someday I should expound on the usefulness of proper care and feeding of your agency engineer.. In our discussions, I pointed out the grey area in 1950 2.6.2 2.7.4 [B] related to the conditions of applicability (PAG), and that this modular product is deployed in a rack mount environment where the mains cord is terminated in a polarized coupler (and disconnect device) making it nearly impossible to reverse the mains. In addition, the rack mount cabinet provides mains distribution to this module through double side breakers. I built my case on these two items and believe I can get an approval upon review. I'm told the remaining problem with this UPS is it fails 61000-4-5 in our lab, although it passes 801-5, and that it also fails conducted emissions when using QP-Avg techniques. I could be in for engineering a fire enclosure to contain wiring, coupler, filter, suppressor, and while in the area, a double side breaker -and of course, the attendant investigative redo. Normally, this would be good reason for vendor rejection, or at least a public drubbing in this forum, but we are committed for the short term to use this vendor's product and I cannot afford to risk any relationships -for now. The decision was never mine to make. And now we are in a familiar loop where the lab is used to re-engineer a vendor's product that is CE marked. Doh!! Statue today, pigeon yesterday... Thanks again, kyle my words, my opinions/mania...etc. -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com ] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 4:30 PM To: keh...@lsil.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Mains fusing Hi Kyle: I have a new product that includes an off the shelf UPS that is rated for 230V ac operation and has an internal single pole circuit breaker on the mains inlet. We want to target this product world-wide. The UPS presently is CB and certified to EN60950 european only. For North America we want it to have UL1950, and to obtain this, UL is demanding the breaker be double pole. This is an unusual situation. On the one hand, the UPS, with single-pole overcurrent protection, has a CB to EN 60950 for use in Europe where most mains supply plug configurations are non-polar. There is no control that the overcurrent protection will be in the live conductor. On the other hand, the UPS, with single-pole overcurrent protection, is denied UL certification for use in the North America where UL requires polarization of both the UPS overcurrent protection and the mains supply plug configuration. There is a reasonable control that the overcurrent protection will be in the live conductor.
RE: Use of Mercury in test equipment...
Hi Folks The proposed new EU Directive is 500PC0347(02) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/dat/2000/en_500PC0347_02.html This makes direct reference to mercury See also the effects of the draft WEEE Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/dat/2000/en_500PC0347_01.html and the draft Impact on the Environment of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) Directive http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/eee/workdoc.pdf These three draft Directives are closely associated. Regards John Allen Thales Defence Communications Ltd Bracknell Berks, UK -Original Message- From: ron_well...@agilent.com [mailto:ron_well...@agilent.com] Sent: 14 June 2001 23:55 To: fw...@us.tuv.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Use of Mercury in test equipment... In the USA there are several States that have Mercury content reporting and labeling requirements. These are for now: Vermont New Hampshire Minnesota I expect that the rest of the New England States will have similar legislation passed in the next year or two. However, you may want to check with the Electronics Industry Alliance (EIA) http://www.eia.org on what its members are doing to deal with these new laws. New Hampshire has recently enacted Hg reporting requirements that become effective July 1, 2001. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-345-8630 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 54L-SQ |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ | Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age | | eighteen. - Albert Einstein | +=+ -Original Message- From: fw...@us.tuv.com [mailto:fw...@us.tuv.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:06 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Use of Mercury in test equipment... Hi All, I am trying to track down information regarding the using mercury wetted relays in automated test equipment. I am aware that Sweden disallows mercury as a national deviation to 60950. Are there any restrictions for 61010? Are there are any other directives that prohibit use of mercury? Or will there soon be? Thanks in advance for any information. Frank West TUVRNA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: New laser standards
Hi Folks WRT the IEC standard(s), as I understand it, IEC documents are - and always have been - advisory documents which only have legal force when they have been officially adopted in a particular country or region (e.g. the EU) by the relevant regulatory or standards body(ies) [ or adopted in contract between two companies]. It is those bodies which will mandate any transition periods that they consider appropriate. Thus, as far as the US is considered, the CDRH will be the relevant regulatory body. John Allen Thales Defence Bracknell UK -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: 11 June 2001 21:55 To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: New laser standards Hello Group - Can anyone direct me to an informative article, link, etc., that summarizes the impact of Amendment 2 to IEC 60825-1, released in January of this year ? I've reviewed the amendment and am aware of the basic differences it brings in classification, but it sure would be nice to have a synopsis of all the changes. Also, does anyone know how soon the changes will be incorporated into a new release of the standard ? The IEC website does not list a target date for release, although the status of edition 1.2 shows it being out for printing since early May. Also, CDRH Laser Notice # 50, published late May, harmonizes, to some degree, 21CFR to the IEC 60825-1 standard, with the notable exception of production line test requirments, record keeping, and some product marking requirements, which are being kept by the CDRH. Has anyone heard if the CDRH product report formats will be changed ? I'm thinking an IEC-60825-1 report, with US national deviations, if you will, may be acceptable to the CDRH at some point in the future, in lieu of their existing published report format. Of greater concern is the lack of a specified transition period and mandatory compliance dates in either standard (at least I can't find them). Will existing laser classifications be grandfathered? When will laser product manufacturers be required to label products according to the new classifications? I can see the new classifications causing much confusion among customers, who may have, say, Class2 laser products, then buying additional units of the same product, which might be labeled as Class 2M, for instance. Thanks for your help. Doug Massey Safety Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. Norcross, GA., USA Ph. (770) 447-4224 x3607 FAX (770) 447-6928 e-mail: masse...@lxe.com Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
Chris Friends See 85/374/EEC, as amended by 1999/34/EC, The General Product Liability Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1999/en_399L0034.html Regards John Allen Thales Defence Bracknell -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: 11 June 2001 13:56 To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FW: Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation? Hi all, (refer to John's inimitable :-) reply below) Even though my previous response may not sound like it; I agree with you on this one John. Manufacturers should go the extra mile. I think that we're all trying to figure out which road to go the extra mile on. (with regard to products that fall outside the scope of the Low Voltage Directive, Machinery Directive, Toy Directive, RTTTE Directive..even the General Product Safety Directive). I saw a reply from a collegue at Agilent. He mentioned a Product Liability Directive. Ever heard of that one? Anybody have a copy of it that cares to comment? Now imagine you are a defendant in a court case. Prosecuting counsel says to you, 'So, Mr. Maxwell, you have explained to the court that your company is not responsible for the dreadful injury inflicted on Mr. Smith by your company's product, because the General Product Safety Directive does not apply to 'commercial equipment'. Do you not agree that what you are asking the jury to accept is that Mr. Smith should be protected from injury by the law in his home, but that he forfeits any such protection as soon as he sets foot in his workplace?' Go the extra mile: don't assume a 'whereas' will save you! -- --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: EN60950 - Changes between 1992 2000 Editions
Hi Folks Many thanks to all who responded publically and privately to my enquiry. Quite a number of comparison documents appear to exist in both the public and private domains. I will try to put together for the forum a brief summary of the various sources of information sometime in the near future, but I will most certainly respect any information that was given to me privately. It may be a month coming as I am very busy with projects and then on holiday for a couple of weeks. John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell UK --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
EN60950 - Changes between 1992 2000 Editions
Hi Folks The requirements of the various clauses have been re-arranged between these two editions, so does anyone know of any guides or cross-references as to how the requirements have actually moved around? Thanks in advance. John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell UK --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: US Mains Plug/Earthing
Hi Folks From my days (about 10 years ago) of dealing with UL on this issue, I seem to remember that pluggable Listed products had to a power cord and that power cord had to have a fitted plug that was suitable and legal for the country in which the product was to be used - and that certainly included the USA. Taking on board some of the comments from other respondents,it is difficult/impossible to use, or sometimes to even sell, a product that is not Listed by UL or another NRTL - and they will only List if it complies with the appropriate standard. Most of these standards are now harmonized with Canada - and fairly much with the rest of the World However,there used to be (and I suspect that a few are still around)a number of very old US/Canadian standards which had much less stringent requirements for insulation sizing and dielectric withstand, and often did not require either a Class I earth connnection or proper double insulation for types of products where the equivalent IEC/EN standards did/do require one or the other. Possibly, this is where the orginal correspondent's customer probably got his idea that a 2-pin plug would be adequate! Nevertheless if there is an appropriate old style standard still valid for the product, and the product meets the relevant technical requirements, then it could be possible for him to obtain Listing with that 2-pin plug! Now, someone tell me that I am too out-of-date and that the above possibility does not exist (please!). John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Crabb, John [mailto:jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com] Sent: 17 May 2001 09:44 To: 'Enci'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: US Mains Plug/Earthing I don't know if you have to fit a plug, but I can certainly tell you that our USA customers would be VERY UNHAPPY if we supplied a product without a plug. I certainly have the impression that fitting a plug in the USA is not something that people expect to have to do. Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. -Original Message- From: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com] Sent: 17 May 2001 08:03 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing Thank you for all your comments. Do EU manufacturers have to fit a suitable mains plug to appliances when exporting to USA?... or can it be supplied without a plug, putting the requirement on the user to follow the instructions - in my case, stating that a grounding plug must be used ? Thank you. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Capacitor Discharge Test
Martin Having read several other contributors comments on your question, I have to say that I totally agree with them (test with the switch in both positions) for one very practical reason. I know of several occasions where personnel have lifted disconnected equipment by wrapping their arms around it - and then dropped it again by reflex when their fingers touched the pins of the plug and they got a non-fatal shock from the charged capacitors on the plug-side of the switch. In one case the person suffered a badly injured foot (20-30lbs from 4feet up make a hell of an impact on your foot), and in the other case the weight missed the person's foot - but I then spent many hours trying to defend my company which supplied the equipment (even though it complied with the standard IEC380 - it was a long time ago! - and met the same requirements as 60950 does now)! I would expect that other forum participants will be able to relate similar incidences. Personaly, based on the above experiences, I play safe and apply the test whatever capacitance is across the pins with the switch open. As I said for the second example, even capacitance at/below the compliance limit is enough to cause the reflex action which may cause the recipient of the shock to involuntaritarily do something which results in harm to himself (or someone else). Given the current effects of product liability legislation I would take any chances at all! John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com [mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com] Sent: 11 May 2001 17:31 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Capacitor Discharge Test We evaluate our laboratory equipment to UL 3101-1, CSA 1010.1 and EN 61010-1. Section 6.10.3 of UL 3101-1 states If plug pins of cord-connected equipment receive a charge from an internal capacitor, the pins shall not be HAZARDOUS LIVE 5s after disconnection of the supply. We have always performed this test with the power switch in the ON position and would have the unit running then unplug the power cord and take our reading on the oscilloscope. We have never measured any voltages above the HAZARDOUS LIVE limits of 30Vrms, 42.4V peak or 60Vdc. Our new NRTL Engineer has now also requested us to perform this test with the power switch in the OFF position. With the switch in the off position our voltages after 5 seconds are close to line voltage. The NRTL is considering this a failure. However, UL 3101-1 also states in Section 6.10.3 For plugs receiving a charge from an internal capacitor, the measurements of 6.3 are made to establish that the levels of 6.3.1.3 are not exceeded. 6.3.1.3 requires measuring the overall capacitance from the unit. Our NRTL states that there is no method available to measure the overall capacitance of the unit. Has anyone else in the group had any experience with this issue? Does your NRTL require testing with the switch in the OFF position? Do your units fail with the switch in the OFF position? Is it a failure just because the voltage limits are exceeded, or is it only a failure if the current and capacitance limits are exceeded. (Similar to the Permissible Limits Requirements). Have you had any experience with NRTL's not being able to measure the overall capacitance? All responses are greatly appreciated. Regards Joe Martin Applied Biosystems marti...@appliedbiosystems.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Odd CE Marking Question
Hi Folks Hate to be a doom-bringer on this one and introduce another issue, but - to bring a note of sanity - I think the General Product Safety Directive (92/59/EEC) might actually apply to this type of kit! It applies to virtually anything where there is no sector-specific directive. However, watch out, the CE Marking is only to be used in conjunction with a DoC against a Directive which actually specifies the use of both, and - happily -the GPS Directive is not a CE Marking Directive. Therefore if that is the most appropriate directive then you must NOT use the CE Marking. John Allen Thales Defence Communications Division Bracknell UK. -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: 09 April 2001 21:30 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail); 'Louis Fischer' Subject: RE: Odd CE Marking Question I hope not;-- please don't give these (B)(E)urocrats any ideas! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: Louis Fischer[SMTP:lofis...@cisco.com] Reply To: Louis Fischer Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:02 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Odd CE Marking Question Is there a Directive for decorative items, or perhaps for props or stage equipment, which might be more appropriate? LEF --- Louis E. Fischer Compliance Engineer Cisco Systems, Inc. 12515 Research Blvd, Bldg 4 Austin, TX 78759 (512) 378-1723 FAX: (512) 378-1251 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grant, Tania (Tania) Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:24 AM To: Kevin Harris; 'Steve Brody' Cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject:RE: Odd CE Marking Question I don't know, Steve. That might be jumping from the frying pan into the fire;-- has the dummy been evaluated to be a safe toy??? ;) Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: Steve Brody[SMTP:sbr...@prodigy.net] Reply To: Steve Brody Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:21 PM To: Kevin Harris Cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject:Re: Odd CE Marking Question Having read through most of the responses as of this writing, and finding, as expected, very valid and well positioned recommendations and suggestions, I submit that if this is intended to be a dummy intended to make people believe that it is what it is supposed to be, even if it is not, then a CE Marking and other labels may be required to complete the ruse. If, as some of our colleagues believe that CE Marking and claiming compliance to LVD or EMC is not valid and should not be done, then treat the dummy as it is and claim compliance to the Toys Directive and mark the product with a CE Marking. Steve Brody Sr. Compliance Engineer Thermo NESLAB steve.br...@neslab.com or sbr...@prodigy.net . Kevin Harris wrote: Hello Group, I just had a question posed to me that made me think a little bit. So I will pose it to all of you. First some preamble. A device is going to be made for the European market. It is in fact a dummy device in that it looks like the real thing but it is not. The only electronics inside is a bridge rectifier and a RC circuit to blink a LED. The device can be powered by either an AC or DC source up to 30 V. The power source is not supplied. For this industry (security) there is a product family standard for EMC. The device is not a mock up for store display purposes but is in fact used in the industry to give the impression that there are more of these devices around than there really are. So the moment has arrived, do you CE mark the device? If you say yes, what directive did you apply? If you say no, what is your reasoning? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the
RE: Battery terminals isolation
Hi Folks Another possibility: try to find fully-insulated quick-release terminals which have a manually-operated lock and don't require a tool. (We had to do this recently when we had a similar problem with batteries n confined spaces in vehicles) John Allen Thales Defence Ltd Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Ralph Cameron [mailto:ral...@igs.net] Sent: 01 March 2001 15:16 To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Battery terminals isolation John: How about an insulated wrench? Ralph Cameron EMC Consulting and Suppression of Consumer Electronics (After sale) - Original Message - From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:47 PM Subject: Re: Battery terminals isolation sa9d1398.077@sao0002n, SERGIO LUIZ DA ROCHA LOURES SERGIO sergioro...@siemens.com.br inimitably wrote: Can the group tell me if there is any requirement about isolations of lead acid battery terminals? We have a 48V equipment powered by lead acid batteries. The negative of the batteries set is connected to the enclosure. When the batteries need to be replaced, short circuit happens if the tool used to detach the connectors touch the enclosure and the positive of the batteries. Information to disconnect the negative terminal first before replace the batteries is clear in the service manual, but I don't know if only this is sufficient. I don't know of anything explicit in any standard, but the consequences of shorting a 48 V battery could be very serious, up to loss-of-life. Therefore I would think in terms of the General Safety Directive, which says, in effect, 'make it safe, then make it safer'. So: - put a warning notice **next to the battery** saying 'Disconnect THIS terminal first.' Don't rely on a drunken blind, idiot knowing which is the negative one. - if possible, fix to the negative connector a plastic shield that covers up the positive terminal and connector, so you can't even get at the positive terminal without first removing the negative one. If you need to be able to measure the battery voltage with a multimeter, put a small hole in the shield that will just admit a test-prod. You could perhaps put the warning notice on the shield itself. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Looking at leakage current specs
Hi folks I (and I believe, a number of other people) disagree with the last sentence of David's message - in so far as it is NOT merely a question of having a longer grounding pin. IEC and EN60950 - and I think also the common UL/CSA standard (but not having seen the latest edition) - allow high leakage equipment to be connected by a mains plug ONLY if it can be classified as Pluggable Type B, and NOT Pluggable Type A. If you then refer to the definitions of these two types of equipment (in those standards) you will see that Pluggable Type A uses a domestic grounding plug, whilst Pluggable Type B uses an industrial plug , e.g. IEC/EN60309 (but I would also personally class many of the North American NEMA 6P-XX Twistlock plugs as being in this category). The significant point about the latter types of plugs is that they have some mechanism to positively lock the plug into the socket and thus ensure the grounding continuity - whereas domestic plugs generally do not and can rock badly in the socket - thus compromising the grounding of the equipment. There are also minimum conductor size requirements for the grounding conductor, and an overall 5% limit on the leakage current (although I doubt that this will affect much pluggable equipment!!) John Allen THALES Defence Ltd, Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [ mailto:gelf...@memotec.com mailto:gelf...@memotec.com ] Sent: 18 January 2001 21:30 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Looking at leakage current specs Gary, The measurement is made with all power supplies in parallel, but you can exceed the 3.5 mA limit if you provide a warning to ground equipment before connecting. With standard power cords this is done by having the ground pin slightly longer than the line and neutral. David David Gelfand Regulatory Approvals Memotec Communications Inc. Montreal Canada - Original Message - From: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:44 AM Subject: Looking at leakage current specs Was reviewing a number of power supply specifications and would like to parallel a couple, but the leakage/touch current on them is in the 2 mA range. Isn't most of the leakage current produced (produced might not be the word I want) in the upfront filter caps - W and Y capacitors and such? If I parallel these aren't I likely to see a significant increase in the leakage current, and probably blow by the 3.5 mm requirement for ITE? Would the measurement be made twice, once for each supply or would I have to provide a common input to both supplies and then measure between chassis and this common point's protective earth terminal? Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: European connectors
Hi folks Not an EN60320 device - I think this is the 16A European 2-pin plug with dual (French pin in socket + German spring-loaded side) earthing contacts to Standard Sheet VII of the old CEE 7 standard. This plug is designed to fit almost all Continental European 2-pin sockets, and provides earthing in via the two different routes. Does not fit any British or some Danish, Swiss and Eastern European sockets. Regards John Allen. Thales Defence Ltd Bracknell -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: 16 January 2001 16:37 To: daniel.fitzger...@apcc.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re:European connectors forwarding for daniel.fitzger...@apcc.com Reply Separator Subject:European connectors Author: daniel.fitzger...@apcc.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 1/12/01 3:22 PM Do anybody know what a Europe VIIG Plug - CEE (7) VII (16amp) is ? Is it similar too an IEC 320 ? * Daniel T. Fitzgerald Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer American Power Conversion 978-670-2440 ext 17307 ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: power factor
Hi Folks I completely agree with CC. In order to avoid rating plate non-compliance with the marking requirements of safety standards, and to allow for unit variations and product upgrades everyone (well - almost everyone!) allows a good margin for error on the rated current/watts/VA markings. Thus a unit with a 0.6A actual consumption can easily carry a 1A marking. This can lead to horrendous over-estimates of the power consumption of a system if all the marked ratings are added up, especially if then used for other purposes, e.g. air conditioning cooling requirements (have you ever wondered/realised why many air-conditioned computer equipment rooms are so cold? - The designers guestimated, based on the total marked ratings, and then added a further margin just in case!) Real world measurements are the only way to get true answers - and use a good digital power analyser to measure V, A, VA, W PF individually and collectively at the same time. John Allen Thales Defence Ltd (was Thompson Racal Defence Ltd) Bracknell, UK -Original Message- From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com] Sent: 10 January 2001 09:28 To: Newsgroup (E-mail) Subject: RE: power factor Ratings plates can be terribly ambiguous. Although you can be sure that the VDU does not draw more than 1,5A (maybe plus 10% depending on which standard it was approved to) it may draw considerably less. Current ratings can range from slightly pessimistic to completely misleading. The only sure way to find out its power consumption is to measure it. Regards Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com * http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com -Original Message- From: Fee John [SMTP:f...@netc.ie] Sent: 09 January 2001 16:58 To: Newsgroup (E-mail) Subject: FW: power factor John Fee NETC, Enterprise Ireland Glasnevin, Dublin 9 Ireland Phone +353 1 8082214 Fax +353 1 8370705 E-mail f...@netc.ie -Original Message- From: Fee John Sent: 09 January 2001 14:49 To: 'majord...@ieee.org' Subject: power factor Hi everyone. Would anyone be able to help with the following question I received from a friend? I have a question : Can you tell me the typical power consumption of a desktop VDU. For example a Sun workstation VDU rating plate indicates 220-230 V 1.5A. Rather than assume or guess a power factor value, what would the power reading (Watts) be approximately at 220V for nornal operation ? What power factor value would you attribute to a modern desktop VDU ? Regards, Jonathan. John Fee NETC, Enterprise Ireland Glasnevin, Dublin 9 Ireland Phone +353 1 8082214 Fax +353 1 8370705 E-mail f...@netc.ie --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org ** Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe
RE: External Power Supplies-DoC
Hi Courtland Should the external cert be enough? I think not. The LVD and EMC Directives (etc) also require you to ensure that your design and production documentation and processes are adequate. A simple external test certificate on the testing of a single unit does not ensure this. Maybe, however, if you have external certification marks for both safety and EMC (or whatever) which also include production audits and controls (e.g. UL, VDE) then you might be able to claim that the appropriate controls are in-place - but I would still not want to rely on just that. John Allen -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: 15 December 2000 22:22 To: emcpost Subject: External Power Supplies-DoC Hello group, This is a two part question. We 'Self Declare' for CE on all our products. In situations where an internal power supply is used, we get the unit tested at a test lab to EN60950. Shouldn't the report that we get from the test lab be enough for us to 'Self Declare'?. In situations where an external power supply is used, we use the manufacture's data sheet and DoC as our record for the 'Self Declaration'. We create our own DoC and use the manufacturer's data. Of course the power supply has all the approvals. Is there anything wrong with this approach? Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: International Equivalent of EN50116
Hi folks IEC/EN60950: 2000 Clause 5.2.2 Note 1 refers to routine electric strength tests of 1 second duration being permissable. There is also the following ECMA std which says pretty much as EN50116: ECMA-166 Information Technology Equipment - Routine Electrical Safety Testing in Production The next logical place to ask questions is of members of IEC TC74 - does any one on that committee or its sub-committees know of plans to issue an IEC along the lines of EN50116? Regards John Allen -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: 07 December 2000 17:07 To: reyno...@pb.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: International Equivalent of EN50116 Tony, My understanding is that there is no international equivalent to EN50116. It is also my understanding that IEC 60950 incoporates the essential production testing requirements of EN50116 for ITE, viz. earthing resistance and electric strength. But then I have been wrong before George reynolto%pb@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/07/2000 10:47:41 AM Please respond to reynolto%pb@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: International Equivalent of EN50116 All, Can anyone point me in the right direction of an International Equivalent of the European Standard EN50116:1996 Information Technology Equipment - Routine Electrical Safety Testing in Production. Thanks Tony Reynolds Pitney Bowes Ltd The Pinnacles Harlow Essex CM19 5BD UK Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118 E-Mail: reyno...@pb.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: International Power Cords
Kurt friends The rationale for using a 13A fuse in cords with lower amperage ratings is simple: The fuse in the UK plug is essentially in place to take account of the use of the UK 30A/32A ring main distribution system which is uses 2.5 sq mm (or larger) conductors in the building wiring system. At the socket there is a reduction to 1.5mm or smaller conductors which thus require gross over-current protection at that point. The fuse is an HBC/HRC type which is there to protect the cord in the event of a catastrophic failure of the cord, such as being cut and shorting the conductors together, or to ground - not not the appliance or the cord under normal operation! Furthermore, I think that many people forget that the North American and other European countries do the same - or even worse! You guys generally protect all your sockets with a 15A (America) or 16A (Europe) HBC/HRC fuse/circuit breaker in the building distribution system - and don't generally have ANY local socket fuse protection at all to protect small cross section (18AWG/0.75 sq mm, or smaller!) cords Therefore if you are worried about our system then you had better go and talk to you local code writers (the NFPA et al) and get all your codes and installations changed. Seriously though, the only time we get over-heated cords of correctly rated cords in reality is where the general ventilation around is poor. The other major issue is overheating in the plugs themselves - generally caused by either loose terminal screws and/or fuse clip contacts that are loose/corroded/covered with verdigris. All of these result in high contact resistance and local overheating - sometimes to the extent that the plugs actually get damaged. This is typically a problem of low-cost items (although it is not always the low-cost plugs that are actually the worst!) and long-inservice periods of use with no precautionary maintenance. Regards John Allen Thomson Racal Defence Electronics Ltd Bracknell UK -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: 31 October 2000 14:22 To: Geoff Lister Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: RE: International Power Cords EN60950 (ITE safety), section 3.2.4, permits a detachable power cord of 1 square millimetre cross sectional area for cords fitted with connectors rated to 16A, provided the cord length does not exceed 2 metres. In Annex ZB, the spec adds a section to 3.2.4 In the United Kingdom, a power cord with a conductor of 1,25 mm squared is allowed for equipment with a rated current over 10A and up to and including 13A. Our unit will be tested under IEC 1010-1/EN61010-1 not EN60950 although we do use that standard for a lot of our units. I just noticed clause 6.10.1 in IEC 1010-1 that states that the mains supply cords shall be rated for the maximum current of the equipment. So it sounds like I need to use a 10A rated cord since our unit will be rated at 10A. We are using one current rating since the voltage rating will be 100-240V. Even if we used split voltage and current ratings such as 120/240V and 10/5A I'm not sure we could use a 5A rated cord since the standard says it has to be rated for the maximum current, not the maximum current at the user's typical input voltage. Although the 10A fuse is available for the UK BS1363 plugs, it is not commonly available in retail outlets as spares in a blister pack. The chances are that if the fuse does blow, it will be replaced by a 13A fuse anyway. I do not understand how it can be considered safe to use a 13A fuse in a cord rated for 10A. According to your comment this is done a lot in the UK and this combination (10A cord with a 13A fuse) is also available in cords from Belden and Panel Components Corp. Sure seems like the cord would melt or get very hot before the fuse would blow. Thanks for your insights, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ -Original Message- From: Geoff Lister [SMTP:geoff.lis...@motion-media.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 6:43 AM To: 'Andrews, Kurt' Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject:RE: International Power Cords Kurt, EN60950 (ITE safety), section 3.2.4, permits a detachable power cord of 1 square millimetre cross sectional area for cords fitted with connectors rated to 16A, provided the cord length does not exceed 2 metres. In Annex ZB, the spec adds a section to 3.2.4 In the United Kingdom, a power cord with a conductor of 1,25 mm squared is allowed for equipment with a rated current over 10A and up to and including 13A. Although the 10A fuse is available for the UK BS1363 plugs, it is not commonly available in retail
RE: Automotive EMC Directive
Ned For more information see the Year 2000 Compliance Engineering Reference Guide - in the European edition (at least) there is a quite good and long article on this Directive. http://europa.eu.int/geninfo/query_en.htm will take you to the EU Commission Search Engine Enter 95/54/EC as the search criteria and this will throw up a list of relevant documents, including the actual directive - but the on-line copy is missing the diagrams and tables with the technical test levels and limits. I should think you can get a paper copy from any of the major regulations information sources in the USA - this has the diagrams and tables. John Allen Thomson Racal Defence Electronics Bracknell UK -Original Message- From: Ned Devine [mailto:ndev...@entela.com] Sent: 19 October 2000 13:55 To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject: Automotive EMC Directive Hi, I have been volunteered to research the Automotive EMC Directive. What I have found so far is, - The directive is 95/54/EC which is an amendment to 72/245/EEC. - The directive is an old approach and has all of the necessary test procedures and methods in the directive. - Self declaration is not allowed. You need a technical service to approve your unit. - The mark is the e mark and not the CE marking. - The effective date is 01 October 2002. - The tests listed in the directive are radiated broadband emissions, radiated narrowband emissions and radiated immunity. The questions I have are. - Is what I have above correct? - How do I get a copy of the directive(s)? - Does anyone have a list of the technical services, or know where I can get one? - Does anyone have a sample of the e mark, or know where I can get one? - Are there any labs in the USA that do this type of testing? Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Weight Limits for Lifting
Jim In the UK there are - as far as I know - no specified regulatory limits but there are guidelines issued by the Health Safety Executive - see http://www.open.gov.uk/hse/hsehome.htm Additionally, very similar recommendations are given in the UK Ministry of Defence standard DEF 00-25 Part 3 - which can be downloaded from http://www.dstan.mod.uk/ In both cases, the recommendations are based on a combination of the vertical height and horizontal distance(in relation to the body) from which the weight is being lifted, and whether the person is a man or a woman. In addition, DEF 00-25 Pt 3 also give maxiumum recommended carrying weights for fit normal men and women. Regards John Allen Thomson Racal Defence Electronics Ltd Bracknell UK -Original Message- From: Lyons, Jim [mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com] Sent: 17 October 2000 18:47 To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Weight Limits for Lifting Does anyone know if there are any EU requirements or directives that place a maximum weight limit on products or packages that a person would be expected to lift? Thanks for any info. Jim Lyons James W. Lyons Manager - Product Compliance GTECH Corp. 55 Technology Way West Greenwich, RI 02817 Tel (401) 392-7723 Fax (401) 392-4955 Email jim.ly...@gtech.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Red LED's
Hi folks A comment - I would urge a little caution if IT products are being used in the industrial or medical environments since it is these where the traffic light approach is mandated in the appropriate sector standards (e.g. EN60204 EN/IEC 601 respectively). Also, correctly coloured LED's are now available for many purposes, so there is not too much justification for claiming that you cannot get the correct coloured devices! John Allen Thomson-Racal Defence Electronics Ltd. PS: The comment is based on bitter past experience - albeit many years ago - when working on CT Scanners for EMI Medical (now long defunct) and when LED's were almost exclusively Red with no options! -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: 25 September 2000 14:04 To: Mark Schmidt; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Red LED's Mark, Clause 1.7.8.2 of EN 60950 (for ITE Equipment) states: Where safety is involved, colors of controls and indicators shall comply with IEC 73. Where colors are used for functional controls or indicators, any color, including red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety is not involved. We have used red LEDs in ITE equipment that is approved for use in the EU for items such as fan faults, overtemperature faults, etc. These products have been approved for use in the EU by both TÜV and Intertek with red LEDs. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [SMTP:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:59 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Red LED's Is the use of Red LED's acceptable for I.T.E. equipment in the EU in accordance with LVD and EMCD? All comments welcome. Thank you. Mark Schmidt X-Rite Incorporated U.S.A. mschm...@xrite.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Ladders and work platforms
Hi Folks BSI moved from the address with the 0908 phone number quite a few years ago! The current phone number is +44-20-8996-9001, or try the website on www.bsi.org.uk Otherwise, as Lou says. John Allen Thomson Racal Defence Electronics Ltd Bracknell UK -Original Message- From: Lou Aiken [mailto:ai...@gulftel.com] Sent: 20 September 2000 16:24 To: rbus...@es.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Ladders and work platforms Rick, I guess nobody knows. Here is what I would do. Phone the BSI Standards Department at 0908 22 11 66 (that phone number is about 15 years old) and find out the source of the BS 5395, Part 3 you have. Many British Standards have a cousin somewhere else in Europe. If this is a dead end, get the names of some committee members for BS 5395 Part 3; then get in touch with one of them and ask the same question. Somewhere along the way you will discover someone that knows the ladder business. Lou Aiken 27109 Palmetto Drive Orange Beach, AL 36561 U.S.A. tel1-334-981-6786 fax 1-334-981-3054 mobile 1-334-979-4648 - Original Message - From: rbus...@es.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:26 AM Subject: Ladders and work platforms I am still trying to locate a European starndard that would address the issue of performing maintenace tasks from a ladder. The following message is being reposted: I am looking for suggestions for European standards with regard to ladders and maintenance platforms. I have a copy of British Standard BS 5395: Part 3: 1985. Stairs, ladders and walkways and was wondering if there might be other applicable European standards. Thanks in advance Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
