[PSES] safety test equipment

[Brian O'Connell]

Employer is focusing on a smaller segment of the power industry. Myself and 
test equipment no longer needed are being eliminated.

Following list of safety test equipment is free to good home. Your company 
provides shipping. And you must agree to incorporate the various Klingon rites 
of ascension into your corporate ISO9001 engineering processes.

ITB-01 500gm steel ball
SET - 50 sharp edge tester
TC-3 tape kit
UL Articulate Probe
EDD OC-20 comparator
EDD CC-23 gage set

Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] How to lose another million dollars

[Brian O'Connell]

Has been my (anecdotal) experience that those that are refusing or delaying 
pre-comp scans tend to be the younger designers and managers. And have been 
associated with a project team bereft of physics that was under the management 
of a young software 'engineer'.

1. Am not certain assigning responsibility to the project leader improves 
probability of success in absence of formal, rote test policies.
2. Am not certain that the "dinosaurs" are the problem. The distribution of 
poor thinkers would seem to be evenly distributed across most demographics. So 
the principle marker for poor engineering decisions and processes seems to be 
low experience.

Brian



From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 9:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] How to lose another million dollars

It's inevitable that there still are some dinosaurs around who don't see the 
need for both making the project leader internally responsible for compliance 
(so that Development and Compliance share interests instead of being opposed) 
and for the need for pre-compliance checks on the first 'good' engineering 
model (not the first model that 'sort-of' works, that's too early).
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-09-14 17:03, Pete Perkins wrote:
James,  Oh yes, I have another real life story.  In dealing with the compliance 
issues on a product I recommended that they run a pre-compliance EMC check and 
the chief electrical engineer rebutted that it was so straightforward that they 
would do that last, just before releasing the product to marketing.  His 
position was that this is basic engineering stuff and any competent design 
engineer would get it right to begin with or a simple fix would take care of 
it.    With a little backpressure the pre-scan was done and the product failed 
miserably.  Needless to say, it took a number of trials to get it all properly 
fixed to pass; the release date was missed and the chief electrical engineer 
lost his job over it.  So we see: lunacy runs both ways.  
 
:>) br,  Pete
 
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
 
503/452-1201
 
IEEE Life Fellow
p.perk...@ieee.org
 
From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 8:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] How to lose another million dollars
 
Hi John,
Is this an actual true story? I'm lost for words...
James
 
From: John Woodgate  
Sent: 14 September 2018 12:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] How to lose another million dollars
 
Prepare for sob story. Company X has implemented the sensible policy of making 
the project leader internally responsible for EMC and safety compliance, i.e., 
when the product is tested by the compliance experts, it passes or has only 
minor defects. 
So John Doe takes his engineering model, scheduled for production in 9 months 
time to Compliance and asks for pre-compliance checks. No can do, is the reply. 
Our new policy is that only products whose planned release date is 4 months or 
less ahead can be checked.
Truly, nothing is fool-proof because Nature keeps producing more and more 
ingenious fools.
-- 
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Recommondations for Test Equipment

[Brian O'Connell]

Understand that you want to avoid "full blown", but Tektronix (nee Voltech) 
makes power analyzers that will probably out-last your lab. Otherwise, as you 
have the code-monkey on your back, not that difficult to do using a CT or shunt 
and 6.5 digit logger such as the Agilent 34970 and about 100 lines of Python. 
The big problem here is channel-to-channel latency, which would affect accuracy 
of power measurements, unless you are willing to integrate the rms over many 
cycles. Then there are the DIY solutions - recommend at least a decent Cortex 
M4 class micro (my preference is the NXP MK20 series); and there are many 
canned design solutions for this stuff, where you would 'just' add your analog 
front-end.

If you have some of the later Tektronix or Agilent DSOs or MSOs, get a power or 
math module, then all you do is suck the data out of the scope (you will still 
need a CT or shunt).

If not Ethernet, then use GPIB. RS-232 is ok if differential pair.

Labview is a poor solution where long-term stability and maintenance is 
important.

If resultant data part of your formal TRF, be mindful that your solution can 
support the ISO17025 traceability stuff.

Brian


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 8:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Recommondations for Test Equipment

Please send replies directly to me if this is a group violation.

In our Safety lab, we do input current tests. We currently use two handheld 
meters; one showing Voltage and the other Current via a current clamp.

We want to replace these two meters with a single piece of test equipment that 
will provide live data measurements via a PC Interface.   It would also be nice 
if it could provide power, power factor, and other such measurements.

We would like it to have a hardy interface, such as Ethernet or old fashion 
serial port (no USB).  We take these measurements in our EMC Lab where USB has 
a hard time surviving.  

Labview compatible would be nice. Since we write our own code, we will have to 
have access to the command set.  

Any recommendations?  We don’t really need the features and expense of a full 
blown power analyzer. Does anyone make something like this?

Thanks,
The Other Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection

[Brian O'Connell]

MIL-B-5087 is superseded by MIL-STD-464, which says 
"Overpainting of structure for corrosion control prior to ensuring an 
electrical bond has been 
documented as the leading cause of poor or ineffective bonds." 

MIL-STD-464 points to
  MIL-STD-1541 - for space systems
  ARP187 - electrical bonding for aviation
  MIL-HDBK-419  grounding, bonding, and shielding for land systems
  MIL-STD-1310 bonding for ship systems

Brian


From: Edward Price [mailto:e...@jwjelp.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 3:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection

I seem to recall seeing an explanation in MIL-B-5087 (likely now superseded) 
that a star washer was not acceptable for military grounding. The rationale was 
that the points of the star washer created the conductive grounding path. Since 
the points were fairly small, and the ground fault current was high, a fault 
current would be forced to flow across those tiny point-contacts. This had the 
danger of causing the points to melt or arc.

The military preference was strongly in favor of removing the paint below a 
ground-point’s footprint and then using a flat washer below and above the 
ground lug, with a split-ring lockwasher followed by a nut. I have read recent 
criticism of split-ring lockwashers, with machinery people now seeming to favor 
something like the Nord-lock locking system.

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 2:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection


Hi Scott:

For the sake of this discussion, a toothed star lock washer has two functions: 
(1) keep the bolt from loosening, and (2) establishing a “good” electrical 
connection.  (One characteristic of a good and reliable electrical connection 
is that the contact between the two conductors is gas-tight.)

A flat ring lug performs two functions, (1) flat washer and (2) means for 
electrical connection to the washer via a lug. The washer cannot -- by itself 
-- form a gas-tight connection to any other conductor.  

If the bolt is to be a current-carrying conductor, then a star washer must be 
placed between the ring lug and the bolt head to establish a gas-tight 
connection between the two (assuming the star has points on both sides of the 
washer).

If the bolt goes through a metal panel and is intended to enable an electrical 
connection to the panel (on the other side), then another star washer must be 
used (on the bolt) between the nut and the metal panel.  This makes a gas-tight 
connection to the nut and another gas-tight connection to the panel (and locks 
the nut).  (The tightened nut makes a gas-tight connection to the bolt.)  

There are lots of other configurations.  The principle is to establish the 
current path, and then use star lock washers to establish gas-tight connections.

According to the research paper in Ted Eckert’s message, the star washer will 
cut through the paint and establish a gas-tight connection.  There is no need 
to remove paint.  

Best regards,
Rich





From: Scott Xe  
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 9:54 AM
To: ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection

Hi Rich,

Thanks for your advice!   Regarding the flat washer, can it be the flat ring 
lug of the connecting wire instead?

Between the screw head and the metal enclosure, do we need a flat washer?  That 
is to say: screw head -> flat washer -> metal enclosure -> on other side of 
metal enclosure with paint removed in the contact area with the flat ring lug 
-> flat ring lug of the earthing wire -> split ring lock washer -> plain nut to 
establish a good electrical earth connection.

Thanks and regards,

Scott

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Richard Nute
Sent: Friday, 10 August 2018 03:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] External toothed star washer used in earth connection


"The lock washer should not interface between the bolt head and the metal, the 
lock washer should be between the head and a flat washer."

That locks the bolt to the flat washer so they turn together.  

Establishes a good electrical connection between the bolt and the flat washer!  


Rich

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: 

Re: [PSES] IET BS 7671:2018 vs USA National Electrical Codes (NEC)

[Brian O'Connell]

Rather general questions. And a rather specific replies (at least for what 
would apply to my employer's stuff). Also note that there is a renown engineer 
at Microsoft that is quite intimate with the NEC - perhaps he will comment.

- allowed ground-fault current different.

-allowed bonding resistance to the GEC different.

- GFI/AFCI interrupt implementation are different.

- 7671 requires many other standards. The NFPA can (theoretically) be used 
without any external references. 

- mutual recognition is impractical. There are no assessment product standards 
that can be used to list electrical building materials to both 7671 and NFPA 
code.

- U.S. code can be modified by municipal or state or county or space aliens. 
7671 is a national-only, centrally-controlled document.

Brian


From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 2:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IET BS 7671:2018 vs USA National Electrical Codes (NEC)

Hi all,

Good evening,

1) With the publication of  IET BS 7671:2018, may I know what are the major 
differences between IET BS 7671:2018 and its 2008 version?


2) Apart from voltage rating of 120Vrms vs 230Vrms, how does USA National 
Electrical Codes (NEC) different from IET BS 7671?


3) Do USA NEC and IEC BS 7671 mutually accept each other ?


Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.
Vincent


Regards, Vincent

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Lithium Ion batteries - capacity measurement

[Brian O'Connell]

Not clear what is being asked. Is context safety or purely performance? In any 
case, data from in vitro tests done with the intended end-use equipment are the 
'ultimate' indicator. Should include the full range of rated operating 
conditions.

The SAE, IEEE, IEC, Vulcan Science Academy, and others all have standardized 
test methods for battery capacity. Test equipment makers (Agilent, et all) have 
application notes on battery testing. 

If you use an electronic load to simulate the end-case use, it should use 
computer-driven profiles - humans tend to make of mess of this stuff where done 
manually. The nice thing about using electronic loads is that you can have the 
computer run many "what if?" load profiles.

Brian


From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 9:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Lithium Ion batteries - capacity measurement

All

Client is have a "discussion" with their battery vendor over how capacity of a 
3.7V 1000 mAh battery is being measured/demonstrated: 
Are there any recommendations and/or mandatory requirements for 
charge/discharge current to be used to demonstrate battery capacity and 
capacity degradation over multiple cycles?

For example:
. maximum discharge in the end application  normal use is 200 mAh, but the 
battery manufacturer wants to use 500 mA
. one wants to use a "real load", but the other an "electronic load"

The different methods appear to be giving different battery voltages for the 
same remaining capacity, and I would be grateful for any pointers to 
recommended or best practice

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com
Web: www.sulisconsultants.com
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Lithium Ion batteries - capacity measurement

[Brian O'Connell]

Forgot to mention that battery impedance and internal temperature monitoring 
are two parametrics oft ignored; and both may explain much weirdness with 
battery performance.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:31 AM
To: 'Charlie Blackham'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Lithium Ion batteries - capacity measurement

Not clear what is being asked. Is context safety or purely performance? In any 
case, data from in vitro tests done with the intended end-use equipment are the 
'ultimate' indicator. Should include the full range of rated operating 
conditions.

The SAE, IEEE, IEC, Vulcan Science Academy, and others all have standardized 
test methods for battery capacity. Test equipment makers (Agilent, et all) have 
application notes on battery testing. 

If you use an electronic load to simulate the end-case use, it should use 
computer-driven profiles - humans tend to make of mess of this stuff where done 
manually. The nice thing about using electronic loads is that you can have the 
computer run many "what if?" load profiles.

Brian


From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 9:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Lithium Ion batteries - capacity measurement

All

Client is have a "discussion" with their battery vendor over how capacity of a 
3.7V 1000 mAh battery is being measured/demonstrated: 
Are there any recommendations and/or mandatory requirements for 
charge/discharge current to be used to demonstrate battery capacity and 
capacity degradation over multiple cycles?

For example:
. maximum discharge in the end application  normal use is 200 mAh, but the 
battery manufacturer wants to use 500 mA
. one wants to use a "real load", but the other an "electronic load"

The different methods appear to be giving different battery voltages for the 
same remaining capacity, and I would be grateful for any pointers to 
recommended or best practice

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com
Web: www.sulisconsultants.com
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] PS1 limit?

[Brian O'Connell]

Thermal stuff probably came from 60065, while much of the electrical stuff 
seems to have come from 60950. So someone such as Mr. Nute, TC108 et al,  would 
need to provide the empirical basis for these numbers for sources from external 
circuits. Should be noted that 'energy' and 'power' cause different problems 
using different vectors - so think in terms of where the power is coming from 
and where the power is going. Time does not actually exist, but the requirement 
is for > 3 sec.

Mr. Nute, et al, Is "short term" power still not defined in 3d edition?

Brian


From: Willard, Bradley [mailto:bradley.will...@zebra.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] PS1 limit?

Hello Everyone,

I'm looking for guidance on how the PS1 limit of 15 watts for 3 seconds in IEC 
62368-1 was determined.

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,
Brad

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EN62311 - Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

[Brian O'Connell]

Recently talked to an actuary-type mathematician and a Dept of Agriculture 
scientist. They indicated that while mean life span once incrementally 
increased during 20th century USA, the available 21st century data no longer 
supports any future trend of consistent and incremental increases for the mean 
or median life expectancy.

My theory is that Dihydrogen Monoxide is not the specific root cause. The 
obvious problem is diatomic and monatomic forms per atomic number 8. It has 
eventually killed all humans that breathe it; that is, it is 100% fatal after 
any significant length of exposure. It can be a serious safety hazard for both 
normal and hazloc classified environments, and is a common long-term cause of 
failure for electrical equipment.

As for EM environments, from my late teens to my mid 20s, was constantly bathed 
in Ka to Ku band radiation. Did not affect my physical health, and as far as 
can be determined, and may have improved my mental health

Do drink the water. Do not breathe the air.

Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Handy tip for inserting symbols in document text.

[Brian O'Connell]

Insertion of emoji, uncommon fonts from external tables, extended unicodes, etc 
into on-line documents can be problematic. And ability of a word processor 
running on Windoze, to find the correct table in a corporate setting, is also 
problematic.

If for marketing, not much of an issue. If for a safety engineering 
publication, you might be making an irreproducible document. The First Order 
and the Klingon Empires will not tolerate an emoji in an official document, so 
only useable by a limited subset of some earthlings.

Join the Empire. Crush the rebellion.

Brian


From: Mike Sherman [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 2:56 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Handy tip for inserting symbols in document text.

Rich, Doug, et al --

I was absolutely unable to type U+26A0 in Microsoft Word 2010 (running under 
Windows 7)) and get the exclamation point triangle to insert. I was able to get 
other symbols, such as the Aquarius symbol U+2652, to work. However, I can't 
get Rich's U+2614 to insert, either.

My IS tech support guy suggested that Microsoft Word 2010 simply has not been 
updated to recognize this U+26A0 combination.

Has anyone been able to get U+26A0 this to work in Microsoft Word? If so, what 
version?

Rich: what versions of Word and Windows are you running?

Some handy references in my quest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unicode_characters
and
https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf

Thanks!

Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.


From: "Richard Nute" 
To: "EMC-PSTC" 
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 3:54:03 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Handy tip for inserting symbols in document text.

 
Hi Doug:
 
Thanks. 
 
Here is a list of emoji codes to follow “U+” in Word and Outlook.  I only 
tested one, U+2614, ☔, but I would guess they all work.  I highlighted the code 
and then ALT x.  
 
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11438-emoji-var.pdf
 
Best regards,
Rich
 
 
From: Doug Powell  
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 11:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Handy tip for inserting symbols in document text.
 
All,
 
I often wiU+2614shed for a way to simply "type" certain symbols within the text 
of a Word document instead of inserting graphics and then struggling with 
various text flow and alignment problems.  Today I discovered a neat way to 
insert the triangle exclamation point symbol as text within a document using 
unicode characters (Not sure why this never occurred to me before).
 
Open MS Word and simply type U+26A0, with no other punctuation or characters 
hit Alt-X and you get ⚠.  From here you may resize, bold or use font coloring 
as needed (italics are a little weird).  I believe this works in MS Word 2007 
and onward, probably in MS Outlook and it appears to be working right here in 
my gmail account.  These keystrokes do not work in MS Excel but you can 
copy/paste from a document as needed.  This successfully printed to a PDF files 
as well.  I have not tried using these codes in autocorrect just yet but 
hopefully that will work too.  Sorry, I cannot speak to other platforms or 
software, just MS products on this one.
 
With the vast array of unicode symbols, this opens a whole realm of 
possibilities for me when writing company documents and procedures.
 
All the best, Doug
 
 
-- 
 
Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UL Listing of Computer Keyboard

[Brian O'Connell]

FUS audit and certification and license costs are not necessarily able to be 
distributed over a larger production number; will depend on the particular 
NRTL/SCC.

For many product combinations,  there is no cost efficiency for volume or for 
factory consolidation for the respective 'regulatory' remit. The agencies will 
always find a way to structure fees and processes to extract maximum dollars 
and minimize engineering time. That is, for any given agency, invoiced line 
items will always increase, while provided services will always decrease.

Doubleplusgood. Less is more.

Brian
Senior News Reviewer of Oceania


From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 8:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] UL Listing of Computer Keyboard

James,

   As an American I’m not privy to the inner workings of making the 
sausage called EU Directives.  However, there is a political process involved 
an all of this work and I’m sure that manufacturers and political regulators 
pushed back and forth to get to the final result for the update to the LVD.  I 
agree with your assessment that companies don’t want the extra cost of type 
approval and have prevailed at this point for this set of circumstances.  

   Somewhat related comment; since your keyboard is USB powered you 
need to understand that USB, like POE, is going to higher power delivery – 100W 
coming for USB3.  There are additional issues that need to be addressed and IEC 
62368-3 addresses power over communication cables no matter what the product 
type is; products using such comm cables will need to be assessed to ensure 
that they provide the proper protection coming and going when attached to these 
common outlet sockets.  Again, NRTL certification is appropriate for evaluating 
this equipment.  

   Finally, yes, these NRTL certifications are on a product by 
product basis; you can bunch similar models into one certification report tho.  
From experience, the FUS unit cost decreases as there is more product produced. 
 Increasing the volume of either a product model or adding more similar models 
will drive down the unit cost as the inspection time is spread over more models 
and units.  For instance for your 1K dollars/Euros or whatever, if the factory 
only produces a single unit per inspection quarter then that unit eats the 
entire cost; if the factory produces 10K units per inspection quarter then the 
unit cost is quite cheap.  

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
p.perk...@ieee.org

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Automotive EMC question

[Brian O'Connell]

Well, kinda/sorta, as the bus is pseudo-differential. And there is no galvanic 
isolation that the Ethernet would probably have, so no transformer, because is 
supposed to be a DC-coupled system. Hence the third wire is the 'ground' wire. 
The details and specific requirements will be in the particular bus controller 
IC data sheet. 

As typical, the term 'ground' is abused and should be indicated as the 
equipotential used for signal (CH/CL) reference, or some such exotic phrase. 
CAN is supposed to be tough - must work for a signal wire short to either 12V 
or ground.

Brian



-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automotive EMC question

The bus is differential and I don't see transformer coupling to it, so that
means the interface to the bus is differential as well, right?  I don't
understand in that context what is meant by grounding, other than the
shield(s).

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



> From: Brian O'Connell 
> Reply-To: Brian O'Connell 
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 22:36:53 +
> To: 
> Conversation: [PSES] Automotive EMC question
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Automotive EMC question
> 
> CAN bus assumes a 'standard' 120 ohm termination for the ends of each CANL/H
> twisted pair. The ISO11898-x series talks about physical layer stuff, to
> include splitting the termination with caps (but have had problems with that).
> 
> LT or TI or ??? has some app notes on this subject. It emphasized that there
> must be only one grounding path for the nodes on the bus.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:53 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Automotive EMC question
> 
> I hope it also at least recommends that the grounding is at the sending end,
> so that the cable capacitance is charged from the low-impedance source.  I
> guess that, e.g. in the auto environment, the risk of large shield currents is
> too great to allow routine grounding at both ends. But I suppose that
> grounding via a capacitor at the receiving end is not banned. If possible,
> this capacitor should be of the lowest possible inductance, which is not
> difficult with SMD, and if several capacitors are disposed radially around the
> end of the shield and grounded at their outer ends on a metal ring, the
> grounding should be good up to at least 1 GHz.
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
> On 2018-06-12 22:41, Ken Javor wrote:
> The CAN bus spec says that shield(s) are to be grounded at one end only. How
> does this work vs. meeting stringent rf RE and RS requirements at frequencies
> where cables are electrically long?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Automotive EMC question

[Brian O'Connell]

CAN bus assumes a 'standard' 120 ohm termination for the ends of each CANL/H 
twisted pair. The ISO11898-x series talks about physical layer stuff, to 
include splitting the termination with caps (but have had problems with that).

LT or TI or ??? has some app notes on this subject. It emphasized that there 
must be only one grounding path for the nodes on the bus.

Brian



From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automotive EMC question

I hope it also at least recommends that the grounding is at the sending end, so 
that the cable capacitance is charged from the low-impedance source.  I guess 
that, e.g. in the auto environment, the risk of large shield currents is too 
great to allow routine grounding at both ends. But I suppose that grounding via 
a capacitor at the receiving end is not banned. If possible, this capacitor 
should be of the lowest possible inductance, which is not difficult with SMD, 
and if several capacitors are disposed radially around the end of the shield 
and grounded at their outer ends on a metal ring, the grounding should be good 
up to at least 1 GHz.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-06-12 22:41, Ken Javor wrote:
The CAN bus spec says that shield(s) are to be grounded at one end only. How 
does this work vs. meeting stringent rf RE and RS requirements at frequencies 
where cables are electrically long?

Thank you,

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Process IEC60950-1 vs. IEC60601-1

[Brian O'Connell]

YAID [Yet Another It Depends].

Instant gratification can be had by looking at the respective TRFs for these 
standards. This is a big question that is too scope-dependent. Probably more 
apt to compare 62368 with 60601. And have yet to observe a 'practical' test 
process at any third-party test lab; as these labs implement by rote and recipe.

For power conversion stuff, test processes for the two standards have 
significant overlap. 

Brian


From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 11:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Process IEC60950-1 vs. IEC60601-1

When doing safety testing according to IEC60950-1 and IEC60601-1, are there big 
differences in the practical process at the test laboratories?
For those test engineers who do both standards, what are the similarities and 
what are the biggest differences.

Thanks.
Best regards Amund





-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Customer Requests for Risk Assessments

[Brian O'Connell]

Long ago, when men were men, women were women, and dogs did not wear scarfs 
(sometime last year), had a customer that demanded the RAR for a component 
power converter, along with the complete CB test report. When this level of 
detail is required, have oft determined that the intent is to either to build a 
specification for another supplier, or to assist in the reverse engineer of the 
product.

The complete internal RAR should NOT be a public document, per both legal and 
technical rationale.

Brian
Senior Cynical Engineering Advisor to the First Order
Join the Empire and crush the rebellion


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: 17 May 2018 21:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Customer Requests for Risk Assessments

Don't ask for the whole RA, just ask for clear statements about points than 
concern you.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-05-17 20:27, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:
This is a timely topic for me.  Who are your "customers"?  We partner with 
other various manufacturers, sometimes  integrating other's machinery products 
in with ours or selling/servicing/refurbishing and providing heavy technical 
support for them as is.  We sometimes ask for the manufacturers risk assessment 
(asked for one this week)  so we can evaluate impact to our larger product or 
see the specific details that impact our servicing.  We see the resistance from 
some  Manufacturer's to provide risk assessments as well.
 
-Dave
 
From: "Kunde, Brian" 
Reply-To: "Kunde, Brian" 
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 18:43:38 +
To: 
Conversation: Customer Requests for Risk Assessments
Subject: [PSES] Customer Requests for Risk Assessments

Our company makes Laboratory Equipment (test and measurement analyzers).
  
Our company performs a Risk Assessment early in the development stage of all 
new products as so suggested by such documents. We generally use the EN ISO 
12100. Creating this document highlights the possible sources of risks and 
allows our engineers to design products with an inherent design which minimizes 
the risks as much as possible.   Our Risk Assessment becomes a document with a 
lot of detailed information including calculations, test results, detailed 
data, and other design specifications.  Such information is considered highly 
confidential by our company. 
 
On occasion, and in increasing frequency, our company is asked by potential 
customers to provide them with a Risk Assessment Report for our products. 
Sometimes they threaten us such as they will not or cannot consider our 
products unless we provide such documentation.  
 
1.  Why are customers asking for a Risk Assessment?  Where did that 
requirement become from? 


2.  Other than the potential loss of a sale, are we obligated to provide 
our customer with a Risk Assessment?  I do not see such a requirement in the 
Directives or Standards we use. 


3.  Any of you been receiving similar requests? If so, do you provide a 
Risk Assessment? If so, are you not worried about providing such information?  
Couldn't this information be used against you in court? Is there a fear of 
providing useful information to your competitors? 


Part 2:
I have requested a sample of the Risk Assessment our customers are expecting 
our company to provide. The examples documents are for the most part 
meaningless with little real detail about anything.  But, if that is all they 
want to make them happy, we are considering generating such a document just to 
satisfy these requests.  Any comments? 
 
When I ask our customers what information they are looking to gain from the 
Risk Assessment, they tell me they want to know the level of residual risks our 
products might have.  I reply that all residual risks are well documented and 
warned about in the provided User Manual.  However, this doesn't seem to 
satisfy them. They still want a Risk Assessment Report.  
 
So are other companies having to generate a stripped down Risk Assessment with 
no real detail to satisfy these customer requests?  Or is it just us? 
 
Thanks for your input, comments, and suggestions.
 
The Other Brian

-

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


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the 

Re: [PSES] Product Safety Testing and Evaluation training.

[Brian O'Connell]

Many NRTLs have frequent webinars on Type Tests, and many, in the past, had 
offered formal  classroom training. Recently, have only seen UL and Intertek 
provide this. In my experience NRTL-centric training tends to be agendized (is 
that a word?), and designed to teach you how to use a particular NRTL's 
submittal process.

Some NRTLs/SCCs do not want to do this, as it is could affect their bottom 
line. And the North American corporation is increasingly reticent to fund any 
formal training and certification for engineers, as few companies see any need 
for employee development, and see this as a significant cost in time and 
monies. 

Some decent training would be 
1. at the side of an experienced and cranky old compliance engineer
2. from reading test agency lab requirements
3. from reading a recent CB report
4. from watching an experienced agency engineer perform Type Tests at your 
company lab.

The Klingon Space Engineering Academy offers compliance engineering training, 
but few survive the syllabus.

Brian



From: Kevin J Harris [mailto:kevin.3.har...@jci.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 10:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Product Safety Testing and Evaluation training.

Hello 

I am looking recommendations for companies (preferably in North America) that 
can provide training in product safety testing and evaluation to engineers who 
are beginning their career. 
Ideally the training would concentrate on IEC 62368-1


Kind regards

Kevin

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Product Safety Testing and Evaluation training.

[Brian O'Connell]

The annual PSES and EMC symposiums are the premier venues for compliance 
engineering. That said, the PSES symposium sessions only talk about stuff. 
After the prerequisite work of setting up and qualifying a test lab separate 
from the design center, one must know and have experience with Type Testing 
that may have edge cases adrift in a sea of if/then/else/else/... engineering 
decisions. Type Tests for power conversion and ATEX stuff are essentially big 
bags of edge cases. The training requirement is nothing less than watching and 
participating in actual Type Tests that would apply to your category and class 
of equipment after classroom discussions covering the physics of test standard 
requirements.

Brian


From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 10:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Product Safety Testing and Evaluation training.

Hi Kevin,

The Product Safety Engineering Society (PSES) is having our annual Symposium 
this month.  Many Product Safety and Certification subjects are on the program. 
 Including a 62368-1 Open forum with the guys that created it, implemented it 
and use it daily!!

Here's the link - http://www.psessymposium.org/pages/62368-1-open-forum


John Allen | President | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.
Your Outsourced Compliance Department®
630-238-0188

www.productsafetyinc.com

President - IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
IEEE Senior Member
Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and Compliance


https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/index.html


From: Kevin J Harris 
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 12:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Product Safety Testing and Evaluation training. 
 
Hello 
 
I am looking recommendations for companies (preferably in North America) that 
can provide training in product safety testing and evaluation to engineers who 
are beginning their career. 
Ideally the training would concentrate on IEC 62368-1
 
 
Kind regards
 
Kevin
 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EN50131-1 Battery spec vs. Environmental class

[Brian O'Connell]

Depends on Security Grade requirements and where the battery is stored.

Li batteries can be used in discharge mode to -20C.  Have only done one project 
for this, where the battery temperature was monitored by the charger, and shut 
down charge current when outside rated temperature range, but allowed discharge 
to -20C.

Brian


From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:42 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN50131-1 Battery spec vs. Environmental class

EN50131-1: Alarm systems - Intrusion and hold-up systems -- Part 1: System 
requirements

>From the standard:
Environmental Class II: Indoor General (-10º to +40º)


Li-Ion batteries may have this spec:
Charging: 0º C to 45º C
Discharge/standby: -20ºC to +50º C:

As I understand the Li-Ion tech, the batteries should not be charged when 
temperature is below 0º C and that means it's not possible to qualify for 
Environmental Class II (-10º to +40º) Indoor General.
Unless you monitor the temperature and prevents charging when temperature is 
under 0º C, but that may lead you into other trouble if temperature remains low 
over a long period.
Any others who has considered the same case and agree?

Best regards
Amund 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UL's Direct Support Requirements symbol on PCB

[Brian O'Connell]

1. See UL796, 9.1 for support of current-carrying components at specified 
voltage levels.
2. See UL796, clause 9. Some test methods for DSR rating are in the UL746 
series.
3. Yes for PLC, which can 'infer' CTI.

Brian



From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL's Direct Support Requirements symbol on PCB

Hi all,

Good evening

1) May I know what does the UL's Direct Support Requirements (DSR) triangle 
symbol printed on PCB really mean ?

2) What are the requirements to be met before this symbol can be printed on PCB 
?

3) Does Direct Support Requirements have any relationship with other key 
parameters, e.g. Comparative Tracking Index?

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank a lot.

Vincent


Regards, Vincent

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Hello

[Brian O'Connell]

Actually, most of us on the west coast have been busy fending off a zombie 
outbreak.

Members of the Orange County and San Diego PSES chapters were last seen getting 
their hi-pot machines ready as first line of defense, but believe them to have 
insufficient joules to be effective.

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 11:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Hello


Hi Josh:

I guess all of our problems are solved.    Or is it Spring Break?

Rich


From: Wiseman, Joshua 
>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 5:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Hello

I haven’t received any emails this week.  Just want to make sure I’m still 
getting them.

Josh

Joshua Wiseman
Staff Engineer, Product Safety/EMC
Ortho Clinical Diagnostics
100 Indigo Creek Dr
Rochester, NY 14626
T: +1 (585) 453-4231
joshua.wise...@orthoclinicaldiagnostics.com
www.orthoclinicaldiagnostics.com

-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] New Guide to the EMC Directive

[Brian O'Connell]

'x and/or y' is and should be logically and grammatically represented as 'x, or 
y, or both' (note the comma is not used to separate dependent and independent 
clauses, but is a coordinating conjunctive between two independent clauses). 
The common interpretation of a logical exclusive-or conjunctive is not correct, 
as it would be 'x or y, but not both'.

The stuff here is written poorly, but seems to be correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or

Would be much simpler if we all spoke Klingon and the IEEE adopted the rituals 
of Kahless in their ethical code.

Brian

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New Guide to the EMC Directive



“and/or”

Logically, a situation cannot be both “and” and “or.”  Nor can it be “and” or 
“or.”  

The use of “and/or” means the authors could not decide which alternatives are 
required.  Poor use of the English language.  

Rich
 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Need a switch

[Brian O'Connell]

Uhhh, no, that should be 1500Vdc. Although my power source did go insane for a 
few cycles where the switch had to commutate 2500V peak.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 10:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need a switch

Did a switch for 1500kVdc that required 6kV dielectric withstand. Used two sets 
of two relays in series, each rated 1500V, actuated through optoisolators. 
Including input and output terminals, was about 20cm x 18cm x7cm. The peak load 
was 280mA, and 10mA continuous. After about 250 power cycles, replaced relays 
for another 200 cycles (completion of test). 'Static' DC switching can be 
stressful to most anything, including MOSFETS.

Brian


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 7:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need a switch

Purpose is to reverse polarity on the charged line in a MIL-STD-461 CS115 
transient generator.  The charged line can charge as high as 2 kV for use, but 
the actual capability is 2.8 kV (2 kVrms output transformer).

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "Grasso, Charles" <charles.gra...@dish.com>
Reply-To: "Grasso, Charles" <charles.gra...@dish.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:32:18 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Conversation: [PSES] Need a switch
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need a switch

Reminds me of a Frankenstein-like experiment. What exactly is this switch for 
Ken :-D  ??


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need a switch

This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org

I once had a DPDT knife switch with ceramic base and insulators. Rather big, 
though.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-04-04 04:01, Richard Nute wrote:


Hi Ken:

I interpret your requirement as DPDT, with 3 kV withstand between open contacts 
as well as 3 kV from conductors to accessible parts such as the switch lever.

Tough specs.

Good luck,
Rich

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Need a switch

[Brian O'Connell]

Did a switch for 1500kVdc that required 6kV dielectric withstand. Used two sets 
of two relays in series, each rated 1500V, actuated through optoisolators. 
Including input and output terminals, was about 20cm x 18cm x7cm. The peak load 
was 280mA, and 10mA continuous. After about 250 power cycles, replaced relays 
for another 200 cycles (completion of test). 'Static' DC switching can be 
stressful to most anything, including MOSFETS.

Brian


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 7:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need a switch

Purpose is to reverse polarity on the charged line in a MIL-STD-461 CS115 
transient generator.  The charged line can charge as high as 2 kV for use, but 
the actual capability is 2.8 kV (2 kVrms output transformer).

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "Grasso, Charles" 
Reply-To: "Grasso, Charles" 
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:32:18 +
To: 
Conversation: [PSES] Need a switch
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need a switch

Reminds me of a Frankenstein-like experiment. What exactly is this switch for 
Ken :-D  ??
 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need a switch
 
This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 

I once had a DPDT knife switch with ceramic base and insulators. Rather big, 
though. 

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk  
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-04-04 04:01, Richard Nute wrote:

 
Hi Ken:
 
I interpret your requirement as DPDT, with 3 kV withstand between open contacts 
as well as 3 kV from conductors to accessible parts such as the switch lever.
 
Tough specs.
 
Good luck,
Rich

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian O'Connell]

Mr. Nute,

Per IEV definition 192-10-06, fail-safe is:
"capable of preserving safety in the case of failure
Note 1 to entry: The safe conditions should be defined for the particular 
application."

Per IEC62368-1, fail-safe only applies to stuff in annex K (safety interlocks). 
Where the mitigation is more of an exercise in reducing energy after an 
interlock open, rather than any specific reliable performance level. There is 
no 'fail-safe' in IEC60950-1 (probably because TC108 had a Romulan spy at the 
time of the 1st edition).

As for MTTF, it tends towards a ritualized mathematical ceremony per Mil217 and 
SR322 (hooded robes are required to perform the calculations). Reliability is 
more secular, but is a 'localized' property per the scoped standard's test 
requirements. And have seen some designs that fail-safe the fail safe; that is, 
a decreased reliability, but less likely to fail to an unsafe condition. Choose 
your poison.

Avoiding the HazLoc ('intrinsic' safety) morass, the stuff in UL1310 and 
UL5085-3 resembles something that is reliably long-term fault tolerant (note 
the non-use of 'fail-safe') for limited categories of equipment.

So, it is obvious that my stupidity (and evil thoughts) prevent me from 
answering your questions, because this is another "it depends". That is, fail 
safe depends on integrating properly rated components into clever designs, and 
implementing ingenious test methods. In my little cloistered world, there are 
no fail-safe components and there are no reliable fail-safe systems. But there 
can be extensively tested products that have been subject to incremental design 
improvements, where the probability of a catastrophic life-time failure 
increasingly favors your side.

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 1:42 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC60950-1 Limited Power Source via IC current limiter

In my early days in product safety, safety was prohibited from relying on 
conduction in a vacuum, gas, or semiconductor.  

Today. we rely on semiconductor current limiters and similar devices, e.g., 
GFCI control circuits.  

Are such limiters and control circuits fail-safe devices?   

Or, are they "reliable" devices and circuits where their lifetime is expected 
(proven) to be greater than the host equipment?

Rich

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Isolation Transformer & Class III electrical protection

[Brian O'Connell]

0. An 'appliance' (white goods) and ITE have similar, but not same, 
requirements for Class II and Class III equipment.

1. Unknown, and your definition is incomplete. Dependent on rating of the power 
source to the Class III device. SELV output rating does not imply Class III 
equipment. By definition, for non-medical equipment, SELV is considered safe to 
touch, but is not necessarily Class III. Leakage through body not necessarily 
considered for Class III device, but for touch-current, reference the 
human-body models and test methods for leakage in IEC60950-1 and IEC60335-1. 

2. Non sequitur. Both provide galvanic isolation. Step up/down is simple matter 
of turns ratio of other than 1:1. A mains isolation transformer, depending on 
the ground reference, can be used for

- float the equipment connected to the secondary to prevent a neutral 
connection to ground
- noise mitigation
- leakage current mitigation
- controlling mains output impedance
- door stop

3. Unknown, as Class III products do not necessarily have the built-in 
protective construction required of Class I and II equipment. By definition, 
Class III equipment has no earthing; mostly because the intent is that power is 
provided by a Class II source, which implements DI, thus no protective earth 
requirement. 

For a transformer winding intended to source a Class III construction, the unit 
would have to meet inherently limited and inherently short-circuit proof 
requirements per IEC61558-1 and -2-6 and/or -2-16, and the outputs would have 
to be floated and insulated from ground, and the capacitance of the windings 
would have to be low enough to limit the touch current to any exposed metal 
surface.

In North America, the transformer should be assessed per UL5085-3/CSA No.66.3.

Brian


From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 7:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Isolation Transformer & Class III electrical protection


Hi all,

Good day,

(1) If Class III electrical protection is defined as appliance with voltage 
output less than SELV (30Vrms based on IEC 60950 IT equipment), so can a laptop 
AC - DC power adaptor with output rating 19Vrms, 2.37A be considered as Class 
III, given that output current, 2.37A is much more than 10mA Threshold "Let-Go" 
current ?


(2) How does Isolation Transformer different from the usual Step-Down Voltage 
Transformer?


(3) And how does Isolation Transformer helps to achieve Class III electrical 
protection as stated in page 3 of 
https://www.excelsys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ApplicationNoteAN1102-ClassIvsClassII.pdf

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you & have a nice day ahead.

Vincent

Regards, Vincent

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Minimum Sound Requirements

[Brian O'Connell]

A solution in search of a statistically relevant problem? There are also some 
NHTSA guidelines for local governments that offer reasonable technical 
solutions for urban roadways. Perhaps the more workable and useful solution 
would be an expansion of the current automotive pedestrian collision sensor 
systems requirements.

Noise pollution and ambient urban sound levels are statistically important 
public health problems.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 10:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Minimum Sound Requirements

A few years ago on this forum we discussed something about the quiet nature of 
electric and hybrid vehicles and how this can be a hazard for pedestrians.  It 
seems there is an action in the Federal Register to address this problem.

Notification Number: USA/777/Rev.1 (United States of America)
Date Issued: 3/2/2018
Products: Hybrid and electric vehicles
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Minimum Sound Requirements for 
Hybrid and Electric Vehicles 
Full text: https://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2018/TBT/USA/18_1154_00_e.pdf

If you are not a registered user, the main page is here: 
https://tsapps.nist.gov/notifyus/data/index/index.cfm

​All the best,  Doug

​-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] light flicker

[Brian O'Connell]

Good People,

Thanks to the humans that replied on and off-line. Much appreciated.

Have also noted that there has been some interesting discussions on the subject 
per the proposed Peoples Republic of California Energy Commission regulations 
for LED luminaires; for example, note this comment to the CEC:

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02/TN222823_20180302T105129_Kelly_Seeger_Comments_Philips_Lighting_additional_comments_on_N.pdf

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell 
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: light flicker

Does any 60601 collateral standard, address limits for light-source flicker; or 
have any other requirements for the light-flicker frequencies emitted by a 
luminaire? Have noted IEC60601-2-41 but do not have it; does it provide 
light-flicker frequency limits?

Am already aware of the TLA stuff in NEMA77 and IEEE1789, and the IEC61000-4-15 
'flickermeter' stuff. These standards are contradictory, and the IEEE standard 
fails to provide any reference to biophysical data that would provide a 
rationale. And 60601-1 clause 10 does not say much other than the generic 
response that references the RMF.

Thanks,
Brian

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] light flicker

[Brian O'Connell]

Does any 60601 collateral standard, address limits for light-source flicker; or 
have any other requirements for the light-flicker frequencies emitted by a 
luminaire? Have noted IEC60601-2-41 but do not have it; does it provide 
light-flicker frequency limits?

Am already aware of the TLA stuff in NEMA77 and IEEE1789, and the IEC61000-4-15 
'flickermeter' stuff. These standards are contradictory, and the IEEE standard 
fails to provide any reference to biophysical data that would provide a 
rationale. And 60601-1 clause 10 does not say much other than the generic 
response that references the RMF.

Thanks,
Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Insulation resistance test

[Brian O'Connell]

IR and D/EW are affected differently by capacitance, tracking, and other things.

IR can be both qualitative and quantitative; that is, a measurement of the 
property of the insulator, as the test conditions and levels are all defined. 
IR is typically done within the rated or 'normal' operating conditions of the 
device.

D/E W testing is qualitative, where only the test level is defined, where the 
test level is significantly higher than the 'normal' operating conditions.

Typically specify IR test as part of the DVT for transformers, but not as part 
of production testing. When a manager or project engineer doubts my sanity, 
which is often, will refer to these references:

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/726924.pdf
https://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/02/UL_WP_Final_The-Dielectric-Voltage-Withstand-Test_v5_HR.pdf

Brian



From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 2:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Insulation resistance test

Hello, Rich. This puzzles me:
Or, it can fail the insulation resistance measurement yet pass the dielectric 
strength measurement.
how can that happen?
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-02-19 21:53, Richard Nute wrote:
Or, it can fail the insulation resistance measurement yet pass the dielectric 
strength measurement.

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Current measurement

[Brian O'Connell]

Following opinions are mine alone, and were heavily influenced by my lunch-time 
burrito.

Looked at one about 10 years past and decided the design was, in my opinion, 
'marginal' per scoped safety standards; but have not looked at any recent 
product versions. Not accurate for high crest-factor stuff, and some inductive 
loads gave it temporary insanity. Readings were usable and reasonable over a  
limited temperature range (probably because of the current shunt's tempco) and 
for specific load types.

Many comments floating around the internet on this product, so there is 
probably a decent technical write-up available.

Brian


From: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 2:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current measurement

While on the subject, any one familiar with the Kill A Watt meter? This listing 
sells for US$26 and free shipping: 

https://www.amazon.com/P3-International-P4460-Electricity-Monitor/dp/B000RGF29Q 

I swapped out the 2 mOhm current sensing resistor with a 0.2 ohm resistor (and 
of course greatly limiting the current capability) so I can measure standby 
power down to 10 mW. I did test with a 7 W incandescent light bulb and it 
reported reasonable readings. I tested are few phone chargers with nothing 
plugged and they idle at less than 50 mW. (But I don't know if I trust the 
figure down to decimal point:) 

It could be a really inexpensive way to get a reasonable (but not certification 
grade) power measurements. 

Best Regards, 
Alfred 



On February 12, 2018 1:36:10 PM PST, Brian O'Connell <oconne...@tamuracorp.com> 
wrote:
Will admit to having done this stuff with using microcontrollers and discrete 
sequential data channels and of sufficient sampling speed, but am subject to 
frequent bouts of idiocy. And this was for process control, and thus not a Type 
Test. Also, note that there is a difference in technique and equipment between 
power loggers and an analytical instrument.

Best done with an instrument intended for this measurement; that is 'power 
analyzers'. Typically found on shelves at Keysite, Tektronix (nee Voltech), 
Ametek, Chroma,  etc. And many Tek and keysite DSOs have a 'plug-in' for doing 
power measurements. All of this instrument-grade stuff can easily handle 
external sensors.


Brian

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 1:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Current measurement

If you want to calculate t!
 he
consumed power (W) in a 1-phase AC circuit, you
can use a current clamp-on device to measure the current in one lead/wire
and multiply with the applied voltage.
But with such a current clamp on device, to we measure the apparent power
(VA) or the real power (W)?

Best regards
Amund

Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Current measurement

[Brian O'Connell]

Will admit to having done this stuff with using microcontrollers and discrete 
sequential data channels and of sufficient sampling speed, but am subject to 
frequent bouts of idiocy. And this was for process control, and thus not a Type 
Test. Also, note that there is a difference in technique and equipment between 
power loggers and an analytical instrument.

Best done with an instrument intended for this measurement; that is 'power 
analyzers'. Typically found on shelves at Keysite, Tektronix (nee Voltech), 
Ametek, Chroma,  etc. And many Tek and keysite DSOs have a 'plug-in' for doing 
power measurements. All of this instrument-grade stuff can easily handle 
external sensors.


Brian

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 1:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Current measurement

If you want to calculate the consumed power (W) in a 1-phase AC circuit, you
can use a current clamp-on device to measure the current in one lead/wire
and multiply with the applied voltage.
But with such a current clamp on device, to we measure the apparent power
(VA) or the real power (W)?

Best regards
Amund

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Measurement dilema

[Brian O'Connell]

Pareto principle/distribution? Methinks it may be that way with all life 
sciences. After having read over 200 PhD and master's papers in 
agriculture/agronomy/botany, have come to the conclusion that their ilk's 
intellectual toolbox are simply not equipped with adequate mathematical tools, 
nor educational rigor. Agree that there is too much fiscal and political 
motivation in medical research, but to make a corollary, do not ascribe to mal 
intent what is incompetence. Or human 'entropy'.

As for the different signals, would have to know more about the analog front 
end to the scope and whether multiple channels share ADCs (have not read that 
model's manual). Had somewhat similar affects in my box where the mux and ADC 
were triggered by external events, not the microcontroller. Would need to see a 
frequency-domain of both channels to know if this is an artifact of 
'differential' sampling. Perhaps companding would do that, dunno. But probably 
just interference from space aliens.

Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 11:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Measurement dilema

It's probably another case of the 80/20 rule. Even with peer-reviewed papers, 
the long-term opinion may be that 20% at most were of value.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-27 19:27, Douglas Smith wrote:
Great quote! It pretty much describes much of medical research in my opinion. 
The great thing about engineering is the field is “grounded” (pun intended) in 
fundamentals. No so much in medicine where money and politics matter as much as 
science. My hobby when I am not doing engineering is medicine and I read tons 
of medical studies. Many are either junk (poorly done) or fraud! Some are great.
Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone:  408-858-4528
Office:    702-570-6108
Email:     d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 17:34, Richard Nute  wrote:
 
Hi Doug:
 
While I don’t yet have the answer (and may never have the answer), I ran across 
this quote from Luigi Galvani which I think applies here:
 
“For it is easy in experimentation to be deceived, and to think one has seen 
and discovered what we desire to see and discover.”
 
Best regards,
Rich
 
 
From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Measurement dilema
 
Hi All,

Can you explain the result in this video I just made? Scope plots of the same 
two nodes are completely different. Probes and scope are operating normally, no 
problem with the equipment itself.

If you have been to my seminars you know the answer, please do not post the 
answer unless you have not seen this experiment until now.

Hint 1: There are no EM fields radiating from the shielded box affecting the 
probes.
Hint 2: There are no active components inside the box.

https://youtu.be/qj-HBFMEJiY

Doug 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] IATA/ICAO and U 83.3 rules

[Brian O'Connell]

1. IATA packing instructions 967 and 970.
2. UN category 3481 (may be other effective cats).
3. individual carrier regulations.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IATA/ICAO and U 83.3 rules

Hi all,

I am curious to know if anyone is familiar with IATA/ICAO and UN 83.3 rules as 
they apply to shipment of cell phones (and other products) with built in 
batteries.  Many manufacturers generally separate the battery from the product 
or insulate one of the terminals to prevent inadvertent activation during 
shipment. With built in batteries this is not always possible.  I don't believe 
the rules specifically say batteries must be removed or disconnected.  So how, 
exactly is this handled by most people?

Thanks all.  Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] F 155 enamel wire

[Brian O'Connell]

0. NEMA MW1000
1. UL1446
2. winding limits in the standard scoped per the end-use equipment.
3. winding limits per the recognized EIS being used.
4. an enamel coating is not necessarily considered insulation - reference the 
scoped standards.

Brian

bpymail 2.5.9  test 2
===

What are the maximum temperature and permissible operating temperature for this 
insulated wire?
 
Thanks and regards,
 
Scott

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Safety Testing Sotware

[Brian O'Connell]

We have had similar discussions on the automation of Type Tests. Might be worth 
one's time to search the archives.

Canned code that comes with the instrument can be effective. Have use 
Benchlink, and with regret, have noted that Keysight people have ruined a once 
very reliable (for windoze) utility (some of Benchlink's problems have been 
fixed by the Win10 USB implementation). Have droned at length on LabView, so 
will, at least once, spare our group from further my rants of 25 years of using 
this unsupportable nightmare (will somebody explain to these Austin PhDs how a 
state machine is supposed to work). Excel VBA can be surprisingly effective, 
but instrument drivers and other hardware-dependent code are frequently broken 
from each progression of versioning for either windoze or MS Office.

Test automation is more than data logging. Test automation adds smarts by 
watching the data stream and removing the human from any control of test 
conditions. Test Automation requires the use of deterministic response to 
hardware events. Test Automation requires the reliable and continued recording 
of data when things go wrong. Test automation systems know when something is 
wrong with the test instruments.

Typically have done Type Test automation using Python/C++ on a Linux platform. 
But as of late, have been using multiple ARM processors (at least M4) that 
control the tests, talk to the instruments, and stream buffered data to the 
computer.

My next big project will be to put Type Test systems into the factory for my 
employer's large magnetic stuff.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety Testing Sotware

All,

Am aware of several EMC testing software packages available.  Today, I am 
curious to know if you use automated software for safety type testing 
(engineering tests).  I am also aware of solutions intended for high volume 
production line testing.  From my experience it seems that the most valuable 
software tools for safety type testing are available with the instrument, Excel 
VBA scripting, Labview or an in-house compiled solution.  I have used Benchlink 
from HP/Agilent/Keysight and if a custom application is needed with several 
instruments then I've used Excel or Labview.

What has been your experience?

Thanks!

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Li-Fi

[Brian O'Connell]

Three observations.
1. would have side-effects somewhat analogous to BPL on EMC. And the up/down 
rate would probably have same problems and delay as satellite internet.
2.  different modality of old tech - remember the science fair projects using 
laser com from bazillions years past?
3. Ted said that he 'discounted' TED talks  (we had thought they were named for 
him).

Some references
0. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_light_communication
1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communication
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi
3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RONJA

Brian


From: Edward Price [mailto:e...@jwjelp.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 10:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Li-Fi

I seem to recall HP was touting some kind of optical link system back in the 
90's. (IIRC, it was omni-directional infrared.) I think they were suggesting it 
for sharing of a printer within a multi-computer office, or for linking test 
equipment into a lab's mini-computer.

While I can see some uses where a modulated light source, powerful yet 
inexpensive, would be a good data link, I can also see a few problems, the 
first of which is bi-directionality and the second is data capacity ahead of 
the optical links. As for his hints of vehicular applications, we still haven't 
eliminated rain, smoke and fog.

Call me cynical, but whenever somebody puts a box on stage and does magic 
engineering, I become skeptical. Whaddya mean, you don't want to get into the 
details?

Altogether, Li-Fi is yet another path. Ubiquitous LED's make it more 
attractive, but not quite a standing ovation quality concept.

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Li-Fi

I haven't studied it, but seems to me that one would need to modulate the light 
very quickly to get any sort of usable BAUD rate, unless you settle for 
transmission of text only.  (like the good old Bell 202 modems over voice band 
land lines)

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 12:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Li-Fi

I came over this video 
https://www.ted.com/talks/harald_haas_a_breakthrough_new_kind_of_wireless_internet#t-432451

Anyone who have studied this tech?

Cheers,
Amund
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes

[Brian O'Connell]

The ISO and IEC should develop and publish the rationale along with the release 
of the standard itself. Avoid forcing the data fit an existent conjecture. 
ANSI, SCC, CENELEC, etc should never harmonize a new standard without the 
engineering rationale.



As for a comparative tabulations - they are suitable tools, but they may foment 
a poor mindset that results in a gap analysis that does nothing to promulgate 
or ensure the 'new way' intended by stuff such as 3d ed 60601-1 and 62368-1.



Brian
My opinions do not necessarily reflect the policies or intent of the Klingon 
Emperor. Long live the Empire. And my employer tends to absolve themselves of 
my public statements


From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 1:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 
62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes

It appears that my copy of 60950-1 is a bit old. It was hand written on a 
vellum scroll. My company antiquities director prohibits me from cutting off a 
piece for spectrographic analysis.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 12:55 PM
To: Ted Eckert >; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 
62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes


And if you print the standards, they are both made of paper. But it doesn't 
help. Steep learning curve!

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates 
www.woodjohn.uk

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-12-06 19:48, Ted Eckert wrote:
A spectrographic analysis of a plum and coconut might find them to be quite 
similar.
https://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 11:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 
62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes

Back in the day, the question was asked: "What's the difference between an 
elephant and a plum?"  Answer: "They're exactly the same, except the elephant."




On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Pete Perkins 
<0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
 wrote:
Leo,

The requirements in 62368-1 are supported by the rationale 
document 62368-2 which more fully explains the basis for the requirements in 
the standard.  It has been put together to help standards committees – such as 
yours – understand these.

There was an early on comparison between 60950 and 62368 
(already discussed here) which could be generally helpful but has not been kept 
up to the latest changes.

The ongoing intent in 62368-1 has been to ensure that present 
practices should be acceptable under the new standard as long as they meet the 
requirements of the new standard.

Most generally it probably can be assumed that they provide 
equivalent safety protection under each standard (altho there are some 
significant differences – e.g. the 10 or 100 uA touch current limits in 60601-1 
which are lower than the allowed limits of 0.5 and 5mA in 62368-1); so it may 
not immediately fall out from some simple discussion since there are many 
details in each standard which need to be compared unless you accept the 
general assumption.

TC108 is still struggling with the issues surrounding moving 
from 60950 to 62368 details, such as how to accept components designed to 60950 
in the context of the new standard.  TC108 has, in the past, invoked additional 
requirements on components when it appeared that the component standard did not 
meet the expected requirements of the standard.  It is not unreasonable to do 
so again.  Altho TC108 has worked 

Re: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 (current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes

[Brian O'Connell]

ECMA TR106, but was done for 1st ed only.

Brian


From: Leo Eisner [mailto:l...@eisnersafety.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 4:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Was there ever a comparison between IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1 
(current edition preferable)? And any rationale for any of the changes

I am in IEC SC62A (60601-1 series of standards - Medical electrical equipment & 
systems) meetings this week and we are trying to id the differences between 
these 2 standards so we can figure out how to integrate IEC 62368-1 into IEC 
60601-1, 3rd ed. + A2, if we have the time and agreement with the National 
Committees is to be determined. We are working on A2 currently (at CD1 stage) 
and initially we decided not to include IEC 62368-1 in the A2 but wait for 4th 
ed. but that likely may be too late for power supplies as 60950 is ending in a 
couple years for at least EU.

Thx all,


Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
Phone: (503) 244-6151
Mobile: (503) 709-8328
Email: l...@eisnersafety.com
Website: www.EisnerSafety.com
 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UK/EU Type Approval for Automotive Components

[Brian O'Connell]

Typically depends on whether control-related and/or intended for direct 
connected to same DC bus as control systems and/or signals connected to a 
control system.

Compare your stuff to scope of requirements in ECE Regulation 10. Would also 
suggest that you become familiar with Guide to Control Plans, VCA09. 

If you have never done VCA submittals, suggest you talk to an automotive 
specialist at VDE or TUV Rheinland or the Klingon High Command.  There are 
probably other 'agencies' that have automotive specialists.

Brian


From: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:13 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UK/EU Type Approval for Automotive Components

Hello all,

I've got an inquiry with the UK government Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) 
regarding EMC testing of automotive components but they are taking an age to 
respond. Does anyone here have any experience with EMC type approval of auto 
components? The questions I asked were:

1. In this document - 
https://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/vehicle-type-approval/vca004.pdf
 - section 2.2 discusses "System or Component" approval. Do OEM spare parts 
fall into this scope?
2. Looking at the flowchart in - 
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/system--component-type-approval/vca045.pdf
 - I can see that some components do not fall under the 'immunity related' 
category. 
a. When testing non 'immunity related' parts, does this testing need to take 
place at a VCA accredited facility or to be VCA witnessed?
b. When this document quotes the R directive, am I correct in assuming that 
it actually should now refer to the Radio Equipment Directive since the R 
has been repealed?

I appreciate this is a bit of a niche question but I've always been surprised 
at the breadth of knowledge in this forum!

Many thanks
James

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Pickle

[Brian O'Connell]

Is 'QVGS2' a new CCN?

Brian


From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle

Hi,

To pass along the learning that came out of this.

A fuse did not have a tight enough tolerance, but we found a UL R/C Protector - 
QVG2S - that will open before the hazard.  The NRTL agreed as long as we prove 
it opens before the hazard, UL 991 and 1998 are not required.

Thanks again for the input and help,

John


From: John Allen 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle 
 
Thanks everyone!

Either test or re-design is required.

I appreciate the input.

John


From: Doug Powell 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:07 PM
To: John Allen
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle 
 
John,

UL 991 is a test method for qualifying solid-state circuits for safety 
function.  It is generally referenced by another standard and is not used as a 
primary certification standard as such.  Additionally, semiconductors are not 
certified individually to UL 991 as this is not a component standard.  It is 
very important that the circuits where the semiconductors are used be 
evaluated.  If you are familiar with the EMC immunity testing of IEC/CISPR 
standards, it is very much like this.  Radiated immunity, EFT, surge, ESD,  etc.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

Doug Powell | Professional Profile | LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com
View Doug Powell's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's 
largest business network, helping professionals like Doug Powell discover 
inside connections to recommended job candidates, industry experts, and 
business partners.


On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:44 AM, John Allen  
wrote:
Hi,

We have a pickle of a situation and wondering if anyone knows a simple 
fix.

We have a moving wall that complies with the maximum force limits of UL962.
An IC measures the voltage of a resistor and if appropriate, allows the correct 
current to be sent to a motor that moves the wall.
If too much current is allowed to the motor, the force created is greater than 
the limit.
We have a fuse, but it won't open before the force is created.

A UL991 investigation on the IC and Resistor circuit is necessary.  I agree 
with that.  That said - 

1. I could not find any UL Recognized Component circuits that comply with UL 
991.  Is there such a category??  I searched UL's database for anything UL 991 
and came up with a few categories.  FSPC2 is a likely candidate, but the few 
Listings that are in there are heavy duty motor controllers or position sensing 
devices, etc.
2. If we redesign to not use the IC, won't we still be subjected to UL 991?  If 
we use discrete components (resistors and capacitors vs ICs) does that get us 
out of UL 991?

Any insight would be appreciated. 

Best Regards,

John

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 


Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Use of LED Spots in EMC Chambers [General Use]

[Brian O'Connell]

Dear member of the Land & Naval Defence Electronics Division, 

Linear regulators, where the input is the output of a SMPS, are subject to the 
limitations of the PSRR of the 78xx regulators; typically less than 20dB above 
40kHz. Even if no SMPS, then the typical 78/79XX does little for the 'ambient' 
stuff > 100kHz. As efficiency  should not be a principle design factor, avoid 
SMPS in general, and switching LED drivers in specific; unless you need a 
wide-spectrum noise source...

Recently, had to replace the incandescents in my employer's humble chamber. My 
solution was a discrete version of a LDO regulator configured for CC, where the 
reference voltage was buffered and filtered and the op amp that drove the 
series-pass mosfet was 2d order filtered. The mains power is from a transformer 
model chosen for its inherent shielding and capacitive coupling rating, and 
each bridge diode had a good (class II ceramic) capacitor. Output of Bridge 
through a pi filter. Essentially no noise, except what CM stuff manages to get 
coupled into the long DC power lines to the LEDs.

The LEDs themselves can be a bit of a source noise if they get too warm, but 
this can be decoupled, and seldom a problem if good CC source used (CV sources 
cause shot noise and perform poorly with LEDs).

An easier solution would be to use one the new LDO regulator designs, but be 
wary of those using noisy bandgap references. TI and LT have some app notes on 
linear current sources.

Brian
Member of the Desert Naval Cacti Offense Division


-Original Message-
From: Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) [mailto:andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 4:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Use of LED Spots in EMC Chambers [General Use]

Hi all.

Has anyone had experience with using LED Spot lamps in EMC Chambers?
What types/manufacturers would be recommended?

Would appreciate help in trying to solve someone's problems with noise during 
radiated emissions.
Test Facility has just had all their chambers converted to LED Spots and they 
are suffering broadband noise issues.

Regards
Andy


 Andrew Price
 Land & Naval Defence Electronics Division
 Prinicpal Environmental Engineer (EMC)

 Leonardo MW Ltd
 Sigma House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon SS14 3EL, UK
 Tel  EMC LAB : +44 (0)1268 883308
 Mobile: +44 (0)7507 854888
 
andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com
 leonardocomapany.com

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground on AC mains ports?

[Brian O'Connell]

Mr. Woodgate,

Is there a recently published spec for a 'typical' 230V mains impedance for the 
EU? Have also noted that the source Zs in 61000-4-5 for the instrument seem 
rather high. So what is the basis for 1500A interrupt rating?

For U.S., even for an artificially low-Z electronic AC source, seldom see fault 
currents exceed 200A peak for 120V mains. Conversely, have noted that at over 
100A fault current, any fuse not rated for the 'high' interrupt value will 
probably explode.

So either our ratings are suspect, or perhaps the physics behind the standards 
are not complete?

Brian



From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 11:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground on 
AC mains ports?

I'm afraid that's not so. The short-circuit current of a 20 A circuit is 
normally at least 500 A, maybe 1500 A.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-11-18 03:49, Joe Randolph wrote:
Yes, that is a very good point.  I may have misinterpreted what the term 
“adequate breaking capacity” means.  If all it means is that the fuse must be 
able to safely break the short-circuit current, then a 20 Amp, 250 VRMS fuse 
would be fine for use on a 20 Amp, 240 VRMS circuit.
 
Of course, this would not provide much protection against overheating of the 
MOV unless the MOV failed at an effective resistance of less than 12 ohms.  
Anything higher than that would just keep producing heat.
 
Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com
 
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Joe Randolph ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground on 
AC mains ports?
 
I agree with this step-wise route to failure. But I wonder about the intended 
meaning of 'adequate breaking capacity'. In the context of the fuse standard 
IEC 60027 (multi-part), this means that the fuse must not shatter or arc-over 
with the largest fault current that can be applied to it. It's all about the 
fuse, not about what it is supposed to protect. 
I believe TVSs (BIG diodes with integral heat sink) are much nicer devices to 
use than MOVs. They don't suffer from energetic disruption.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-11-17 21:39, Joe Randolph wrote:
I have not performed any actual testing, but I believe that the basic problem 
is that MOV leakage current increases slightly each time the MOV experiences a 
big surge.  So, in the early stages of this mechanism, the leakage current will 
increase step-wise each time the MOV experiences a big surge.
 
In practice, these successive "big surges" could be spaced months or years 
apart.  Each successive surge will increase the leakage current, but if the 
current remains well below the level that causes significant self-heating of 
the MOV, the situation will remain stable.
 
After some number of big surges (which could take years to accumulate), the 
leakage current will have increased enough that the self-heating process itself 
leads to higher leakage current.  This sets up a positive feedback loop that 
causes the MOV to go into thermal runaway and self-destruct.
 
I'm not sure the thermal runaway could be described as an "avalanche," since 
the process might take considerable time to destroy the MOV, but the general 
direction of the failure gets establishes as soon as the positive feedback 
mechanism gets started.  
 
If it could be shown that any dissipation level less than 240 W cannot cause 
ignition of nearby materials, then a 1A fuse would appear to provide the 
"adequate breaking capacity" called for in 60950-1.
 
Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 1:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground on 
AC mains ports?
 
I wonder if a 1A fuse would protect against MOV flameout just as well as a 
100mA, if these MOV fail as an avalanche.  (get hotter = more leakage) I've 
seen some standards use 240VA (assume 240W) as a power limit for protection 
against fire.  However, I wonder if a MOV could burn nicely at say 0.5A without 
further increase in current.
 
Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Joe Randolph [mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 7:56 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs 

Re: [PSES] UL 61010 Nameplate voltage

[Brian O'Connell]

UL2735, and perhaps UL916
NEC (NFPA70) article 250, NFPA70E article 110.9
UL61010-1, annex F

MOVs, as a stand-alone SPD component, typically not used in equipment subject 
to worse than cat II, although there some are rated for cat III (4kV surge). 
Three-phase power will be at least category III. 

See Canada code (C22.1) for additional notes on wiring power meters and such. 
Not all stuff in North America has exactly same requirements.

Have never seen a fusible resistor pass a 'legitimate' suite of Type Tests 
(they take eons to open).

The operational specification and the rating per your test certificate 
(nameplate rating) are not the same thing; so your guess is probably correct. 
The manual should re-iterate the conditions of acceptability found in the test 
certificate, and your internal Type Test data should support all operating 
conditions found in your manual. Some NRTLs have poorly written C of A in their 
reports, so take an active part in drafting the report.

Are we certain that equipment made in Australia will work upside down when 
north of equator?

Brian



From: Jon Keeble [mailto:j...@wattwatchers.com.au] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:48 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL 61010 Nameplate voltage

Our product is an energy meter with an internal flyback power supply that 
mounts in Level III enclosures i.e. switchboards.

The voltage connections are Neutral, P1, P2, P3.

Neutral is required to be connected to the building Neutral.

P1 drives the power supply and the P1 Sense voltage divider.
The P1 protection circuit is a series 10 ohm fusible resistor and MOV to 
Neutral.
There is a 250VAC rated X2 capacitor across the MOV.

P2 and P3 connections are not relevant to this issue.

UL 61010 Appendix I refers to some common MAINS supply systems.

Not having an earth connection, the closest standard configuration is 
"Three-Phase Four Wire with earthed Neutral"

The standard Neutral to Phase voltage ratings for this configuration are
66, 120, 127, 220, 230, 240

The limiting factor in the product is the X2 rated capacitor at 250VAC.

I assume the "standard" voltage ratings allow for variation on the upper side: 
a 240VAC system is expected to go as high as 264VAC.

Is the same thing true for the ratings of an X2 rated capacitor; is the 250VAC 
rating a nominal rating, where the part expected to support 250VAC+10% say?

The voltage rating we quote relates to both the power supply and the 
measurement range.

The question is 
* what voltage should we put on the nameplate
* what voltage can we claim that we can measure to while conforming to the 
standard?

My guess is we should 240VAC on the nameplate, and note in the manual  that the 
meter registers voltages as high as 264VAC

Any help, much appreciated!

Regards

Jon Keeble
-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground on AC mains ports?

[Brian O'Connell]

'Reliable' earthing would be per construction and test requirements of the 
scoped standard. Note the term "Reliable Earthing" is not defined in the IEV, 
but the various earthing and bonding terms are covered. As we all know, the 
earthing bond itself is supposed to be the current path for a single fault 
condition, and many product safety standards have specific test methods to 
determine if the ground bond is adequate. Other than a few appliance wiring 
standards and some building code articles (GFI and GC wiring), a single fault 
condition for the grounding conductor and attachment is not considered for most 
electrical equipment.

That is, 'reliable earthing' starts with building code, and ends with the scope 
standard's ground bond test method.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 9:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground on AC 
mains ports?

The term Reliable Earthing is an interesting one.  Does it mean that the 
earthing bond is not expected to fail (single fault) and so provides two levels 
of protection, as in ‘reinforced” ?   I remember arguing this point many years 
ago in a product safety review at another company and meeting some considerable 
resistance (no pun intended)

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Joe Randolph [mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground on 
AC mains ports?

Thanks everyone for the helpful input.  If I am understanding the situation 
correctly, it can be loosely summarized as follows:


IEC 60950-1

Clause 1.5.9.2

MOVs connected mains-to-earth or across the mains must have a fuse in series.  
The fuse must have “adequate breaking capacity.”

There is no mention of requiring a GDT in series with an MOV.


IEC 62368-1

Clause 5.5.7

MOVs connected mains-to-earth may be connected directly to earth only if that 
earth is “reliable” (such as a permanently connected earth).

If the earth connection is not “reliable” (earthing obtained through the 
earthing pin of ordinary Pluggable Type A connecter is not considered 
“reliable”), MOVs connected mains-to-earth must have a GDT in series, 
presumably to protect against excessive leakage current.


Annex G.8

To protect against the risk of fire, MOVs are subjected to a series of tests 
designed to overheat them and induce fire.  While series fuses are not 
explicitly required, the inclusion of a series fuse can be helpful for passing 
the tests of G.8



SUMMARY

The above summarizes my current understanding of the requirements regarding 
components to be used in series with MOVs when the MOVs are connected to the AC 
mains.  While IEC 60950-1 requires series fuses, it does not seem to require 
series GDTs

IEC 62368-1 requires series GDTs if the earth connection is not “reliable,” and 
it’s fire safeguard tests seem to encourage the use of series fuses, although 
fuses are not explicitly required in order to pass the tests.

I would appreciate any additional input that might help me determine whether 
the above interpretations are correct.


Thanks,

Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com

From: John Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:15 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Regulatory requirements for MOVs placed line-to-ground on 
AC mains ports?

Having had a look at 62368-1 Ed 2, I think the relevant clause in that is 
5.5.7. “SPDs” (“Surge Protective Devices”), 

5.5.7.1 “Use of an SPD between the mains and earth”
“Where a varistor is used between the mains and earth:
– the earth connection shall comply with 5.6.7; and
– the varistor shall comply with Clause G.8.”

Cl 5.6.7 “Reliable Earthing” could be important as that gives  familiar  
“reliable earthing” methods for some equipment.

5.5.7.2 “Use of an SPD connected to reliable earthing”
“Where an SPD is used between the mains and protective earth, it shall consist 
of a varistor
and a GDT connected in series, where the following applies:
– the varistor shall comply with Clause G.8;
– the GDT shall comply with:
• the electric strength test of 5.4.9.1 for basic insulation; and
• the external clearance and creepage distance requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3
respectively for basic insulation.
NOTE 1 Some examples of SPDs are MOVs, varistors and GDTs. A varistor is 
sometimes referred to as a VDR or
a metal oxide varistor (MOV).
The above requirements do not apply to SPDs:
– intended for attenuating transient voltages from external circuits; and
– connected to reliable earth (see 5.5.7.1).”

The last bit is interesting because it 

Re: [PSES] FCC Language in Manuals, Intentional Transmitter

[Brian O'Connell]

Also should note that a computer peripheral is allowed have the single required 
reference and note to see manual. In any case, the TCB should specify markings 
in your report. And the OET has issued some rulings on product marks.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell 
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 6:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC Language in Manuals, Intentional Transmitter

"(c) The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply 
todigital devices exempted from the technical standards under the provisions of 
§ 15.103."

And, in any case, is allowed to be in the manual. And scope of 15.19 labeling 
stuff is found in 15.19(a).

Or use Jedi mind tricks. "This is not the equipment label you are looking 
for..."

Brian


From: Mike Sherman [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 6:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC Language in Manuals, Intentional Transmitter

Esteemed Colleagues --

We are incorporating a modularly approved intentional transmitter into some 
industrial products. We understand the requirement to include on the product 
(or in our manuals, if the product is too small) the Part 15.19 compliance 
statement ("This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is 
subject to the following two conditions: (1) This... "). 


However, we are also aware of two other FCC statements that appear to be 
required, but which we do not often see in other product manuals, including my 
new iPhone. 

Warning (Part 15.21)
"Changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for 
compliance could void the user’s authority to operate the equipment." 

Information to the User (Part 15.105 a) 
"NOTE: This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a 
Class A digital device, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits are 
designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference when the 
equipment is operated in a commercial environment. This equipment generates, 
uses, and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and used in 
accordance with the instruction manual, may cause harmful interference to radio 
communications. Operation of this equipment in a residential area is likely to 
cause harmful interference in which case the user will be required to correct 
the interference at his own expense." 

What are we missing? Are these last two warnings only required in some cases, 
but not in others?

thanks,

Mike Sherman
Product Safety and Compliance Engineer
Graco Inc.

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC Language in Manuals, Intentional Transmitter

[Brian O'Connell]

"(c) The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply 
todigital devices exempted from the technical standards under the provisions of 
§ 15.103."

And, in any case, is allowed to be in the manual. And scope of 15.19 labeling 
stuff is found in 15.19(a).

Or use Jedi mind tricks. "This is not the equipment label you are looking 
for..."

Brian


From: Mike Sherman [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 6:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC Language in Manuals, Intentional Transmitter

Esteemed Colleagues --

We are incorporating a modularly approved intentional transmitter into some 
industrial products. We understand the requirement to include on the product 
(or in our manuals, if the product is too small) the Part 15.19 compliance 
statement ("This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is 
subject to the following two conditions: (1) This... "). 


However, we are also aware of two other FCC statements that appear to be 
required, but which we do not often see in other product manuals, including my 
new iPhone. 

Warning (Part 15.21)
"Changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for 
compliance could void the user’s authority to operate the equipment." 

Information to the User (Part 15.105 a) 
"NOTE: This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a 
Class A digital device, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits are 
designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference when the 
equipment is operated in a commercial environment. This equipment generates, 
uses, and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and used in 
accordance with the instruction manual, may cause harmful interference to radio 
communications. Operation of this equipment in a residential area is likely to 
cause harmful interference in which case the user will be required to correct 
the interference at his own expense." 

What are we missing? Are these last two warnings only required in some cases, 
but not in others?



thanks,


Mike Sherman
Product Safety and Compliance Engineer
Graco Inc.
-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FAA Draft Free flame test

[Brian O'Connell]

Yes, fire-safe cigarettes required in U.S. after 2011. Canada and EU 
requirements preceded the U.S. regulations. 

My recently developed hood test to verify my new side panels - fire up a dry 
cigar (cigars correctly stored in humidor will typically self-extinguish after 
about 50 to 100 sec). No complaints = successful test. Wrote an formal 
procedure for this test and submitted it on employer's ISO form. 

Brian



From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 10:13 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FAA Draft Free flame test

And I don't even think it would work, at least not for very long- Don't 
cigarettes now have to self-extinguish?


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Doug Powell  wrote:
I thought the forum may find this interesting.

DOT/FAA/AR-00/12 AIRCRAFT MATERIALS FIRE TEST HANDBOOK 
(https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/00-12.pdf).

Clause 1.3.1 actually recommends testing for a draft-free environment my using 
"a smoldering and smoking material, such as a lighted cigarette, in the test 
cabinet". It seems this may be a carry over from the days when smoking was 
socially acceptable.  

​All the best, Doug

​

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] 2011/65/EU and 2015/863/EU (RoHS Dir)

[Brian O'Connell]

This is a 'delegated' directive, and is analogous to administrative law in 
these United States. That is, it is subordinate to and further clarifies and 
adds to the primary legislation. So the RoHS directive (2011/65/EU) does not 
change, but has these substances and implementation dates added.

In the Klingon Empire, the RoHS list is use for recommended food seasoning. 
Burp.

Brian


From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 9:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 2011/65/EU and 2015/863/EU (RoHS Dir)

Good morning.

2015/863/EU was issued by the EU Commission as amending 2011/65/EU. However, 
2011/65/EU hasn't been updated to incorporate the amendment.

I'm having to explain to suppliers that 2015/863/EU is in force until it's 
repealed or replaced, but those vendors are continuing to point to the fact 
that 2015/863/EU has not been incorporated into 2011/65/EU.

Is there any expectation that (two years after the fact) that 2015/863/EU will 
be incorporated into 2011/65/EU? Anyone have any stories to share?


Peter Tarver

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Battery Charger

[Brian O'Connell]

From: Schmidt, Mark [mailto:markschm...@xrite.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 7:38 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Battery Charger

Hello Group,

I am trying to understand which standard would be applicable for a single Li-on 
battery charger. It would be powered by an existing 12 VDC LPS that already has 
all the required regulatory evaluations and markings on it. We already use this 
EPS on many of the products that we currently have safety reports on and are 
Listed.
This battery charger would be for charging an additional lithium-ion battery 
(7.4V, 2600 mAh) that we use with some of our existing products. Our products 
have their own charge circuitry but the marketing guys want to have an 
independent charger source so the end user can just pop in a fully charged 
battery when needed. Our devices are used on a lot of factory floors (battery 
powered). They typically only use the EPS to charge their battery in the device 
when the leave for the day or maybe at lunch or whatever.
This new charger's construction would be a plastic (94V-1), operate at 12 VDC 
input, output ~8.4 VDC 1A for charging one battery pack at a time. The PCB 
would be FR4, 94V0 material. Standard center-pin/barrel type power plug from 
the LPS. It would be designed CEC compliant; some minor circuitry for charge 
control most protection is in the 2 cell battery pack. Would have LED 
indicator(s) for charge status. Size: approximately 5" x 3" x 2"

Are there any battery charger standards that may be applicable?
Yes, there are several scoped standards.

Does this battery charger need to be Listed or Recognized by NRTL.
Per OSHA, not if Class III equipment and marked with power supply requirements 
and battery delimiters. There are some 'typical' industrial and civil and 
military environments where it would be considered pro forma for this type of 
equipment to bear a NRTL mark. End-use equipment shall not be 'recognized' per 
the meaning of a scoped UL CCN.

Any thoughts or inputs are welcome?
Design for the eventuality that a battery WILL self ignite. Design for safe 
charge currents and voltages for any charger single-fault condition.

Hire or contract with someone that has done this several times as a corporate 
compliance engineer. Few NRTL engineers understand battery charger topologies, 
and fewer understand both the software and hardware. No, I will not review your 
design, but there are several grey-beards (ok they do not really have beards, 
but are wiser than myself)  that reside within the virtual walls of this 
listserv whom do contract work.

Regards,
Mark

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] power strip details -> electronic document preservation

[Brian O'Connell]

Believe that preservation of legacy electronic documents is very important, and 
am happy to see someone attempting to preserve this stuff.

Please note that 'doc' and 'docx' are not usable standards (even where the 
OOXML is supposedly per the ISO29500 format) and is ill-suited for reliable 
backups and long-term archives. The originator of the standard chose to break 
the their promise of backward compatibility with ECMA376, so there is reason to 
distrust compatibility of files with future versions of whatever the document 
standard de jour would be. OOXML documents, even when displayed on similar 
platforms, are oft rendered differently.

Other more reliable and less volatile document standards should be 
investigated; for example ISO26300. The ISO and IEC do not seem to understand 
the significant risks of data loss where poor document standards are being used.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: mickm [mailto:mjmay...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:08 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] power strip details

Ralph,
 The IEEE is a not-for-profit organisation, but if there is a chance 
of making money they will do so. Traditionally you can still buy 
withdrawn standards.

 Having revised several old C62 standards the biggest problem I found 
is that the IEEE loses the source text or graphics or both in the 
passing years since the document was created. From these experiences I 
then under took a mission to grab what C62 materials the IEEE still had 
available and convert them into a Microsoft Word format. C62.41.1 was 
one document I rescued in 2008. Thus the Surge Protective Devices 
Committee (SPDC) does a Word document available that can be revised and 
it would be published as something like C62.4.1.1 2019.

 To your last question what does MSPD stand for, it's Multi-service 
Surge Protective Device, a device that internally houses a collection of 
power SPDs and signal SPDs all with a shared ground reference bond.

IEEE Std. C62.50-2012
multiservice (multiport) surge protective device (MSPD): A surge 
protective device providing protection of equipment connected to two or 
more services such as power, telecommunications, signaling, data, etc., 
with the respective conductors routed via a common enclosure in which an 
internal shared ground reference bond has been provided among these 
services during surge conditions.

Regards,

Mick Maytum

Safety and Telecom
Standards

mjmay...@gmail.com

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] CEC NPRMs for lo-pwr mode and PF

[Brian O'Connell]

Industry and stake-holder responses to the California Energy Commision's NPRM 
for low-power mode and power factor. Some of these comments are entertaining, 
and some are interesting.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fPublicDocuments%2f17-AAER-12=0x012000854EBC55F6E2AC47926325FA751AA84F

And appears the CEC will do efficiency stuff and UL1741SA stuff for solar 
inverters:
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fPublicDocuments%2f17-AAER-13=0x012000854EBC55F6E2AC47926325FA751AA84F

The CEC has become, for both North America and Europe, the tail that wags the 
dog. Consider yourself advised. Woof.

Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Outsource Manufacturing Supplier Certs

[Brian O'Connell]

Can be rather messy to track materials traceability for all critical stuff. A 
better solution is to use a production site that is also subject to CIG and/or 
a routine factory FUS audit, where they build from drawings that were submitted 
as part of your product assessment process. Out-sourcers (is that a word?) that 
have a QMS typically have a formal process and doc requirements for this.

Also, UL, CSA, et al, have some specific programs for some processes and/or 
material types that will not come from the applicant or the 'recognized' 
vendor. The Klingon High Command requires that all second-source suppliers be 
certified via the Rite of Ascension.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Outsource Manufacturing Supplier Certs

All,

Does anyone here have experience with outsourcing or contract manufacturing 
function and a program to pass along certificates of the materials used?   I 
know this can be managed and I'm not even certain what a program/process like 
this would be called.  ​For example, when a manufacturer builds subassemblies 
like circuit boards or custom magentics, safety critical materials they use 
must ​be inspected prior to assembly (optocouplers, wire, fuses, connectors, 
etc.).   Evidence of inspection for these materials in the form of certificates 
may need to be passed along when these assemblies are shipped to the end 
manufacturer.

I am interested to learn what points should be considered to monitor this 
process.  

​Thanks, Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EU Blue Guide

[Brian O'Connell]

Loads on Slackware box using Pale Moon browser. Is a link to a link, so 
security settings for some browsers may consider it an evil redirection by 
Cardassian space aliens.  Not that we care, but also loads on this windoze box.

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/18027/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

Silly javascript jockeys.

Brian



From: Ken Wyatt [mailto:k...@emc-seminars.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 3:42 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU Blue Guide

Works for me using a Mac, Safari, and Preview to open it.

Ken

___

I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any questions 
related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation. I'm always happy to 
help!

Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863

Phone: (719) 310-5418

Email Me! | Web Site 
| Blog
The EMC Blog (EDN)
Subscribe to Newsletter
Connect with me on LinkedIn

On Aug 16, 2017, at 4:33 PM, John Woodgate 
> wrote:

Works for me, opening with NitroPro, so it’s not one of those that only opens 
with Acrobat.

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

Beware averages! They hide or discard data, and may distort it (them?).

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 August 2017 23:26
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU Blue Guide

Is anyone else having difficulty downloading a working copy of the Blue Guide 
at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/18027/

I've tried both formats to no avail.

thanks, Doug

--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EMC Measurement Software

[Brian O'Connell]

Labview. Attractive for speed of initial development. Ugly for debugging and 
adding new features and 'reading' an old vi. Attractive for reliability when 
used with NI hardware and some of the more common 3d party instruments. Ugly 
where each version iteration of windoze and/or LV breaks your existing systems. 
Ignore the GUI - the analytic comparisons should NOT be graphical vs. textual; 
it should be dataflow vs. imperative.

VB or C#. Attractive for the surprisingly effective and elegant IDE (Visual 
Studio). Ugly for programming languages that are a non-standard standard and 
being depending on the windoze platform. Would suggest C# over VB any day of 
the week. Attractive for a large body of proven code. Ugly for a problematic 
licensing scheme found in most C# technical libraries.

Tile. Previously discussed in this venue. Attractive for being the most likely 
candidate as an industry standard. Ugly for being convoluted and butt-ugly ugly 
ugly.

Other stuff. No significant experience or exposure.

Suggestions. 
1. DIY. Domain-specific development assumes you have a domain-specific  expert 
that can code monkey; and if not available, hope your boss is very patient 
while you stumble around learning the tool-chain or learn EMC theory and 
standards. So no DIY unless you have The Person or an understanding (?) boss.

If you are capable enough for a DIY solution, then you probably already know 
that many systems that actually work are typically done using stuff such as ISO 
C/C++ and Python. Abundance of code available for the common instruments. Write 
small single type-test programs to start and build your tower of babel from 
there. And use version control. And do not use windoze.

2. Canned Code. Do not just ask in this listserv. Go look at the stuff used in 
your local labs. Ask opinions and technical questions of the people that 
actually use this stuff. Look at licenses, version control, version 
compatibilities, platform dependencies, instrument libraries, and the vagaries 
per the Klingon Rite of Ascension.

Brian


From: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 5:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMC Measurement Software

Hello group,

I'm investigating upgrades to my existing EMC measurement software (R 
ESXS-K1) and have found the following options:

* R Elektra (new) / ES-Scan / EMC32
* Dare RadiMation
* Toyo EMC measurement software
* ETS Lindgren TILE!
* Nexio BAT-EMC
* NI LabView and develop own routines
* Write own from scratch (VB / C#)

Are there any others worth considering? What "gotchas" or issues am I likely to 
run into?

It needs to drive a R ESHS 10 (conducted) and a ESVS 10 (radiated). Bonus 
points for support for R FSP 30 and custom turntable control.

Many thanks in advance!
James


James Pawson
Unit 3 Compliance

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

[Brian O'Connell]

Warning Will Robinson - Brian is not an EMC expert.

Agree with Herr Gremmen about the referencing of equipotential points - this 
was critical for my employer's current chamber because it was sitting next to a 
machine shop and a HALT chamber. Would suggest two or three cups of tea, 
followed by some ale, while pursuing a good reading of the EN50147-x series and 
ANSIC63.4 and CISPR16 and the various Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Related question - am wondering why, other than physical size of UUT, industry 
prefers anechoics in lieu of GTEMs? 

Brian


From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:49 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

As for the purpose of operation, EMC chambers need no grounding.
The shielding property happens by conduction of the shield material the chamber 
is made from.
But as soon as mains filters are mounted on the wall, one has to cope with 
leakage currents
(blind current) as large as 6 amp or more. This is definitely lethal on the 
touch so I recommend a
grounding of 4-6mm2 copper in addition to the ground lead in the mains 
connection.
I suggest leading both grounds to the building ground, as that is an
equipotential point, made for safety.
But again, an ungrounded chamber performs the same as a grounded one.
Gert Gremme
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) [mailto:andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 18 juli 2017 16:55
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]
Hi All
Which is the best to use?
Ground each EMC chamber via an earth spike or back to the transformer of the 
supply to the building?
Which is best practice?
Regards
Andy

 Andrew Price
 Land & Naval Defence Electronics Division
 Prinicpal Environmental Engineer (EMC)
 Leonardo MW Ltd
 Sigma House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon SS14 3EL, UK
 Tel  EMC LAB : +44 (0)1268 883308
 Mobile: +44 (0)7507 854888
 
andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com
 leonardocomapany.com
HELICOPTERS / AERONAUTICS / ELECTRONICS, DEFENCE AND SECURITY SYSTEMS / SPACE
* Please consider the environment before printing this email.


Leonardo MW Ltd
Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 
3EL A company registered in England & Wales.  Company no. 02426132


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

[Brian O'Connell]

Am not certain that ICS numbers are unique to the various versions of same 
standard, or if they have same ubiquity as an ISBN. You would have to ask 
someone at the ISO to be certain if other than a generic classification system.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

Friday update.
My friend at the two letter lab sent this note when I ask for the ISBN codes 
used for the standards on our CB certificate's;
"The ISBN number is correct for the highlighted standard (IEC 62368-1) which is 
the one we used. Regarding the EN standard, we used DS/EN 62368-1 (August 
2014); there is no ISBN noted for this one. There is an ICS number, ICS 
33.160.01; 35.020..."

So the ICS is new to me. Any feedback, experiences or comments on using ICS 
numbers?
Wikipedia says;
International Classification for Standards (ICS) is an international 
classification system for technical standards. 
It is designed to cover every economic sector and virtually every activity of 
the humankind where technical standards may be used.

Respectfully yours,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories


-Original Message-
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 24 June, 2017 3:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

Interesting idea to use ISBN.  It would be a unique identifier.  I am curious 
to know what everyone feels is the best practice for sorting a database on 
harmonized standards.  For example, all of the 61010-1 national derivatives and 
national differences for IEC, EN, ANSI, CSA, UL, etc.  

I have in a spreadsheet a separate publisher column and the base document 
number.   I also track publication date and date of withdrawal, if available. I 
am a bit of a pack rat in this regard, I keep most of my data forever plus or 
minus a few decades.

Sometimes when I have an updated publication available, I do a textual word by 
word comparison document to flag the differences.  I am frequently surprised 
and the number of "editorial" changes that do not make it into the change logs 
or the magazine articles or even the big four certifying agencies here in the 
USA.

Doug




  Original Message
From: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Sent: June 23, 2017 6:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply-to: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

When you have bazillions of standards, the ISBN is handy as a unique identifier 
(unique and/or primary key), as each version has different reference; otherwise 
no other significant use. For example, an excerpt from my database:

ISBN 9780580910234 BS EN 62368-1:2014

ISBN 9782832214053 IEC 62368-1 Edition 2.0 2014-02

ISBN 9782889106844 IEC 62368-1 Edition 1.0 2010-01

ISBN 97811554364159 CSA C22.2 NO. 60950-1B-07

Brian


From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

Greetings form Berkeley,
 
Does using the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 13 digit code work to 
organize your standard's collection?
 
Thank you in advance for comments,
 
Mr. Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.
 
 
 
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the 
web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

[PSES] FW: [EDAS-CFP] SPCE Boston Call for Papers! Submit Today

[Brian O'Connell]

The 'first' compliance engineering symposium? Why the split from the annual 
ISPCE?

Brian


-Original Message-
From: EDAS Conference Manager [mailto:h...@edas-help.com] On Behalf Of Rachel 
Brockhoff
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 5:32 PM
To: Brian O'Connell
Subject: [EDAS-CFP] SPCE Boston Call for Papers! Submit Today

Dear Brian O'Connell, 

The formal paper/reviewable presentation submission deadline for the 
SPCE-Boston '17, the first International Symposium on Product Compliance 
Engineering, to be held November 6-7, 2017 in Boxborough, MA, USA is August 15, 
2017. Visit our website today: http://spce2017.org/

Topics include, but are not limited to the following:

Global Market Access & Regulation Compliance Management
Environmental & Energy Regulations
Battery & Energy Storage Systems
Medical Devices
Compliance 101
Hazard Based Safety
Engineering & Safety Science
Forensics, Failure & Risk Analysis, Assessment & Management
Legal, Regulations, Directives & Consumer Protection
Emerging Technologies & Innovations

Important Dates:
Formal Paper/ Reviewable Presentation Submission Deadline – August 15, 2017
Notification of Acceptance – August 29, 2017
Final Camera-Ready Paper/Presentation Submission Deadline – September 15, 2017

Symposium Chair:
Steven Brody, Product EHS Consulting 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] NRTL marking & insurance premium

[Brian O'Connell]

Perhaps. But my experience has been refusal of any reasonable carrier to write 
a policy for an institution where equipment does not meet code or does not bear 
the mark of an NRTL. The exception for exposure to unsafe and/or non-certified 
equipment typically used for engineering labs is found in 29CFR1910.333, and 
other places.

My employer's carrier, in last annual audit, noted that my product safety lab 
would require lockable doors or some form of controlled access for further 
coverage, as the area is "inherently unsafe". Was beaming with pride at that 
declaration.

Brian


From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] NRTL marking & insurance premium

Hi all,

Good afternoon,

I would like to clarify is it true that some insurance companies will charge 
lower insurance premium (e.g. fire insurance) if the insured party can show 
evidence of using equipment that are certified for safety compliance with NRTL 
marking ?

Example, a hospital will need to pay lower public liability insurance premium 
if it can show that all its medical equipment meet UL 60601 with UL marking and 
approved / cleared by FDA.

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you very much.
 
Regards, Vincent

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Li-ion Battery Testing Standards

[Brian O'Connell]

Internal company standards do not exist to solely ensure compliance with any 
particular standard, so "pros and cons" are not relevant. While there is some 
overlap, the two sets of requirements are not all coincident.

IEC62133, as a product safety standard, is not adequate for the scoped 
equipment and is incomplete; but it is a reference for a starting point.

Brian


From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2017 7:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Li-ion Battery Testing Standards

Hi all,
 
Given the Samsung smartphone galaxy 7 recall due to unsafe Li-ion battery in 
2016, may I know are there any clauses in the current IEC 62133-2:2017 
(https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/32662) to address such issue ?
 
What are the differences between Samsung 8-Point Battery Safety Check and IEC 
62133-2:2017 ?
 
In your opinion, and what are the pros and cons of each testing methods / 
standards ?
 
Hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you very much.
 
Regards, Vincent

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] ERP / SAR test method?

[Brian O'Connell]

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7880613/metrics

Efficacy?

Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

[Brian O'Connell]

For *harmonized* standards, did an add-on utility last year that is both a diff 
and grep to discern this stuff. Dates, scopes, and links to the electronic file 
are part of the tables. Used the Python difflib and grin with CSV files. 
Sorting is whatever you wanna do, and limited only by what  and how one is 
willing to populate the tables.

ANSI, ASME, Mil, etc also have ISBNs, but are structured differently so 
comparisons may require a smart parser if you wanna do anything special with 
database queries. Should also note that UL, for a cost, offers red-lined 
versions of standards.

Meanwhile, back at my more typical and mundane life of writing test reports...

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 3:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC; Brian O'Connell
Subject: Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

Interesting idea to use ISBN.  It would be a unique identifier.  I am curious 
to know what everyone feels is the best practice for sorting a database on 
harmonized standards.  For example, all of the 61010-1 national derivatives and 
national differences for IEC, EN, ANSI, CSA, UL, etc.  

I have in a spreadsheet a separate publisher column and the base document 
number.   I also track publication date and date of withdrawal, if available. I 
am a bit of a pack rat in this regard, I keep most of my data forever plus or 
minus a few decades.

Sometimes when I have an updated publication available, I do a textual word by 
word comparison document to flag the differences.  I am frequently surprised 
and the number of "editorial" changes that do not make it into the change logs 
or the magazine articles or even the big four certifying agencies here in the 
USA.

Doug




  Original Message  
From: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Sent: June 23, 2017 6:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply-to: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

When you have bazillions of standards, the ISBN is handy as a unique identifier 
(unique and/or primary key), as each version has different reference; otherwise 
no other significant use. For example, an excerpt from my database:

ISBN 9780580910234 BS EN 62368-1:2014

ISBN 9782832214053 IEC 62368-1 Edition 2.0 2014-02

ISBN 9782889106844 IEC 62368-1 Edition 1.0 2010-01

ISBN 97811554364159 CSA C22.2 NO. 60950-1B-07

Brian


From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

Greetings form Berkeley,
 
Does using the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 13 digit code work to 
organize your standard's collection?
 
Thank you in advance for comments,
 
Mr. Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist 
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.
 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Questions on IEC Standards Adaption

[Brian O'Connell]

For a cost, the IECEE publishes group and national differences for each 
combination of ‘major’ standard and the state.

For less cost, the TRF indicates, in general form, the group and national 
differences that must be addressed per the report.

Building code is one of the principal drivers for national differences. 
Building code is influenced by 'common' practices and geology and local 
climatology and the qualities of the local brew.

Brian


From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 6:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Questions on IEC Standards Adaption

Hi all,

Good morning,

What are the differences between BS EN 62368-1:2014 and IEC 62368-1 Edition 2.0 
2014-02 ?
 
I was told that usually it is after IEC has published a standard, then other 
organisations like BSI or DIN will adapt the IEC standard as their national 
standards, e.g. BS and DIN, it is true?

What are some the major considerations when organisations like BSI and DIN have 
in mind when adapt the IEC standards?

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.
Vincent

Regards, Vincent

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

[Brian O'Connell]

When you have bazillions of standards, the ISBN is handy as a unique identifier 
(unique and/or primary key), as each version has different reference; otherwise 
no other significant use. For example, an excerpt from my database:

ISBN 9780580910234 BS EN 62368-1:2014

ISBN 9782832214053 IEC 62368-1 Edition 2.0 2014-02

ISBN 9782889106844 IEC 62368-1 Edition 1.0 2010-01

ISBN 97811554364159 CSA C22.2 NO. 60950-1B-07

Brian


From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Organize my standards => ISBN 13 Digit code

Greetings form Berkeley,
 
Does using the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 13 digit code work to 
organize your standard's collection?
 
Thank you in advance for comments,
 
Mr. Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist 
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.
 
 
 
 
-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] NFPA 407 Label use in Canada

[Brian O'Connell]

Dunno, as Canada supposedly uses the GHS, so the diamond would probably have 
the Hazcom 2012 requirements, and not the NFPA/OSHA numbers. FWIW, the severity 
rating numbers are reversed for NFPA701 vs HazCom2012, and there are numerous 
additional pictograms for GHS.

A while back, OSHA added GHS stuff to the MSDS requirements, but not aware of 
any DoT requirements for the pictograms.  Klingon hazardous chemicals marks all 
directly translate to 'drink all of this'.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] NFPA 407 Label use in Canada

Hi all,

I was wondering, does anyone have experience with using the NFPA 704 chemical 
diamond in Canada and in Canadian French?

I realize NFPA for U.S.A. concerns and possibly there is a Canadian equivalent.

Thanks,  Doug


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] CE Compliance [General Use]

[Brian O'Connell]

ISO17050-1,-2 provides a generic specification for the D of C. The directive 
itself clearly indicates the scope of the requirements (to include the various 
party responsibilities) for the mark and the declaration.

There is a difference between 'proof' and the basis for a presumption of 
conformity. 'Proof' is not necessarily part of the D of C.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) [mailto:andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CE Compliance [General Use]

Hi all,

Can a statement that a product is compliant with the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC 
or 2014/30/EU in the support documentation be regarded as proof of conformity 
or does there have to be a Declaration of Conformity which states compliance 
with the Directive via appropriate standards???
Also to refresh my memory does the DofC have to be supplied to the end user or 
can it be held by the products distributor in the EU??

Regards
Andy

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Mil-Std-704A

[Brian O'Connell]

Ametek. And the imperious power of Python. All hail the emperor.

Also look at Mil Std 1275.

Brian


From: Gray, David [mailto:dg...@tuvam.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Mil-Std-704A

Hi group, Have anyone performed Mil-Std-704A testing? I am looking for 
information on Mil-Std-704a section LDC 104. What test equipment do you use and 
any software associated with it.

Thanks In advance
David Gray

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Brian O'Connell]

Agree with Mr. Woodgate, but there are additional problems. A good reference 
for this is Mr. Perkin's presentations and articles on the subject. Current and 
voltage waveforms in ground and touch Type Tests for switch-mode power supplies 
are very complex; and can vary in amplitude, frequency, crest factor, and duty 
cycle over the range of rated operating conditions, and will seldom be 
sinusoidal.

There is also the issue of multiple parallel current paths for leakage, which 
can be from the test configuration, loads, input reference and impedance, and 
the various influences of the Dark Side.

For touch current, ground current, and the related WV Type Tests, there is no 
commercial test equipment available that can satisfy my requirements. Have 
built several iterations of the basic HBM nodes and signal conditioning over 
the eons that have served me well and identified problems that commercial test 
equipment would probably not reveal.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:30 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

Stray capacitances are different in the two modes, but probably only affect
measurements if there are relatively strong high-frequency components in the
current.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 25 April 2017 00:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

Hello.

I am using a Kikusui TOS3200 to measure touch current for a 61010-1
application.

The product is double-insulated and has accessible USB port connector shells
connected to the secondary circuit reference.

When using the TOS3200 in meter mode (using the two external meter leads), I
obtain different results than if I measure using the faceplate 5-15R outlet
and one external meter lead. For each test, I'm using the same measurement
networks when attempting to correlate the results.

When using the outlet, the meter lead connects to the USB shell.

When in meter mode, I am connecting one lead to the USB connector shell and
one lead to the power conductor of interest.

Has anyone experienced this with either the TOS3200 or other leakage/touch
current meters?

FWIW, the manual does not indicate any special considerations are needed
when using meter mode.

The instrument is in good condition and went through a calibration
verification in AUG2016.

The currents are within "Measurement range setting Range 1," but the meter
is set in auto range mode. I plan some additional experiments using defined
ranges, rather than auto in the next day or so.


Peter Tarver

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Interior lighting for large control panels

[Brian O'Connell]

29CFR1910.37 would probably be the 'root cause' for any lighting requirements 
in an ANSI standard, but is incomplete and ambiguous. Therefore, henceforth, 
and heretofore; per the largess of our federal government, the offering of 
29CFR1926.56 is scoped for illumination of the workplace.

It should be noted that the Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia has additional 
lighting requirements, most of which will be disallowed in a few years by our 
robot overlords.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Interior lighting for large control panels

All,

I just finished reviewing older editions of UL 508 (2005) and UL 508A (2003) 
for any requirements specifically for interior lighting of large cabinets.  
This would be for cabinets large enough to be a container with personnel doors. 
 I do see requirements for how to implement "maintenance lighting" if provided 
but not a requirement specifically stating maintenance lighting "shall be 
provided". Also, if the latest editions of the UL standards now include 
sections on risk assessment, I can see how a maintenance person who is 
inadvertently entrapped (e.g. wind closed the door) would then could become 
disoriented and egress lighting would be important to mitigate the hazard.  

Any guidance on mandatory lighting requirements for maintenance is greatly 
appreciated.

​Thanks,  Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Brian O'Connell]

U.S. DOE 430 has the test method, which is cited for ErP stuff. 'VI' has lower 
standby and higher efficiency per MEPS limits than 'V'.

Back to the OP. Type test conditions for ac mains input; that is, mains 
tolerances follow.

IEC61010-1, IEC60601-1 (Cat II), IEC62368-1±10% of rating

UL1012, UL5085, CSA66.x, CSA107.1, UL1741   120V for any rating up to 120V, 
240V for rating 220 to 240V, and others per clause 39

CSA250.13 +10% rating

Klingon 60950-1.1   any random voltage from 42V to 1500V

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification


Hi Scott:  

Thanks for the reference.  However,

“This mark does not serve as a consumer information label, but rather 
demonstrates the performance of the EPS when tested to the internationally 
supported test methods.”

Hmm.  If the mark does not serve as a consumer information label, who is it 
for?  Bragging mark (to other power supply manufacturers)?  

My power supply is marked “V.”  This appears to be more stringent than “VI.”  
True?

Best regards,
Still cynical Rich



From: Scott Aldous [mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

It is an efficiency marking for external power supplies. Current US requirement 
is level VI. You can download more info from the DOE here.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:31 AM, John Woodgate  wrote:
What does the letter V in a circle mean?
-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Brian O'Connell]

There are other meanings for this type of notation; typically three-phase 
stuff. See IEC60038 where scope is not a component power supply.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 8:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

Yes, that means the product works on the lower voltages and to use it on the 
higher voltages you have to move a switch. There is an IEC standard:

IEC 61293  
Marking of electrical equipment with ratings
related to electrical supply – Safety
requirements

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 4:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

Is something like this allowed?

100-115-120/208-220-230-240

Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something 
different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the device or 
is the manual good enough?

The Other Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EU Certifications Required for Surge PRotectors?

[Brian O'Connell]

Dunno, as have just used the standards referenced in annex G of 62368-1, or 
whatever component requirements that would be scoped per the various end-use 
equipment standards. Otherwise, perhaps materials and component and test 
requirements per EN62305-x or EN61643-x?

Brian


From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 1:30 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU Certifications Required for Surge PRotectors?

Hello All,

We have three products that we sell in USA. We are looking at getting these 
approved for sale in the EU. Our famous certification house says they do not 
create CB Reports for this kind of product. We are unfamiliar with any type of 
standards in the ROW for these products.

So, we are looking to find out what standards would apply, either EU-wide, or 
are there specific country requirements for these kinds of products?

Here is a brief explanation of the three products:

1.   POTS telephone surge protector.  The current model is a passive device 
with a pair of RJ-11 jacks for telephone in & out and a ground wire terminal.  
Listed by UL to UL497A, Standard for Protectors for Communication Circuits.
2.   CATV/Antenna surge protector.  The current model is a passive device 
with a pair of F-connectors and a ground wire terminal. Listed by UL to UL497B, 
Standard for Protectors for Data Communications and Fire Alarm Circuits
3.   LAN / Ethernet surge protector.  The current model is a passive device 
with a pair of RJ-45 jacks for Ethernet (CAT5) in & out and a ground wire 
terminal.  Listed by UL to UL497B.
These are all passive devices, no power supply required.
We are in California and would appreciate any comments related to what EU 
standards would apply and what test houses might be a good choice to getting 
these approvals.
Your comments and advice will be well appreciated.
Thank you.
Scott

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Brian O'Connell]

to the NRTL who gets to evaluate the product and 
determine what standards to apply.  Basically the same procedure for a NRTL lab 
certified product or NRTL field inspected/marked product.  If you don't have a 
listing of field inspection mark, well then you're going to be up for 
challenges with the local inspectors.  The various standards have their own 
scope definitions and the NRTL is going to review to determine which 
standard(s) are most appropriate.  In some cases it may not be simply black and 
white and it may be possible for the NRTL to choose between this standard or 
that standard.  I have run into this on several occasions.  The NRTLs cannot 
use NFPA 79 as a UL listing standard but they do use it as a reference standard 
alongside of a primary listing standard.  Typically they will refer to it for 
anyt
hing that qualifies as machinery.

For large industrial equipment  which has a "industrial control panel(s)" 
driving external motors and such, i.e. a system of multiple large components 
rather than a single self-contained product in a "box" , you may get away with 
an NRTL listing on the control panel assembly alone (i.e. UL 508A).   The 
control panel must be installed and used according to conditions specified in 
the NRTL report.Some of those larger systems may be the ones that fall into 
the category of custom built and certified by the manufacturer.

-Dave


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 1:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I never studied the VSA, but ships built for the Federation had panels in 
hallways that could be removed without a tool with high voltage plasma coils 
and flux capacitors behind them. And kids lived aboard these ships. Open 
Jeffares tubes without locked doorways where common. Space stations appeared to 
have locks on grain storage bins, but it didn't keep out domesticated pets 
(Tribbles). And there was that "one room" aboard the submarine Sea View that 
when anyone entered, we all knew that someone was going to get electrocuted. I 
guess the future makes no more sense than the present.

I am interested in the criteria inspectors use to decide if a product should 
meet these requirements or not. Or is it completely voluntary. I would imagine 
if NECA, NEMA and NFPA 79 is involved then inspectors are going to require 
following what they say.



Here is an example of what I'm looking for. You have two cut-off saws; one is 
about the size of a lunchbox, sits on a table, has a 1/8hp motor, and cuts 1/8" 
steel rods into 1 gram samples to be analyzed for carbon/sulfur content. The 
other is huge, weighs 1000lbs, floor mounted, 3-phase power, has a 35hp motor, 
and can cut an engine block into slabs for hardness testing and metallurgical 
analysis. Technically both do the same function. Both are considered "prep 
machines for analytical analysis". So then both can be considered "laboratory 
equipment" even though the big one is more messy and makes a lot more noise.  
Neither is marketed or sold for any other purpose even though they could be 
used to cut many things for many reasons.

Now let's say there are 10 more saws of different sizes and hp that fit between 
the two I mentioned above. At what point (criteria) do we apply the NFPA 79 and 
the like? At what point will inspectors expect to see a different set of design 
rules applied, or again, is it all voluntary how you design a product?

Thanks for the help.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Agree vehemently, but also codified per NECA 1-2015, and the various 
workmanship standards of the Vulcan Science Academy. UL508A does not do much 
for 'workmanship', just materials and construction and performance. And do not 
want to see a safety standard that tells me stuff has to be built pretty.

Brian


From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I think those types of products are engineered once, and then built and 
serviced for decades.  Overly neat designs lend themselves to less problems in 
production and service over the years, even when the original designers are no 
longer available to help.  I don't think there are any criteria which require 
that type of construction (aside from tradition).  It's like asking why every 
facilities engineer has a large keyring, a pocket protector containing no less 
than three writing instruments, and a AA mini Maglite on their belt.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Kunde, Brian <brian_ku...@lecotc.com> wrote:
I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a l

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Brian O'Connell]

Agree vehemently, but also codified per NECA 1-2015, and the various 
workmanship standards of the Vulcan Science Academy. UL508A does not do much 
for 'workmanship', just materials and construction and performance. And do not 
want to see a safety standard that tells me stuff has to be built pretty.

Brian


From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I think those types of products are engineered once, and then built and 
serviced for decades.  Overly neat designs lend themselves to less problems in 
production and service over the years, even when the original designers are no 
longer available to help.  I don't think there are any criteria which require 
that type of construction (aside from tradition).  It's like asking why every 
facilities engineer has a large keyring, a pocket protector containing no less 
than three writing instruments, and a AA mini Maglite on their belt.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Kunde, Brian  wrote:
I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large metal 
electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside the 
components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in these 
gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a small 
tag. 
 
Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
product must follow these construction rules?  
 
Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for the 
“greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle creativity, 
invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.
 
Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
The Other Brian
 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Radiated RF electromagnetic fields immunity test on ambulatory electrocardiographic system

[Brian O'Connell]

Agree, difficult to determine. This is a particular standard so the 
requirements of the standard 'over-rule' test requirements that not same in 
some, but not all, other standards.

Essential performance is defined by the scoped standards and the manufacturer's 
analysis that defines what conditions would result in an "unacceptable risk". 
Where a resultant degradation of performance makes the equipment "no longer 
suitable for intended use", then essential performance requirements are not 
met. And ' essential performance' drives your test matrix, and thus the design 
of Type Tests.

The authorities or bodies doing the product assessment should be consulted (or 
insulted) after you have performed your analysis and completed a type test 
design, but before the type testing.

Brian


From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated RF electromagnetic fields immunity test on 
ambulatory electrocardiographic system


You did not mention the product , but I assume that

IEC 60601-2-47:2012 concerns the basic safety and essential performance of 
AMBULATORY ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS

so you probably considering such a device.


I believe that if it is required to test essential performance, and for thorough
the specific type of equipment a patient signal is required,  a simulator is 
what you need to fulfil due diligence.
Especially if the device software autonomously draws any pertinent conclusions 
from the measured signals
and the signals are not for  visual monitoring only.

A classical cardiographic device is basically a DM oscilloscope with a high 
(assisted) CM suppression:
any device that can generate a large CM  and extremely small DM voltage 
simultaneously will do.

In no way the testing for the integrity of stored data can be the only 
compliance criterion here.

That said and concluded: I am not fully sure what your device is up to...

Gert Gremmen



Van: Silvia Diaz Monnier [mailto:silvi...@inti.gob.ar] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 28 maart 2017 20:12
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: [PSES] Radiated RF electromagnetic fields immunity test on 
ambulatory electrocardiographic system

Hi,

the Radiated RF electromagnetic fields immunity test according to IEC 
60601-2-47:2012, 202.6.2.3, makes an addition to IEC 60601-1-2:2007. This 
addition requires to check that there is no loss of any stored data. But 
collateral IEC 60601-1-2:2007, on 6.2.1.10 also requires to verify the 
essential performance is not affected by noise on a waveform in which the noise 
could interfere the diagnosis, treatment or monitoring.

Test setup of IEC 60601-2-47 for that test do not require to simulate the 
patient signal. Is that correct? 
If so, why 2-47 makes an addition instead of a replacement.
If not, why the test setup do not require to use a patient signal simulator to 
check essential performance as other particular standards IEC 60601-2-25 or IEC 
60601-2-27.

That is, taking into account both standards, is it neccesary to check both 
essential performance and the no loss of storaged data? Or only the no loss of 
any stored data.

Thanks for your help.
Best regards,
Silvia

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] 3D Printed Parts

[Brian O'Connell]

"...how the part is made?" -> the manufacturing process and technique? Stuff 
from the ASTM has a little of this, but are typically materials test methods 
used to verify the result of the manufacturing process. Otherwise 
'manufacturing' standards seem to be for the assembly of equipment. For 
example, ASTM F2946 does not talk about how to make a pipe seal, but does cover 
materials selection and assembly requirements for some types of seals for 
plastic pipe joins.

There are common tests like melt-flow index that can be done pre and post 
injection to verify the chemical changes of thermoplastic polymers resulting 
from the molding process. These test methods, and the myriad stuff in the UL746 
series, could be indicative of the effectiveness of the manufacturing process, 
whether injection molding or AM.

Some of the environmental standards indirectly effect the manufacturing process 
by eliminating or encouraging a process due to chemical restrictions of 
resultant by-products.

Then there is UL, which seems to have dived into AM during past several years; 
they have AM manufacturing process and technique audits as part of their FUS. 
They seem to be running the ASTM F42 committee. Do not know what TC261 has done 
lately, but both have been active for 5 to 15 years. Travelers' Insurance is 
not saying anything new, they are just now realizing the size and breadth of 
the AM market and want a piece of the pie of something that has been growing 
for about 20 years.

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:56 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 3D Printed Parts


Hi John A:

Still looking for opinions on the question though - do our Standards consider 
how the part is made?  

Consider the Y capacitor.  It must comply with the requirements in IEC 60384-1. 
 Type and routine tests.  Same as for a finished product.  

Supposedly, routine tests address the consistency of how the part or product is 
made.

Best regards,
Rich 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian O'Connell]

If a common pre-mature failure mode is electrolytics, then design probably has 
little or no margin or the SMPS is not being used per conditions of 
acceptability. But can be typical for an EOL failure mode to be leaky and 
reduced-value electrolytic caps where the bottom-line buyers are allowed to 
drive the production process. Have seen some designs where cap esr and loss 
tangent and WV ratings do not meet the actual operating conditions. Decent caps 
in reasonable designs will last 20 years to a 80% value, less on Klingon 
battlecruisers.

Increased MTBF from ‘derating’ can be deduced using the SR322 and MH217 stuff 
that is based on arrhenius equation. But this assumes that all of the component 
tolerances already have a decent margin for all of the operational parametrics.

X and Y caps are typically too small to do much to inrush current. The ‘dc bus’ 
for a SMPS is commonly the node after the PFC diode. Some designs use large cap 
values just after the rectifier, but before the PFC, so they can also affect 
inrush current.

Pop quiz - what SMPS single-fault condition has the most power and current and 
energy?

Brian


From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 10:02 AM
To: Brian O'Connell
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] AC/DC power conversion and system architecture (in-rush 
limiting, reliability, cabling)

Thanks for the details, Brian!  I have Pressman's 3rd edition and didn't see 
any significant discussion of initial transient/charging behaviors, but perhaps 
haven't read closely enough yet.
My experience w/50% FL de-rating has been different but seems related to your 
comments regarding component temperatures/airflow.  One supplier has public 
qualification data that includes e-cap lifetimes versus load % and ambient 
temperature and has told me that e-cap stress is their biggest reliability 
concern.  Another supplier has provided predicted reliability at different load 
%'s (but not demonstrated).  I am fairly familiar w/HALT and SR322 (had a 
reliability engineer role at one time). 
For the in-rush behavior, I have thought it to be a function of the primary 
side circuit design (capacitors & current limiters) in the 1ms range.  Did you 
mean AC bus or DC bus charging for the multiple cycles case?  I am interested 
to do a bit more testing of an existing design under different load conditions 
based on your description.  I have disassembled supplies from different 
suppliers in the past in the 100W to 300W load range in order to compare 
input/output capacitors and overall designs.  On the primary side, all 
capacitances have been within a 2X range (80uF to 164uF @ 420/450V) and on the 
output side a 10X range (1000uF to 1uF and with very different e-cap 
voltage de-rating from 1.5x to 7x of Vout).
For the upstream protection, there are definitely differences in CB performance 
whether thermal or combined thermal/magnetic. Depending on the installation 
location, I have seen instances of local supplementary protection (UL1077 CB's) 
in addition to branch protection, so I am wanting to make sure the whole power 
distribution system is well understood for a range of system designs/sizes.
 Thanks again!
-Adam

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Brian O'Connell <oconne...@tamuracorp.com> 
wrote:
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 9:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] AC/DC power conversion and system architecture (in-rush 
limiting, reliability, cabling)
 
Long post from this weekend's studies I have been thinking about power 
distribution system tradeoffs for large systems where multiple AC/DC power 
supplies are used.  Surveying 5 or 6 suppliers, picking an arbitrary 100W - 
200W range for comparison, I see in-rush current specs with a very wide range 
(14A to 80A) and a bit of variation in the specified voltages.  Some like to 
specify at 200VAC, others at 230VAC -- all are auto-switching universal input, 
so the datasheet numbers must be scaled to make an equivalent comparison.
The first one or two cycles are mostly to fill up the DC bus caps. Some PFC 
implementations could increase the period of inrush to three to ten cycles. 
That said, the peak for the inrush current is (at least for my employer’s 
stuff) is well under 1mSec for one or two cycles. Auto-switch designs are not 
same as ‘universal’ input. Some auto-switch units will also have another inrush 
condition during transition from 120V to 230V input. In any case, the inrush 
number is useless unless for the least favorable normal operating condition, 
which is typically 230V.
Targeting a 50-70% of full load rating for improved reliability seems 
reasonable from reviewing qualification data, as well as past discussions with 
two suppliers.  That will in some cases increase the number of power supplies 
in the system based on mounting location, ease of manufacture and cabling for a 
larg

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

[Brian O'Connell]

From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 9:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] AC/DC power conversion and system architecture (in-rush 
limiting, reliability, cabling)

Long post from this weekend's studies I have been thinking about power 
distribution system tradeoffs for large systems where multiple AC/DC power 
supplies are used.  Surveying 5 or 6 suppliers, picking an arbitrary 100W - 
200W range for comparison, I see in-rush current specs with a very wide range 
(14A to 80A) and a bit of variation in the specified voltages.  Some like to 
specify at 200VAC, others at 230VAC -- all are auto-switching universal input, 
so the datasheet numbers must be scaled to make an equivalent comparison.
The first one or two cycles are mostly to fill up the DC bus caps. Some PFC 
implementations could increase the period of inrush to three to ten cycles. 
That said, the peak for the inrush current is (at least for my employer’s 
stuff) is well under 1mSec for one or two cycles. Auto-switch designs are not 
same as ‘universal’ input. Some auto-switch units will also have another inrush 
condition during transition from 120V to 230V input. In any case, the inrush 
number is useless unless for the least favorable normal operating condition, 
which is typically 230V.
Targeting a 50-70% of full load rating for improved reliability seems 
reasonable from reviewing qualification data, as well as past discussions with 
two suppliers.  That will in some cases increase the number of power supplies 
in the system based on mounting location, ease of manufacture and cabling for a 
large physical structure.  Voltage drop on the DC output is another parameter 
that affects power supply location.

Reduced FL will not necessarily increase MTBF; and for many SMPS designs, 
output load does not necessarily affect the peak inrush current, but can affect 
the period of initial high input current. Input V and source Z are the dominate 
factors for inrush, but for power supplies that have a de-rating for some 
operating conditions, the 50% load can be an interesting test condition.

I'd appreciate feedback about in-rush current limiting hardware at the system 
level.  I've seen power supply specifications with block diagrams that identify 
in-rush limiting circuitry which I expect are mostly either NTC's or planar 
surge resistors. At the system level, it looks like three main options:  a 
hybrid surge resistor/bypass relay module (European suppliers(?)), a softstart 
controller (targets motor applications) and switched outlet PDU's for data 
center applications.  I think the hybrid module is best for a largely 
capacitive inputs and these modules' datasheets give a capacitive load rating 
(1500uF up to 1uF from what I've seen so far).  Network access for the 
smart switched outlet PDU is probably not an option for the system design.
‘System’ level inrush limiters could cause problems for some edge cases. If 
input current rise or voltage rise goes non-monotonic, some SMPS designs will 
not be happy. While NTCs are typical solutions to SMPS inrush limiting, there 
are obvious problems where input power can be cycled after the unit has reached 
operating temperature, and for efficiency. The common solution is a relay 
across the input NTC, so the NTC never stays warm, and less power and less heat.
Have seen a few soft-start functions of control ICs that resulted in weird 
poles and zeros. And some were indeterminate given certain input conditions. So 
depends on the design and how used
Inrush-limited PDUs can be problematic for both EMI problems and safety hazards 
where the inrush limiting solution is not closely mapped to characteristics of 
the particular power conversion equipment.
There also look to be moderate cost differences by technology type/application.
Any good reference material beyond supplier datasheets and application notes?  
I've done some searching this weekend and have seen one general lighting 
reference with estimates for rectifier/PFC topologies of being 30-100x of 
operating current for in-rush, which doesn't mate well with how the circuit 
breakers are spec'd (10x to 30x for the millisecond range in-rush transient).  
I've also seen a few data center-oriented papers and quite a few pages/papers 
for inductive motor in-rush applications which is not what I am considering.

The Pressman book on SMPS design is recommended. Many component power supply 
mfrs have published guides for the end-use equipment designer.

There are special considerations for motor power ≥ ½ HP in both the way things 
are connected per NEC, and for power supply design considerations.

Branch circuits typically use CBs for current interrupt, which are less 
affected by short-interval overloads.

Any suppliers of preference worth evaluating for in-rush limiting for a 12-16A 
operating current application with common AC/DC open/closed frame supplies?
Is the 50-70% FL de-rating 

Re: [PSES] Moter Overload Protection with Supplemental Protector

[Brian O'Connell]

Ted Eckert could probably answer this more completely, as has been rumored that 
he sleeps with a copy of NFPA79 beneath pillow, and has his phone configured 
where 911 auto-dials members of TC108.

Motor protection - inverse time breaker sized to 250% of FLC, see table 430.52; 
but for 1/2 hp, NEC wants 14 awg in the raceway.

FLC should be per tables 430.247, 430.248, 430.250, 430.6(A)(1).
FLA is per the motor's nameplate rating; and is used to determine conductor 
requirements per 430.22 and branch ckt overcurrent sizing per 430.52 and 430.62.

If motor indicates FLC on nameplate, ignore the HP rating and use FLC number.

As both of your scenarios are powered from OC-protected branch ckt, 
'supplemental' current interrupt devices would be ok per code, but would not 
recommend for some motors. If you are wired into a 'derived' ckt, you would 
also need to assess the limits of the materials. Branch ckt protection devices 
are for short ckt only - they should not be intended to protect for motor 
overloads. Probably preaching to choir, but article 240 is *not* scoped for 
motors, and many do not want to use article 430 to avoid the bigger FLA and FLC 
current protection requirements.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 10:49 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Moter Overload Protection with Supplemental Protector

Greetings experts.

This question applies to both North America rules (NEC) keeping in mind the 
rest of the world including Europe BUT my example will be for a 115Vac 60hz 
device.

My example product is used in the Workplace but not typically in an industrial 
environment (if that matters). It's not a home appliance or power tool.

Consider an End Product powered by 115Vac 60hz from a standard 16AWG power cord 
with a NEMA-5-15 plug, from a 15 amp receptacle (15 amp Branch Circuit).  
Within this product is a 1/2 hp motor with an Full-Load Amp (FLA) rating of 5 
amp. The motor can run continuous in this application. The motor does not have 
integrated over temperature protection.

Scenario 1: If this was a single phase AC motor, we would have to provide 
Overload Protection. According to the NEC, a fuse or circuit breaker no larger 
than 6.25 amp (FLA x 125%) can be used (lets ignore start up current for now).  
Can this Overload Protector be a "Supplemental Protector" (UL 1077 circuit 
breaker) or does it have to be a UL 489 circuit breaker or some other type of 
device?

Scenario 2: If an Inverter, Frequency Drive, PWM Motor Controller, etc. is used 
to drive an AC or PWM DC motor (1/2hp), the Branch Circuit is not stressed by 
Motor Start currents since the motor is soft started. So for example, if we 
have a 1/2hp 90Vdc motor that is driven by a PWM controller, can the Overload 
Protector be a Supplemental Protector?  If not, what does it have to be and why?

Scenario 3: If the inverter, frequency drive, PWN motor controller, etc. 
provides Overload Protection for the motor, do we even need to add an 
additional Overload protector?  Can we use a single Supplemental protector for 
the entire product and not worry about the motor? In this scenario, I assume 
the motor controller would have to be Listed by a safety agency and 
specifically call out the overload protection feature in the datasheet.


What other concerns might I need to know about? I'm trying to make sense of the 
NEC article 430 but it doesn't seem to address motors driven by Motor 
Controllers. Can I assume that when a motor is driven by a Motor Controller 
(inverter, freq. drive, PWM, etc.) that the NEC 430 does not apply because the 
motor is not being directly powered by a Branch Circuit?

Thanks to all in advance.
The Other Brian






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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

-

[PSES] CISPR35

[Brian O'Connell]

For the good people of the EMC Kingdom, such as the inhabitants of CISPR SC I.

Gazing into your crystal balls, any guess on OJ publication and/or national 
committee harmonization with CISPR35? Will this require a 2d edition for global 
adoption and whirled peas?

Thanks,
Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

[Brian O'Connell]

Mr. Woodgate is offering a rational interpretation in the face of an 
inconsistent and confused bureaucracy. The problem is that the import 
authorities may or may not agree for all cases of related equipment. Depending 
on the particular state’s import authorities and the particular equipment being 
imported, they have previously disallowed the RoHS ‘exemption’ for inverters 
and/or combiner boxes; and one such rejected assembly had a combiner box that 
was attached to a PV Panel. 

Confused in an anomalous wet desert,
Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

I agree with your interpretation. I don't think it means that only an inverter 
specified by type number by the manufacturer of the PV module is exempt. What 
would be the point of such a restriction (not that EU regulations necessarily 
have a point!)?

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 9:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

Thanks Brian.
 
I cannot find an 'example of' or a 'definition' as to what constitutes 
'specifically designed' within the directive.
 
If I read the exemption clause below, it can be interpreted that 'equipment 
specifically designed' (i.e. micro inverter)..as 'part of another type of 
equipment' (i.e. PV module).
 
Note that a micro inverter (for all intents and purposes) can only be used with 
a PV module and cannot be used with any other device (i.e. computer 
peripheral), thus it could (or at least should) be classified as 'equipment 
specifically designed'. 
 
(c) equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part 
of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope 
of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that 
equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed 
equipment;
 
Any further help from you directly or from the EMC-PSTC team on obtaining a 
formal clarification is greatly appreciated.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Regan
 
-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy
 
No. Only for panel materials used in the PV film, and is not a system-level 
exemption. By definition, substances and materials specified in the RoHS and 
REACH directives are considered harmful, so no exclusion for materials in other 
stuff.
 
Can you offer an 'acceptable' rationale in your D of C for the import 
authorities?
 
Brian
 
 
From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy
 
Greetings everyone, 
 
Regarding the RoHS recast directive; DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011, on the restriction of the use of 
certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast) – 
see attached.
 
Article 2 states:
Scope
 
4. This Directive does not apply to:
 
(i)   photovoltaic panels intended to be used in a system that 
is designed, assembled and installed by professionals for permanent use at a 
defined location to produce energy from solar light for public, commercial, 
industrial and residential applications;
 
1.   Does anyone know if this includes micro-inverters?  I 
would assume so as the PV module then becomes an ‘AC PV module’ but maybe not 
….. as there are more RoHS concerning components in a micro-inverter than in a 
DC PV module. 
 
2.   Does this exemption include combiner boxes? Does the 
exemption include String inverters? Rest of the BOS? I would assume so as it 
also states:
 
(c) equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part 
of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope 
of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that 
equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed 
equipment;
 
Most installations do not have such specific restrictions on the usage of which 
inverters are to be used for DC panels, etc.
 
The directive does mention the following:
(17) The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union’s key 
objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to 
environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the 
use of energy from renewable sources ( 4 ) recalls that there should be 
coherence between those objectives

Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

[Brian O'Connell]

No. Only for panel materials used in the PV film, and is not a system-level 
exemption. By definition, substances and materials specified in the RoHS and 
REACH directives are considered harmful, so no exclusion for materials in other 
stuff.

Can you offer an 'acceptable' rationale in your D of C for the import 
authorities?

Brian


From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

Greetings everyone, 

Regarding the RoHS recast directive; DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011, on the restriction of the use of 
certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast) – 
see attached.

Article 2 states:
Scope

4. This Directive does not apply to:

(i)   photovoltaic panels intended to be used in a system that 
is designed, assembled and installed by professionals for permanent use at a 
defined location to produce energy from solar light for public, commercial, 
industrial and residential applications;

1.   Does anyone know if this includes micro-inverters?  I 
would assume so as the PV module then becomes an ‘AC PV module’ but maybe not 
….. as there are more RoHS concerning components in a micro-inverter than in a 
DC PV module. 

2.   Does this exemption include combiner boxes? Does the 
exemption include String inverters? Rest of the BOS? I would assume so as it 
also states:

(c) equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part 
of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope 
of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that 
equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed 
equipment;

Most installations do not have such specific restrictions on the usage of which 
inverters are to be used for DC panels, etc.

The directive does mention the following:
(17) The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union’s key 
objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to 
environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the 
use of energy from renewable sources ( 4 ) recalls that there should be 
coherence between those objectives and other Union environmental legislation. 
Consequently, this Directive should not prevent the development of renewable 
energy technologies that have no negative impact on health and the environment 
and that are sustainable and economically viable.

Can someone interpret the bold underlined statement above? It leads to a vague 
interpretation me thinks.

Thanks in advance.

Regan Arndt

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

[Brian O'Connell]

Autonomously-controlled windows could be a significant hazard for some of the 
‘normal’ operating conditions per NHTSA.

A guestimate based on two previous submittals to VCA and other such bodies 
exceeds $80 USD per vehicle.

Brian


From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Shutting down automatically while driving would not be good.  Just lower all 
the windows automatically.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

Hi Bob- do you know what percentage of the 300 are accidental vs intentional?   

Maybe instead of just alerting, the car should shut down upon reaching some 
measured CO limit.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Robert Johnson  wrote:
In the US we sell about 15 million cars/yr and have about 300 deaths/yr from 
automotive carbon monoxide. Since DC power is available, the horn is available, 
packaging is not needed, installation can be integrated in the auto 
manufacturing, I estimate an auto CO detector would cost below $10/car, about 
what a household one does. 
It would cost $500,000/death to install CO detectors in cars. Is this a 
reasonable expenditure to mandate?
Bob Johnson

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Acoustic Warning - sound pressure level

[Brian O'Connell]

Vehicular audio waring is covered in UN regulation #28 and NHTSA (DOT) 812-209.

Fire alarm stuff can be found in UL1480 and CAN S525; and other stuff in 
UL464A, UL1971, CAN S526; but have no direct experience with application of 
these particular standards.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 3:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Acoustic Warning - sound pressure level



​All,

I recall some time ago reading information on minimum sound pressure level for 
acoustic warning in noisy environments.  It was possibly in an IEC standard or 
a handbook making recommendations. As I recall the recommendation was something 
like warning bells, horns and klaxons should be 3 to 6 dB SPL above the ambient 
noise level in the immediate work area. If this is not possible or operators 
may be wearing hearing protection, then visual warnings should also be 
included.  

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Thanks,  Doug



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Do it yourself safety reports?

[Brian O'Connell]

Practical for you and me? Yes.

Practical for someone that has to ask? Perhaps, but probably not. One should be 
on intimate terms with the TRF, understand the meaning of declarations per RED, 
RoHS, etc, and be willing to compile and defend a Technical Construction File.

Brian


From: Curtis McNamara [mailto:mcnam...@umn.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Do it yourself safety reports?

A client is asking if it is practical to do their own 60950 safety reports for 
CE.
The device is battery powered, low power RF (they would have complete EMC 
testing done at a lab). 
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Thanks for all the great past advice!
    Curt

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Double Pole Mains Switches, Cord Connected Products

[Brian O'Connell]

Interesting that North America code generally has 'polarized' connectors for 
Class II stuff, and all ANSI/CSA standards scoped for NFPA70/CSA C22.1 (at 
least ones that for employer's products) require touch/leakage current to be 
measured both L/N normal and L/N reversed.

DP input switch for both class I and II construction is normative for my stuff 
that connects to AC mains.

Brian


From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 11:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Double Pole Mains Switches, Cord Connected Products

Scott, Mike et al,

   The single pole switch is intended to be in the line side of the 
input power; in the case where the polarity is reversed, the emc components can 
be powered with line voltage on both Line and  Neutral side increasing the 
electric shock touch current and protective conductor current.  

   Safety standards need to specify testing in both Normal and Reverse 
polarity to ensure that the touch current and/or protective current is still 
within the limits specified under this condition.  

   Use of a double pole switch ensures that this doubling of the 
touch current from the emc filter doesn’t happen.  

   This same condition occurs with a single fuse in one pole of the 
input circuit.  
 
:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

p.perk...@ieee.org

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 5:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Double Pole Mains Switches, Cord Connected Products

Some national plugs may not be reversible but those countries also widely 
acceptable to 2-pin Europe plugs or 3-pin Schuko plugs that are reversible.

The safety standards do not need DPDT switch in compliance.  Even though the 
single pole is not restricted to be on the live wire.  Thus the switch on 
neutral wire is still considered acceptance.

Needless to say, single pole switch on live wire and DPDT switch are considered 
the best practice in safety perspective.  As I see less and less this practice 
is implemented in the latest products due to no support from harmonised safety 
standards.

Regards,

Scott


From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - 
Reply-To: 
Date: Sunday, 29 January 2017 at 12:16 AM
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Double Pole Mains Switches, Cord Connected Products

Because of the lack of polarization on many 2 pin European plugs, I have always 
recommended double pole mains switches on cord connected products for the EU 
market. However, I am not finding support for this in standards such as 
60335-1, 60601-1 or 62368-1.

Your thoughts will be appreciated, oh experienced group, on:
--safety issue involved
--standards that do require double pole (sometimes referred to as "all-pole") 
mains switches.

Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] ISO 13485-2016

[Brian O'Connell]

All hail the Goddess of Search. March 2019 per

https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/fp=204:110:0FSP_PROJECT,FSP_ORG_ID:37957,581003=10ED77AEC2D379A0A511B4BB99F861487

Brian


From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:17 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ISO 13485-2016

All,
I am helping a client with medical device manufacturing QMS.  ISO 13485 - 2016 
has been released however 2016 version is not listed as harmonized with EU.  
Does anyone know if 2016 version is acceptable now for CE approval?
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/medical-devices_en

Regards,
Stephen

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] ISO 13485-2016

[Brian O'Connell]

Forgot to say that, while the 2016 edition can be used now, accreditation and 
reports per 2016 edition dependent on your particular registrar update 
schedule, lunar phase, and planetary alignments relative to the Klingon 
Home-world.

https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:110:0FSP_PROJECT:37957=1B04E3A6EA841FF02235DCA86690F765D

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:27 AM
To: 'Stephen Whalen'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] ISO 13485-2016

All hail the Goddess of Search. March 2019 per

https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/fp=204:110:0FSP_PROJECT,FSP_ORG_ID:37957,581003=10ED77AEC2D379A0A511B4BB99F861487

Brian


From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:17 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ISO 13485-2016

All,
I am helping a client with medical device manufacturing QMS.  ISO 13485 - 2016 
has been released however 2016 version is not listed as harmonized with EU.  
Does anyone know if 2016 version is acceptable now for CE approval?
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/medical-devices_en

Regards,
Stephen

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

[Brian O'Connell]

This discussion thread referenced the automation of tests, not the acceptance 
of data. This is important where three or four different tests are being run on 
10 to 20 units. Test data in 'raw' engineering units from a traceable 
instrument under controlled Type Test conditions is a different issue from 
process automation of data acquisition.

Test automation had once been a recurring discussion during annual lab audits. 
My reply is typically that the test conditions met requirements of IEC XYZ, and 
lab and equipment meet ISO17025 tracibility, and here is the 'raw' test data, 
so please go away...

And any case, methinks Doug is tracking this problem well and that NRTL 
engineers would be wise to understand what can be accomplished with this test 
data process. Time to step into the century number 21.

Brian

From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 1:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule
 
I worked for a NRTL for years, and no reviewer worth his salt ever accepted an 
equation for thermal time constant or steady-state temperature.  Just the data, 
Ma'am
 
Brian Gregory
720-450-4933


-- Original Message --
From: Doug Powell 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 11:38:30 -0700
Richard,
 
I have tried a number of approaches in the past.  Given that most products are 
quite complex with regard to all the potential heat sources/sinks and 
interfaces I decided that anything along the lines of FEA is impractical.  
 
I also tried the time constants idea which is analogous to RC time constants.  
I found this works well enough if you have a good amount of history with the 
product itself.  Otherwise, due to the non-linear nature of the problem, it is 
difficult to predict end time or temperature until 3 to 4 time constants have 
already passed.
 
I tried using the slope of ΔT to estimate when the end of the test is pending.
 
The next attempt was to dig in a little following the equations V = Voe-(t/RC) 
and V = Vo[1-e-(t/RC)] where I substitute V for the the various temperatures 
(Vo = the absolute value of the temperature delta from start to end), C is 
analogous to product mass and R is the Rtheta of the product. With a little 
testing history, you can assume the composition of the product is similar for 
other products designed by the same company (copper, steel, plastics, air, 
liquids, etc), I solved for RC and then rearranged the algebra to solve for t 
which is time.  There are a couple of problems in that I am still unable to 
come up with a general purpose solution.  First this is a simultaneous solution 
of several unknowns which is not conducive to quick on the fly solutions.  This 
is especially true when you are in the early stages of a temperature run when 
things are still moving quickly.  As you know extrapolating outside an existing 
dataset is risky, especially when nonlinearities are invo!
 lved.  
 
I am now going back to basics.  Q = Cp * m * abs(T2-T1)
 
q = heat energy in Joules
m = mass of the product
Cp = specific heat of the product
T1 = The initial temperature of the product at the start
T2 = The final temperature of the product
abs() is used to correct for heating or cooling
 
With the start/final temperatures and mass taken from prior tests I can extract 
a Cp for a particular product. Understanding one watt is Joules/second you can 
factor into the equation time.    My thought is that the composition of a 
product from the same engineering group with have similar ratios of copper, 
iron, plastics, etc.  And then I may be able to solve for total test time or 
final temperature.  Not forgetting that the air mass and equipment of the 
environmental chamber is part of the big picture.
 
I have not fully tested this method yet, but so far I remain hopeful.  If this 
works, I plan to build a small database of product Cp values.  I would be 
interested to know if anyone else gives this a go and how as yet undiscovered 
problems are overcome.
 
 
-Doug
 

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
 
 
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Richard Nute  wrote:
> We have to consider that the temperatures sought are not of
> metrological value, but to
> to establish a safe/non-safe result.

Yes!

> The mathematical limit of an exponential rise is easy to
> estimate, once a few timed samples are available,

I haven't been able to come up with an equation, even though I have tried and 
sought help from folks who are more knowledgeable than me in the field of 
thermodynamics.  Please tell us your methodology.

Best wishes for the New Year!
Rich

-

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

Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

[Brian O'Connell]

Correct, so for multiple duty cycles or varying loading intervals, possible 
solution would be to use windowed average (queue size based on 1/f and dT/dt 
and previous sample interval) with a 'delayed' least-squares fit thru the 
maxima to see if flat. [hear the ghosts of my math instructors yelling at me to 
use polynomial regression].

Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 3:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

Standards can't necessarily cover every possibility. For cyclical effects, I 
would say that conditions are stable if two successive temperature maxima are 
equal (within a reasonable tolerance). This doesn't necessarily work if more 
than one cycle frequency is involved, in which case you have to look for the 
repetition of the whole sequence, which might take a long time. 

For example, a 10 minute cycle and a 12 minute cycle give a sequence that 
repeats every 60 minutes. 

If you are lucky.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 11:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

Thanks!

I'll take a look.  I generally log with LabView or direct into an Excel 
spreadsheet, maybe I can get an Excel VB Script to post expected times.  

One of the concerns I am dealing with now is how to determine stability when 
there are cyclical operations going on.  I am using the prescribed stability 
criteria and using this on the minima/maxima of the temperature variations as 
it moves up and down.  Funny, as I sit starting at thermal data moving in this 
way, I think of it "porpoise-ing" up and down.

All the best,  Doug

-Doug

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

[Brian O'Connell]

Rough pseudo code for my transformer algorithm for logging and monitoring 
temperatures for normal operating conditions:

time constant = (material ksp * mass) / (24*60)
sample interval = time constant / (mass * material kx)
breakpoint flags = false

if sample interval < min interval
   sample interval = min interval

interrupts:
   temperatures to circular buffer
   log samples and windowed averages to network storage
   
loop:
   for each channel
  verify exponential and set breakpoint flag for each channel
  update thermal lag time
  adjust sample interval if time constant > thermal lag/2
   find least dT/dt channel
   find largest thermal lag time per ambient time per matching indices of 
windowed means
   if all breakpoint flags
  indicate done
  
Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

John,

I agree with the common sense approach and use it frequently.  It's always 
interesting to me how I can look at a screen plot of 60 thermocouples and in a 
second or two decide, "yes this is stable".  I can even estimate how much time 
it will take to become stable as a test nears the end (usually about the time 
of a lunch break).  More than once I have attempted to write an algorithm to 
make the same projection and have failed every time.  The non-linearities and 
multiple heat sources & sinks makes this nearly impossible.

On a side-bar, Voltaire is quoted as saying "Common sense is not so common", 
which mean he is man with similar sensibilities as myself.  

Those who know me personally have often heard me say what I consider to be a 
corollary, "Common sense is usually neither.. common or sensible".  


-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:30 AM, john Allen  
wrote:
Minor comment:
Having been the Secretary to a number of BSI committees many years ago, I
sympathise with Ralph's last para as the Chairmen can be even worse than the
other Members - they "know what they know" and it can take an awful lot of
"effort" to "persuade" them that they need to "think again" - once had to
refuse to publish a Chairman's version of a new standard because it did not
meet the basic BSI guidelines for how a product standard should be written,
until I had rewritten a large part of it to make it at least reasonably
"testable" for the EMC-related requirements - a little (sometimes a lot!) of
subject knowledge is required to set appropriate test and assessment
requirements!

Unfortunately, nowadays, a large number of Committee Secretariats appear to
employ non-SME staff to run their committees and so they can be lead by the
nose by the Chairmen.

FWIW, in the context of this thread, I used to use "commonsense" in deciding
when the temperatures appeared to have stabilized - -taking into account
where the probes were located - particularly  when the observed temperatures
were substantially below the relevant Insulation Class limits.

John E Allen
W. London, UK

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: 06 January 2017 17:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

For what it's worth, we measure and log temperatures at 1 minute intervals
(sometimes quicker, depending on what is being tested) and graph each data
set in Excel and look at the curves.  When they go flat (even with some
ripple), we call it stable.  Good enough for all the agencies we work with.
And I like the term steady-state much better, but what it is called isn't
terribly important as I see it.  The temperature can be stable (no further
increase observable) over a period, even if it's oscillating slightly around
a mean value.  The mean value could be the average of the last 20 or so
reading for instance.  It requires some judgement.

I empathize with John's experience about it taking "many tellings" on a
committee to get something right.  I have stopped just short of the Makita
Khrushchev United Nations technique at times!

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric

-

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


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

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

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

For 

Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

[Brian O'Connell]

Safety standards, for this subject, are dogmatic and ritualistically procedural 
and do not pertain to basic principles of thermodynamics. Thermal equilibrium 
requires a temporal measurements of two or three systems, where it has been 
verified no heat is being transferred between the systems..

As you indicated, this stuff is done by automated data acquisition systems 
(where my computer typically logs data at 10mSec to 10 Sec intervals). So very 
obvious when the system has stabilized when compared to the ambient 
temperature's dT/dt. None of my lab computers have complained about the number 
of data points being logged. And humans need to be removed from manual data 
logging. Decently written instrument-control code will find stuff that the weak 
and puny humans will never be able to observe.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 2:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

All,

The following has always been confusing for me, 

For those tests that require the DUT to reach thermal equilibrium, thermal 
equilibrium is considered to be achieved if after three consecutive temperature 
measurements taken at intervals of 10% of the previously elapsed duration of 
the test but not less than 15 min, indicate no change in temperature greater 
than ±2°C (3.6°F).

The portion of text "taken at intervals of 10% of the previously elapsed 
duration of the test" has been around for some time and it exists in several 
safety standards, the "not less than 15 min" can be other values like 10 
minutes, 5 minutes, etc.  I believe the intent is to minimize the number of 
data points being recorded for extremely long thermal tests. The idea makes 
sense when I think back to the days of manual data logging.  Nowadays, with the 
advent of automated data logging, this point probably becomes moot.  Still, the 
phrase bugs me and I would like to understand how this might be interpreted.

First the "previously elapsed duration" could indicate either the duration of 
the entire test or the duration of the last logging interval.  

Second, over a long test 10% of the previous interval very quickly shortens the 
logging intervals to something ridiculously small.  For example, in three data 
points interval of 1440 minutes (24 hours) will be reduced to 144 minutes (2.4 
hours) and then 14.4 minutes, at which point the 15 minute minimum takes over.

I generally record at a much shorter intervals, even if for several days and 
check for equilibrium at a modulus of 15 minutes, as required.

​Thanks,  Doug
​ 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UL Follow Up Service vs CIG Inspection

[Brian O'Connell]

The new (U.S.) OSHA NRTL directive has been essentially harmonized with 
ISO17025 and ISO17065, so the European (ECS) and OSHA factory and product 
surveillance programs are now more similar than not.

While CIG 021 covers 'routine' product tests, the ECS system is not necessarily 
focused on product surveillance, but more for verification and validation of 
factory processes. That is, the controlling document for product surveillance 
audits will be the CBTR and/or some internal construction document associated 
with the product's test-mark license.

It should be noted that the CIG 022 form, which covers some generic product 
information, is not exactly the same for each CCA/NRTL/NB; so UL's CIG022 may 
have stuff not found in the TUVR CIG022 form, etc. Some of this stuff tracks 
the IECEE documents. Forms, OSM decisions, etc are here: 
http://www.enec.com/doc/second.php?group=104

Brian


From: Matthew Larkin [mailto:m.lar...@samsung.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 12:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] UL Follow Up Service vs CIG Inspection

Hi Vincent

The aim of both UL follow up and CIG is essentially the same to try and ensure 
consistency in the product from a product  safety prospective. So there is no 
difference in the product that the certification body tested and what leaves 
the factory in 12+ months time etc 

The NRTL can chose how this is assessed to meet there and OSHA requirements. 

Best Regards

Matthew


Matthew Larkin


From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 02 January 2017 15:53
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL Follow Up Service vs CIG Inspection

Hi all,

Happy 2017.

As I am a beginner in product safety, may I know what is the differences 
between UL Follow Up Service (to maintain UL Markings such as UL Listed and UL 
Recognized) and CIG Inspection ?

Does it mean that when a production line is found to be compliance after UL 
Follow Up Service, only a little more tasks are needed to be done for 
compliance during CIG Inspection and vice versa ?

Hope to hear from you soon. 

Thank you and have a blessed 2017.

Vincent 

Regards, Vincent

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UL Follow Up Service vs CIG Inspection

[Brian O'Connell]

UL's FUS is ‘designed’ to meet U.S. OSHA and/or Canada SCC factory _and_ 
product surveillance requirements. The specific requirements for test equipment 
and product construction criteria for the FUS audit will be found in the 
Section General for each respective UL file volume.

The CIG (023 is the actual report) is part of the supposedly harmonized IECEE 
system for validation and verification of the factory process, and does not 
necessarily define product construction. The CIG factory inspection document 
series is 021 through 024 and are a maintained by OSM (FIP) decisions.

Klingon factory inspections will require that technicians demonstrate 
proficiency with the bat'leth.

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] UL Follow Up Service vs CIG Inspection



Hi Vincent:

As near as I can tell, FUS is for the equipment, CIG is for the factory.  

If the factory doesn’t meet the unpublished requirements that are implied in 
the CIG, then there is some doubt that the factory has sufficient control over 
the manufacturing process that the equipment will meet the FUS requirements.  
(A CSA inspector found CSA certification labels had spilled on the factory 
floor; our factory did not have sufficient control of the labels!)

With best wishes for the New Year,
Rich

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] British question, about a BS1363 plug-in power supply

[Brian O'Connell]

Ahem, please forgive me NFPA, for I have sinned...

Wired the 120V service to my shop building in ring topology. Single 240V/40A 
breaker to the ring where enters building, and each 20A outlet has a 12A 'T' 
hi-break line fuse. The only hi-X load is small drill press, so no motor issues.

The 240V building wiring is 'traditional', and was done by a boring and 
competent electrician.

Have also seen ring wiring in Ireland, which was probably one of Cromwell's 
programs

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 10:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] British question, about a BS1363 plug-in power supply

An interesting design philosophy which has benefits,  but it seems to rely on 
pluggable appliances having an appropriate size fuse in their cordage.

You could for example wire an entire house with 3 or 4 of these circuits, 
rather than a panel full of circuit breakers so common in N.Am

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
    


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 1:50 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] British question, about a BS1363 plug-in power supply

A 32 A breaker connects to a loop of 2.5 mm^2 3-core cable (line, neutral and 
protective). A large number (there is a limit but it's complicated) of
13 A wall outlets can be connected to this ring, relying on diversity to keep 
the total current below 32 A.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 7:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] British question, about a BS1363 plug-in power supply

What's a "ring circuit" ?


Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 12:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] British question, about a BS1363 plug-in power supply


I understood the fuse in the U.K. plug was to protect the power cordage.  In 
the U.K., outlets are supplied by a ring circuit rather than a branch circuit, 
therefore the power cord could exceed its ampacity (a U.S.A. term).
So, if no power cord, no need for a fuse in the plug.
I wonder if the power supply has a fuse to protect the power supply.  If so, 
would this count as the plug fuse?

Rich


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 5:01 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] British question, about a BS1363 plug-in power supply

I received a 5 W SMPS plug-in power supply as part of a multi-unit product.
It has interchangeable pins for EU, US, Australian and UK  sockets, but it has 
no fuse. I think this is illegal and intend to notify Trading Standards, as the 
overall product is marketed by a prominent European company and is widely 
offered on the Internet.
Is there any exemption at all for the requirement that a BS 1363 plug in any 
form must have a fuse?

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Tracking critical component suppliers

[Brian O'Connell]

Not aware of any ‘centralized’ database, but some vendors (future, avnet, etc) 
routinely issue PCNs that cover the major component suppliers. This seems to 
catch most of these product announcements for me.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 8:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Tracking critical component suppliers

All,

We all know that the last several years there have been many mergers and 
acquisitions of suppliers that provide safety critical components.  I for one 
got a little tired trying to keep up with all the changes.  Case in point is 
AMP Connectors --> Tyco AMP --> TE Connectivity. There are possibly thousands 
of cases like this.  

Does anyone know of a central clearing house for such historical information?

Thanks,  Doug



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Humidity test.

[Brian O'Connell]

You would need to provide the specific method/procedure number. There can be 
more than one humidity test. For some stuff there can be significant latitude 
in test method, depending on the LCEP.

Brian

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 12:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Humidity test.

Stymied over a simple question. 
I'm going to do a MIL-810 humidity test for 10 days. But reading the details of 
the pertinent section I can't really determine if the product is supposed to 
operational the whole time or just brought up during the required 5th and 10th 
cycle functional tests. My presumption is that it would be off during the rest 
of time (they do discuss long term storage in humid areas) so that the humidity 
the self-heating of the product while on doesn't ameliorate any of the negative 
of the effects of humidity fungal growth, deposits from external sources, 
hygroscopic issues et al.
They spend time discussing tailoring the test but this really isn't a 
tailorable consideration. It either is or it is not. So the devil is in the 
details and I think they left one out. 

I can't afford the time or cost of running this twice and my direct customer 
doesn't know either - and getting answer from his customer is egregious

Anybody?

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer
 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

[Brian O'Connell]

LMAO….

There was great consternation of the human suitability for control of vehicular 
machinery upon the increasing popularity of automobiles.

For most of these contrived situations, the bottom line is the machine would 
probably make a better decision than a human. And a machine would be less apt 
to enter in a situation where these types of decisions would have to be made.

For my employer's factories, have found that removal of humans from a process 
is the most cost-effective way to increase reliability. All hail our machine 
overlords.

Brian (or my efficient chat-bot)


From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 11:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

In IOT land the rock will warn the cars before it falls…..  ;<)

Gert


Van: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: maandag 7 november 2016 20:39
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.


On November 7, 2016 9:03:11 AM PST, Ted Eckert 
<07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:
With a little imagination, I can come up with many scenarios that appear 
“no-win”. Imagine you are driving down a mountain road with a rock face on one 
side and a long drop off a cliff on the other. Vehicle to vehicle 
communications allow your self-driving vehicle to stay close to the car in 
front of you. It is a straight road and high speeds are allowed. Now imaging a 
rock slide starts dropping a large boulder onto the roadway. The vehicle in 
front of yours may hit the rocks, but it remains intact enough to protect its 
occupants. Your vehicle can either hit the vehicle in front of you potentially 
injuring its passengers or take evasive action risking your health. What does 
the vehicle do?
 
I live in the state of Washington where rock slides are common. 
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/landslides
http://komonews.com/news/local/rock-slide-closes-highway-2-in-central-wash
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9957369/ns/us_news-life/t/rock-slide-closes-major-highway-washington/#.WCCyMIWcGeE
 
Maybe vehicles will need to be programmed to have a much greater following 
distance in areas where there is a rock slide risk. However, there are many 
places where a tree can fall on the road, large animals can jump out or a child 
could run out into the road unexpectedly. 
 
These aren’t situations that are new with self-driving cars. They just create a 
new issue of liability. 
 
Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
 
From: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 8:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.
 
Obviously I can't think of all possibilities, but it seems to me that these 
sort of situations must be corner cases. After all I have never found myself in 
a situation where my only options are to hit a person or go down a 300 m cliff 
at 100 km/h. Further more, I won't be driving at 100 km/h when there is a cliff 
where I can go down!It's called defensive driving. I am sure defensive driving 
is programmed into all self driving cars so they are much less likely to be in 
this sort of situation. The only exceptions that I can imagine are deliberate 
acts on the part of the person.
On November 7, 2016 5:06:36 AM PST, Jim Hulbert  wrote:
So a Mercedes automated vehicle would make the decision of who lives and who 
dies. That’s incredible.
 
Jim Hulbert
 
From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 6:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.
 
This article in The Guardian is related to your first point regarding human 
drivers “gaming” driverless cars to gain an advantage
 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/30/volvo-self-driving-car-autonomous
 
“The first self-driving cars to be operated by ordinary British drivers will be 
left deliberately unmarked so that other drivers will not be tempted to “take 
them on”, a senior car industry executive has revealed.”
 
Also
 
“Meanwhile, Mercedes has made it clear that if a situation arises where a car 
has to choose between saving the lives of its occupants or those of bystanders, 
it will save the occupants. ‘If you know you can save at least one person, at 
least save that one. Save the one in the car,’ Christoph von Hugo, manager of 
driver assistance systems and active safety at Mercedes, told the Paris Motor 
Show recently.”
 
Bruce Schneier writes a lot on security issues and regularly covers IoT and 
occasionally driverless vehicles. His blog makes for interesting reading - 
https://www.schneier.com/  I’m sure it will end up being the usual round of 
addition of features, poor programming/testing (due to budget constraints), 
vulnerabilities, exploiting, 

Re: [PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

[Brian O'Connell]

Transformers that "don't need a fuse" need an 'inherently limited' assessment 
per UL5085-3/CSA No.66.3 and/or IEC61558-2-6.  

Limits based on load current are correct where NEC article 725 is scoped, as it 
becomes a wiring issue. For North America, the limits would be defined in CSA 
No.223 and UL1310.

DCR alone does not necessarily indicate the peak inrush for all transformers.

Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

This is why small transformers that don't need a fuse were developed. They have 
a special type of coated wire for the primary winding, which goes quietly 
open-circuit if it gets too hot. However, I suppose your product standard might 
not allow them. 

The limits based on load current are technically  indefensible, but that may 
not help. The right way to determine what fuse you want is to take account of 
the worst-case inrush current, which occurs when the core is left fully 
magnetized at switch-off and the supply is switched on at the point where it is 
trying to magnetize it further. The current is then limited only by the DC 
resistance of the primary winding, and you need to look at the fuse I^2T curves 
to select one (usually it needs a T-type) that doesn't fail on inrush but does 
fail on about 1.5 times the full-load current of the transformer.  

That is most unlikely to be the 1.1 mA you mention (32 mA being 3000% of it).  
I doubt you can get a transformer rated at less than about 1.5 VA, which with 
120 V input means a full-load primary current of  12.5 mA. I measured one like 
that and the primary resistance is 600 ohms, so the inrush current could be 200 
mA. That means that you need a fuse that will pass 200 mA for at least half a 
cycle of 60 Hz, while breaking within an acceptable time at, say,  2 x 12.5 mA. 
It may indeed be difficult to find one, but at least you know what the 
component is actually required to do.

I suspect that you can find a fuse that works for a 3 VA transformer; 1.5 VA is 
very extreme.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 3:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

Greeting Experts.

I often run into issues with safety inspectors during Field Evaluations 
regarding overcurrent protection of small transformers that are not thermally 
protected.  

These small transformers can draw such small amounts of current on both the 
primary and secondary, that finding a fuse within 300% (250%) of the primary or 
167% of the secondary max load current is impossible.  

Even if we use the smallest fuse we can find (Littelfuse 218 series is 0.032A), 
this value can be over 3000% of the load current.

Even if we provide thermal test data to an inspector, they will reply that our 
data is worthless to them as they only accept data from their own lab or other 
NRTLs.  

So am I missing something here?  The NEC says I can use the next highest common 
fuse value. Is this acceptable even if the value is exceeds 1000% of the load 
current?

Has anyone ran across this issue with inspectors?  How best do we protect small 
transformers and meet the electric codes?  

Thanks in advance.
The Other Brian




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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  
-

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

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

Re: [PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

[Brian O'Connell]

If the transformer is a 'certified' component, what are its ratings and 
conditions of acceptability?

Do the connected circuits in the end-use equipment have a required interrupt 
rating?

What article of the code is being applied?

Per admin law, Field assessment only done by a NRTL or AHJ. Any fuse where the 
melting integral will not cause problems with normal operations would be ok if 
the overload and s/c tests do not result in excessive winding temperatures. 
Transformers assessed per UL5085 or CSA No.66 series will indicate requirements 
for current interrupt component.

Brian


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 8:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

Greeting Experts.

I often run into issues with safety inspectors during Field Evaluations 
regarding overcurrent protection of small transformers that are not thermally 
protected.  

These small transformers can draw such small amounts of current on both the 
primary and secondary, that finding a fuse within 300% (250%) of the primary or 
167% of the secondary max load current is impossible.  

Even if we use the smallest fuse we can find (Littelfuse 218 series is 0.032A), 
this value can be over 3000% of the load current.

Even if we provide thermal test data to an inspector, they will reply that our 
data is worthless to them as they only accept data from their own lab or other 
NRTLs.  

So am I missing something here?  The NEC says I can use the next highest common 
fuse value. Is this acceptable even if the value is exceeds 1000% of the load 
current?

Has anyone ran across this issue with inspectors?  How best do we protect small 
transformers and meet the electric codes?  

Thanks in advance.
The Other Brian




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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Rechargeable lithium battery EU Standards/Directives

[Brian O'Connell]

1. Review the requirements and standards for secondary batteries referenced in 
the safety standard(s) scoped by your end-use equipment.

2. Review UN packaging and transport standards and regulations for Li batteries.

3. Understand that EN62133 is a minimalist approach to battery safety.

4. Determine if separate charger standard is normative for the scope of the 
end-use equipment.

Brian

From: Stephen Whalen [mailto:scwha...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 11:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Rechargeable lithium battery EU Standards/Directives

All,
I am trying to identify the necessary EU standards and directives for 
rechargeable lithium batteries for small electronic devices.  Any help would be 
greatly appreciated.   

Regards,
Stephen

-

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


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

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

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

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

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