Re: [PSES] Date of Withdrawal for ISO 9001?

[Brian Oconnell]

These standards have three-year 'cycles' that limit what the registrar is 
allowed to use. Existing 9001:2008 accreditation certs will expire after 
2018Q3. But would not be in any rush to update until 2017 as the registrars 
will need a significant learning period for the new stuff. The last available 
audits for 9001:2008 will probably be 2017Q4. 

The Klingon High Command has deprecated all ISO 9k and 14k standards by 
Imperial Edict. 

Brian

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Date of Withdrawal for ISO 9001?

All,

I know that many on this forum also deal with ISO 9001.  

With the soon to be released ISO 9001:2015, a client has asked me when it is 
mandatory to update.  Their registrar has already sent letters to this effect.  
In gist of the letter, the registrar's says that the company must be updated to 
a minimum of ISO 9001:2008 and be ready to begin the transition to the 2015 
edition.  In trying to understand how this works, I find that staying up to 
date may not be mandatory. Instead it may simply be that the registrar who is 
accredited by ANAB may want the company to update to the latest version that 
they have within the scope of their accreditation.

Is this a fair assessment?

thanks a bunch,  Doug



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
Skype: doug.powell52
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] Dielectric Grease

[Brian Oconnell]

Perhaps this is the Dow Corning 'molykote' grease?

Brian

From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease

Ted,

I'm about 80% certain. It was being used around automotive ignition systems. I 
am looking into the idea of a gel dielectric and hoping to find an abundant 
source.  

Thanks, Doug




From: Ted Eckert
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:21 AM
To: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Dielectric Grease

Hello Doug,
 
How confident are you that the grease in question is a dielectric grease? Your 
description sounds a lot like some of the high temperature automotive and 
industrial greases. There are a few brands of synthetic grease that have a 
green color. They aren’t tested for their electrical properties, but they are 
designed for high temperature use. 
 
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
 
From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Dielectric Grease
 
All,
 
I am trying to locate a particular high voltage insulating grease or gel.   I 
am unable to identify the manufacturer and ty‎pe.   The only description I can 
give at this point is the appearance which is green in color with an iridescent 
sheen. It looks much like automotive antifreeze fluid only thick like grease.
 
Any help is much appreciated.  
 
-Doug
 
Douglas E Powell
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 
emc-p...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease

[Brian Oconnell]

Looked at the stuff we have on the shelf -  'MOLYKOTE G-5008'

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease

Perhaps this is the Dow Corning 'molykote' grease?

Brian

From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dielectric Grease

Ted,

I'm about 80% certain. It was being used around automotive ignition systems. I 
am looking into the idea of a gel dielectric and hoping to find an abundant 
source.  

Thanks, Doug




From: Ted Eckert
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 10:21 AM
To: doug...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Dielectric Grease

Hello Doug,
 
How confident are you that the grease in question is a dielectric grease? Your 
description sounds a lot like some of the high temperature automotive and 
industrial greases. There are a few brands of synthetic grease that have a 
green color. They aren’t tested for their electrical properties, but they are 
designed for high temperature use. 
 
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
 
From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Dielectric Grease
 
All,
 
I am trying to locate a particular high voltage insulating grease or gel.   I 
am unable to identify the manufacturer and ty‎pe.   The only description I can 
give at this point is the appearance which is green in color with an iridescent 
sheen. It looks much like automotive antifreeze fluid only thick like grease.
 
Any help is much appreciated.  
 
-Doug
 
Douglas E Powell
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 
emc-p...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

[Brian Oconnell]

Declarations, test reports, etc are part of a contractual law system, so this 
will reference the legal point of view, and as am not a solicitor or attorney, 
you should to talk to the one retained by your employer. 'for and behalf of' 
relates to the term 'procuration' - essentially a proxy by formal appointment.

In Europe, there are many similarities in corporate contract law, but there are 
significant differences. Reference the UK Companies Act 2006 (s. 43). The UK is 
weird in that the affixing of 'seals' remain in legal code, so the seal of the 
corp is binding, while the signatory may not necessarily be representative. 
Most EU countries also require 'on behalf of' signatory where the signature 
indicates a conglomerate of interests; that is, more than one legal body.

U.S. corporate law is bit messy because of state differences (the reason 
American contracts indicate which state's laws are applicable to the terms). 
For the U.S., the reference 'for and behalf of...' is to indicate that the 
signatory may not be a corporate officer that has the authority to legally bind 
the company. It does indicates that the signatory is cognizant and authorized. 
For example, my employer(the CEO) wrote a Letter of Appointment to make this 
peon the signatory for product regulatory issues. And because not an officer of 
the company, sign stuff 'for and behalf of...'. Whereas a corporate officer, 
that is empowered to legally bind the company, would just sign with title 
affixed, or apply a thumbprint using the blood fallen engineers.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 9:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

So let's tackle this one example, for now.

Annex IV point 8 says,

8. Additional information:
Signed for and on behalf of:
(place and date of issue):
(name, function) (signature):

So the text, Signed for and on behalf of: is required no matter who signs the 
DoC or is it only required if the signatory is the European Representative, 
importer, etc. (someone who does not directly work for the manufacturer)?  This 
only makes sense to me if it is only required if the signatory is not an direct 
employee of the manufacturer.

Since I work for the Manufacturer I should not need to prefix my signature with 
this statement?  Yes, or no?

If no, then who am I signing for; my company or an officer of my company 
(actual person)? Do I state, Signed for and on behalf of  then insert my 
company's name, my boss' name, Director, VP, owner of the company, CEO, ??? 
Doesn't the fact that I am signing the DoC show that the company I work for has 
given me the authority to sign this document on their behalf? Am I not 
representing my company whether this is stated or not?

The Other Brian



-Original Message-
From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 6:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

On 8/20/2015 5:20 PM, Gary McInturff wrote:
 Signed for and on behalf of - the CEO doesn't get to claim plausible
 deniability you are signing this for him.


How IS a CEO expected to know that what has been signed for is actually what 
was done EXCEPT by relying on other peoples' signatures?  Might we again see 
EMC audits on outside vendor sub-assemblies? Shades of 0871!

I once listened as a well-known EMC engineer told about a VP who'd contracted 
him to teach a class on EMC compliance, but only spent a few moments in the 
room before hurrying away.  The exec explained during a quick break that he'd 
wanted to avoid liability for nonconformity by remaining ignorant of what it 
required. Naughty of him -- and if I understand correctly, willful ignorance is 
never an acceptable defense.

Cortland Richmond
[mostly retired]

-

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] New IEEE standard

[Brian Oconnell]

Mr. Woodgate can really trip my triggers.

The mode and ranges are already covered in IEEE754. There was no reason that 
this should not have been part of 754, as it is now in the community as 
IEC60559. The committee attempted to call 1788 a 'basic' standard, but the IEEE 
shoved it back, so they relegated an important basis for ALU design and 
Computer Science to an isolated, stand-alone standard. And it does NOT cover 
de-normalized float intervals. Meh.

This is what happens when we allow too many mathematicians into an engineering 
subject domain.  Pitchforks and flaming torches would be appropriate. You can 
pry my 17 significant decimal digits from my cold, dead hands.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] New IEEE standard

  IEEE 1788™-2015, Standard for Interval Arithmetic

'Have we got time to get four gin and tonics before the next act, given 
that 583 people want drinks and there are five baristas?' Use 
logarithms.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Oconnell]

Have you talked to a certified industrial electrician?

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

Brian


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

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

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

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

Kind regards,
Adam
 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] About NexTek for surge protection

[Brian Oconnell]

Sorry, but know nothing of this particular company.

Please note following when dealing with North American companies.

1. Companies seldom note and respond to web-site contact info, even if it is 
correctly forwarded to sales people.
2. Go to the company's 'Contact Us' page and look for personal email addresses 
of sales individuals.
3. Search the contact list for reps and other sales sites that are within your 
geographical region.
4. Unless requesting samples, only attempt to buy low volumes from distros 
(Digikey, Farnel, etc.).
5. Western sales dweebs will want project information in exchange for free 
samples, so be clear if for a project in active development.
6. Download technical support files and look for contact names where technical 
support required.
7. Do not depend on Google Translate to talk to Americans because important 
details and contextual information will be lost, and we only speak very little 
English, and an unintelligible dialect of Spanish. Some Canadians can speak 
something that resembles French.
8. Many Mexico companies have Asian employees, so not uncommon to find contacts 
that can speak Japanese or Mandarin.
9. Some North Americans may also speak Klingon. Avoid doing business 
transactions in Klingon.

Brian

From: Li Di [mailto:li...@conorthtech.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] About NexTek for surge protection

Hi Greetings,

Does anybody know NexTek company? I found this company on the web. This company 
locates at U.S. And they design and produce RF surge protection components. I 
tried to contact with them using their webmail but failed to get any response. 
As anybody know or have any contact in this company, please help me. Thanks a 
lot.


Best regards,

 

Li Di
Conorth Technologies Co., Ltd.
-
Address: Room 212, Building C, No.15 Baiziwan Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing
Tel (Fax): 0086-10-60530811 (Office)
Mobile: 0086-13701332910
Email: li...@conorthtech.com
Website: www.conorthtech.com

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Gage RR for standards development?

[Brian Oconnell]

In a recent UL CSDS notice in the 'work area' for a standard, found this:

Repeatability and Reproducibility - Gage RR (NOTE: The following is for 
informational purposes only)
The proposal under review may include a reference to whether an assessment of 
repeatability and reproducibility (RR) was conducted for a proposed new or 
revised test requirement. If applicable, associated data and/or other related 
information may also be included as part of the proposal. The following is 
intended to provide a brief explanation of the basic concepts associated with 
Gage RR...
... In an effort to drive consistency, UL has begun to incorporate Gage RR 
concepts into the standards development process for UL


Would appreciate comments from people currently sitting on STPs, or associated 
with North American standards development, to comment on the intended 
end-effect (both political and technical) of requiring gage RR for process and 
test data.

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

Re: [PSES] FCC market surveillance

[Brian Oconnell]

https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=AWhYotapku%2FSkvVA1wkMAw%3D%3Ddesc=610077%20D01%20TCB%20Post%20Market%20Surveillance%20v06r01tracking_number=20540

Brian


-Original Message-
From: itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il] 
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 9:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC market surveillance

I don't know if they publish their findings but we have had a few customers who 
were requested to send samples to either the TCB or FCC for market surveillance.
The results are sent directly to the customer as the test lab is not involved.

Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Reviewer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail dav...@itl.co.il/e...@itl.co.il  Web www.itl.co.il

Fill out Customer Satisfaction Survey
Global Certifications You Can Trust 



-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 1:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC market surveillance

Do FCC carry out any market surveillance to check out FCC approved equipment?
If yes, do they publish their findings?

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 
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] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage

[Brian Oconnell]

AS61000.3.100 is scoped for the utility, and for some of the grid-connected 
stuff. Use as reference for what the power grid is supposed to be feeding to 
your equipment. Although power in Australia is notorious for its variability - 
may frequently not be 230-240V, but it is there most of the time pouring stuff 
into the electron pipes.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Brian Oconnell
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage

Brian,

Regarding AS 61000.3.100, is it an EMC requirement?  What does it require 
additional criteria for power?

Thanks and regards,

Scott


 On 4 Aug, 2015, at 12:57 am, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com wrote:
 
 AS60038 indicates 230V as nominal, plugs must be rated 250V. First noted in 
 2001.
 
 AS61000.3.100, published 2011, has additional requirements for power.
 
 As of Feb 2015, the ACMA indicates that the 'public' mains is 230V, and that 
 your equipment must be rated for 230V/50Hz.
 
 AS3000.2 indicates 230V for Australia in general, but utilities for Vickie, 
 NSW, North,  and Queensland, all indicate 240V as of 2009.  Tasmania 
 utilities indicates 230V.
 
 For some limited data points, my cousin says that it is typically 240V, but 
 as you get towards interior, expect somewhere between 218 and 250V; and a 
 customer that ships stuff to Aus/NZ rate their box for 200-240V.
 
 Brian
 
 
 From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 6:08 AM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage
 
 Hi All,
 
 Australia has changed to 230 Vac from 240 Vac in 1980 in line with the IEC 
 deciding to rationalise the 220V, 230V and 240V nominal voltage levels around 
 the world to a consistent 230V.  The voltage tolerance has been changed to 
 +10/-6% due to this change so Australia did not need to do anything and was 
 still in compliance.  Australia adopted a 20 year plan to convert Australia 
 from the nominal 240 volts to 230 volts, to align with European Standards.  
 What is the current status in terms of voltage change?
 
 In addition, what are the specs on product (packaging, advertisement, etc.), 
 the testing house and market surveillance positions to judge the product 
 compliance – 230 or 240V?
 
 Thanks  best regards,
 
 Scott
 
 -
 
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
 discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
 emc-p...@ieee.org
 
 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
 
 Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
 http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
 formats), large files, etc.
 
 Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
 Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
 unsubscribe)
 List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
 
 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
 
 For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage

[Brian Oconnell]

AS60038 indicates 230V as nominal, plugs must be rated 250V. First noted in 
2001.

AS61000.3.100, published 2011, has additional requirements for power.

As of Feb 2015, the ACMA indicates that the 'public' mains is 230V, and that 
your equipment must be rated for 230V/50Hz.

AS3000.2 indicates 230V for Australia in general, but utilities for Vickie, 
NSW, North,  and Queensland, all indicate 240V as of 2009.  Tasmania utilities 
indicates 230V.

For some limited data points, my cousin says that it is typically 240V, but as 
you get towards interior, expect somewhere between 218 and 250V; and a customer 
that ships stuff to Aus/NZ rate their box for 200-240V.

Brian


From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 6:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Australia/New Zealands mains voltage

Hi All,

Australia has changed to 230 Vac from 240 Vac in 1980 in line with the IEC 
deciding to rationalise the 220V, 230V and 240V nominal voltage levels around 
the world to a consistent 230V.  The voltage tolerance has been changed to 
+10/-6% due to this change so Australia did not need to do anything and was 
still in compliance.  Australia adopted a 20 year plan to convert Australia 
from the nominal 240 volts to 230 volts, to align with European Standards.  
What is the current status in terms of voltage change?
 
In addition, what are the specs on product (packaging, advertisement, etc.), 
the testing house and market surveillance positions to judge the product 
compliance – 230 or 240V?

Thanks  best regards,

Scott

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 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] ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1

[Brian Oconnell]

Do not have either standard, and have relied on the test lab's or the 
customer's marking requirements (life is much easier for a component mfr).

As both are called for in 60601-1 in several places, would go by Annex D and 
use 60878 unless the clause specifically specifies 15223-1 (which seems to be 
intended for marking packing materials).

Brian

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:37 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FW: ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two documents

ISO TC 15223-1 and TR 60878 
The both have similar titles and scopes I have the 15223-1 document but can 
only read the scope of the TR 60878, which is similar to the 15223-1 also. I 
don't want to purchase another standard if the one I have is sufficient for 
medical icons. 
Does one subsume the other? I tried to look at dates and history of both hoping 
they would somehow refer to each other - but no such luck
Thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer

Esterline Interface Technologies
Featuring 
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, 
and LRE MEDICAL  products
600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (509) 868 2279
Fax: (208) 635-863 8306

-

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] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

[Brian Oconnell]

No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and whims 
of the Klingon High Command.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

When a PFC (power factor correction) circuit is
used ahead of a SMPS, is the protective conductor
(leakage) current sinusoidal?


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

-

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] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

[Brian Oconnell]

After a little thought, should extend and be less obtuse.

The current through ground line will always have the significant 100Hz or 120Hz 
component as the haversine from the input bridge is what the PFC controller is 
using as the comparator's reference and is what resets the off timer. But 
response of an active PFC circuit is dependent on the dynamic characteristics 
of unit loading. This 'corrective' response can result in very high 
crest-factor waveforms that may not always affect the RMS value of the current, 
but can have peaks with an amplitude that are multiples of the 120Hz stuff. And 
for PFC and or the main converter, 120Hz is not the fundamental.

Most my experience is PFC in CCM, so there are many other facets to PFC not 
being talked about. Also note that each cycle starts when the core is reset, so 
if next cycle is not able to re-start then there is ringing at the PFC FET. 
This is considered acceptable for dynamic response, and should not be a 
dominant noise source for the typical test done at static load. 

Should be noted that much of the radiated noise actually results from the PFC 
diode, and that much of the conducted noise results from the main converter 
power loop.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:52 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and whims 
of the Klingon High Command.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

When a PFC (power factor correction) circuit is
used ahead of a SMPS, is the protective conductor
(leakage) current sinusoidal?


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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

[Brian Oconnell]

Understand what is being said, and it is valid for the input filter before the 
bridge, but some SMPS can have caps on the DC bus or DC return which are 
effected by both the PFC and main converter stuff. This is not always 100Hz 
sinusoidal stuff.

The other problems with many PFC controllers is that they cannot get as close 
to unity at 100V as they can at 240V. So 'noise' current through ground wire 
can be significantly different for same loading conditions at different input 
V. Capacitive coupling from h/s to ground can be significant, but the better 
designs mitigate this so not a dominant effect. Much of the 'ground' noise can 
be stuff that is radiated from the main converter's power loop directly into a 
primary trace or other component that is somehow coupled to ground.

When I become emperor, only flyback converters without PFC will be allowed. 
There will be much noise and we will like it...

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

In message 
blupr02mb1169506aba5d6abb9e7b9e3c1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com 
writes:

No. And is dependent on converter topology and operating conditions and 
whims of the Klingon High Command.

Since the supply current is (nearly) sinusoidal, I suppose that the 
leakage current through the 'hot' Y-cap is sinusoidal, but the current 
due to the capacitance to ground of the switching device's heat sink 
(and maybe other parts) is not sinusoidal and may not be negligible.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

[Brian Oconnell]

 Preliminary EMI testing showed that there was no measurable impact on
conducted emissions when the second stage Y capacitors were removed.

Methinks this would be an unusual result for many power conversion and drive 
circuits, and too broad of a design statement for my simple little mind to 
cover. There is a reason for pi filters in this configuration.

So we have opposing forms of safety requirements and definitions of emissions 
test conditions. This is Mr Perkins' Elephant.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Nuisance Tripping

http://www.jonathankimball.com/pdf/gfci_ecce.pdf

-


-

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] International EMF Scientist Appeal

[Brian Oconnell]

Letter that appears to be designed to enable more UN/WHO influence over EMC 
standards.

www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

Dunno what to think about this stuff. Much of their basis comes from 15 to 20 
year old studies, at least one of which seems to have been recently discredited 
 Personally, prefer to keep my phone close to head - keeps the brain warmer. 
And am looking at buying some land near the Sunrise HV distribution line 
(500kV) so that we can bask in SLF 'radiation'. 

Whom is the bigger idiot - myself or these scientists?

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

Re: [PSES] Production Line testing for UL60950

[Brian Oconnell]

Anywhere it refers to a 'routine' test. Otherwise, the references are to Type 
Tests.

Brian

From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 2:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Production Line testing for UL60950

Can someone point me in the right direction (i.e.; what clause number can I 
find it??) regarding production line testing in UL60950-1.

Thanks,

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

Re: [PSES] Medical Device approval for U.S. market

[Brian Oconnell]

The FDA website(s) are rather unruly, but is good place to start. You will 
eventually have to start a dialog with an NRTL, so talk to a local lab that is 
also an NRTL/SCC that has experienced medical labs in North America. The U.S. 
FDA and Health Canada, depending on the equipment type, can be more onerous 
than stuff for the EU.

The FDA has issued guidance docs for portable equipment.

Brian


From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 6:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Medical Device approval for U.S. market

Anyone who can give me a tip where to start looking for the requirements?

Talking about portable medical equipment, and also for use in vehicles and 
aircrafts.
CE Medical Device Directive approval (by a notified body) will be in place 
before the U.S. approval project starts. 

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 
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] leakage current tests

[Brian Oconnell]

Y2 caps are typically designed to meet the test level for BI where unit rated 
less than 300V input. Where the test level is intended to verify RI, or where 
an approved GDT or similar component  is across an isolation boundary, the 
circuit is typically not installed in the end-use chassis until after the test, 
then the test for BI is performed. Y1 caps are rated for most RI-level tests. 

If a Y- cap cannot withstand the hi-pot, then would question the design.

X-caps should not be subject to these test levels, but should not be an issue 
as they are not rated for use where protection from shock required.

There is no specific current limit for di-electric withstand, and all NRTLs 
that my employer uses SUGGEST that the current 'trip setting' level be 
adjustable for each product. The test can be dual purpose, in that the upper 
and lower current settings for test equipment will roughly verify the y-cap 
value.

Testing of some telecom products can be different.

Brian

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 11:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] leakage current tests

I can't provide a justification for not testing a radio interference filter 
for both leakage current and electric strength.  The filter is a leakage 
current path and is subject to transient overvoltages.  

Because AC voltage electrical strength testing creates high leakage currents? 
And thus false fails.
And because they have been built with approved components withstanding 
electrical strength tests ? (Y type capacitors for example)

Gert Gremmen

Van: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 2 juni 2015 0:17
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] leakage current tests



Hi Ralph:

The protective impedance leakage current is separately measured (8.1.4).  The 
protective impedance is connected between a live part and an accessible 
conductive part, not to earth.

Leakage current and electric strength is measured from each pole of the 
supply across basic insulation (Table 4) to an accessible conductive part, not 
necessarily through a protective impedance (13.2).

The protective impedance is only subject to transient overvoltages when the 
accessible conductive part is touched, otherwise it is an open circuit and 
there is no voltage drop across it.  I suppose this is the reason for not 
subjecting the protective impedance to the dielectric test.  (If the part is 
touched at the same time as a transient overvoltage, an electric shock injury 
is not likely because transient overvoltages are of very short duration.)

I can't provide a justification for not testing a radio interference filter for 
both leakage current and electric strength.  The filter is a leakage current 
path and is subject to transient overvoltages.  


Best regards,
Rich



From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 12:30 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] leakage current tests

IEC 60335-1 

13   Leakage current and electric strength at operating temperature 

Protective Impedance and radio interference filters are to be disconnected 
before carrying out the tests. 


I suppose they are merely checking for an obvious no-no, like using accessible 
chassis metalwork as a current carrying conductor. 

However, don't radio frequency interference filters often have capacitors which 
use a metal enclosure as a common connection point?
___ 

Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   CANADA  |   
Regulatory Compliance Engineering 

-

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 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44

[Brian Oconnell]

Suppose that this indicates is still a proposal?

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/07/2013-29703/unified-agenda-of-federal-regulatory-and-deregulatory-actions-fall-2013#h-35

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44

Thanks, but no,  that is the Report and Order.  This is supposed to be 
published in the Federal Register before it becomes effective.

__

James L. Knighten, Ph.D.
EMC Engineer
Teradata Corporation
17095 Via Del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127

858-485-2537 - phone
858-485-3788 - fax (unattended)




-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44

Is this it?

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-208A1.pdf

Brian

From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44

Has FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44, REPORT AND ORDER released 12/30/2014 In 
the Matter of Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's Rules 
regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and  Amendment of Part 68 
regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by Telecommunications Certification 
Bodies
 
Been published yet in the Federal Register?  I have not seen it, but am not 
skilled at looking for it.
 
Jim
 
__
 
James L. Knighten, Ph.D.
EMC Engineer
Teradata Corporation
17095 Via Del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127
 
858-485-2537 - phone
858-485-3788 - fax (unattended)
 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44

[Brian Oconnell]

Is this it?

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-208A1.pdf

Brian

From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44

Has FCC 14-208, ET Docket No. 13-44, REPORT AND ORDER released 12/30/2014 
In the Matter of
Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's Rules regarding 
Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and  Amendment of Part 68 regarding 
Approval of Terminal Equipment by Telecommunications Certification Bodies
 
Been published yet in the Federal Register?  I have not seen it, but am not 
skilled at looking for it.
 
Jim
 
__
 
James L. Knighten, Ph.D.
EMC Engineer
Teradata Corporation
17095 Via Del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127
 
858-485-2537 - phone
858-485-3788 - fax (unattended)
 

-

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] UL HTTPS

[Brian Oconnell]

Yes sir, that is what members have said (off line), so looked at what DNS was 
resolving too and noticed several jumps' for the IP for a given URL (one poor 
soul said that he had a 50% 'fail' getting into the CDA). Many thanks to the 
members that responded on and off line. Long live the emperor, and hail to the 
hostess with the mostess, and other such stuff.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 3:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] UL HTTPS

UL recently changed a number of URLs and other items, probably as a matter
normal churn.  Several bookmarks no longer worked.

This is probably a related thing that they'll work through in time.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell
 Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:39

 Anyone know what is with UL's CDA site? Seems to have lost
 the secure connect for last several days. The pages seem
 only partially encrypted or perhaps mixed scripts, but cannot
 detect anything using inspect mode on browser. Hopefully
 they just need to renew cert.

 Sent email to them several days past - no response.

-

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] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven

[Brian Oconnell]

Think that CISPR32 is supposed to address very short-term stuff, but since is 
not recurring and periodic, would a few hundred mSec affect test limits?

So what is the SAR for 2.5GHz stuff? Is it an integral effect for exposure time?

Is safety issue per new LVD (2014/35/EU), and would need a good rationale per 
required risk analysis.

Bet that most of you EMC engineers would have this figured out in a few hours. 
PhD astronomers and rocket scientists, 17 years - meh.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven

All,

Today Interference Technology published on their website, Astronomers Discover 
17-Year Interference Caused by Microwave Oven 
Link: 
http://www.interferencetechnology.com/astronomers-discover-17-year-interference-caused-by-microwave-oven/?utm_source=itnewsletterutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=20150514

My question is this.  If the RF generated inside the oven does not stop prior 
to the opening of the RF seal on the door, which testing is responsible to 
identify this problem, EMC or the Safety testing?

Thanks,  Doug



Douglas E Powell
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

Re: [PSES] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven

[Brian Oconnell]

Correct, microwave ovens have, in series, several safety interlock switching 
devices that control the HV transformer. But opening the door prior to the set 
time-out will not immediately de-energize the magnetron; that is, the delay is 
programmatic, not electro-mechanical.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven

Newsworthy indeed, but hardly something to self-promote through publication!

And I would think that the interlock would interrupt magnetron operation as
soon as the latching mechanism was depressed, which is before the door
actually even begins to open, so that the gasket should still be making the
seal.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


 From: CR k...@earthlink.net
 Reply-To: k...@earthlink.net
 Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 19:21:42 -0400
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Interference Caused by Microwave Oven
 
 On 5/14/2015 6:58 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
 why doesn¹t the rf shut off when the door  is opened? And a second
 one: why was it deemed worthy of publishing an article that a
 microwave oven interfered with data collection since 1988?
 
 It does, but probably not instantly. Just guessing, but ...  A magnetron
 is a thermal diode that can continue to generate RF as long as there's
 enough emission, and enough voltage to move electrons past its cavity
 resonators. The door uses a choke joint to prevent RF from escaping, and
 as that's being opened, it can radiate. And it's newsworthy because
 people smart enough to run a radio telescope should be smart enough to
 run down something like this. IMO!
 
 Cortland Richmond
 KA5S
 (semi) retired from EMC engineering

-

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] Accreditation for standard comprehension?

[Brian Oconnell]

Very interesting question - have never thought about this. Am not aware of such 
a 'KSA' requirement for evaluations of an individual other than for building 
code inspectors (AHJ) in North America, and for most certified electricians in 
U.S. and Canada. But not certain that these evaluations address any particular 
safety standards.

Suppose that various agencies do this indirectly via evaluation of reports if 
your facility performs tests internally and writes reports for NRTL/SCC or NB 
review.

There are general standards on how to run an accreditation scheme, but do not 
remember if standards knowledge is addressed.

After more thought given, the only instances where subject to specific 
questions on safety/EMC standards was for various interviews, and where an IEC 
'standard' unit was being used to verify veracity of my Type Test data and test 
technique. Would be interested in what others have encountered.

Brian


From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 4:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?

Does anyone know of any conformance assessor certification schemes that have 
provisions requiring the applicant to demonstrate familiarity with the 
standards to which they will be assessing? 

I am familiar with a couple lab certification schemes that appear to focus on 
general business practices and professional qualifications and rigor of 
assessment, but not necessarily needing to demonstrate the assessor knows well 
what the standard requires. 

Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor

-

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] Wire Questions

[Brian Oconnell]

CSA-C22.2 No 0.4 (Bonding of Electrical Equipment) has this

3.4.3.2
The fault capacity of a bond shall be adequate if the bond complies with one of 
the following
requirements:
(a) the bond is made from a suitably terminated conductor not smaller than the 
specified minimum size
of bonding conductors in Table 16 of Part I of the CEC;
Note: When equipment contains two or more motors connected to a circuit in the 
equipment that does not have
overcurrent protection, the bonding conductor size is selected by assuming that 
the branch circuit protection is equal to
three times the full load current of the largest motor plus the current 
required by the other loads.
(b) in cord-connected equipment, the bond is made from a suitably terminated 
conductor not smaller
than the bonding conductor in the supply cord;
(c) the bond is made from a copper conductor not smaller than the applicable 
minimum size specified in
Table 1 and meets the test requirements specified in Clause 4.1;
(d) the bond is made from a conductor smaller than that required in Item (b) or 
(c), or smaller than
required in Item (a) for overcurrent protection rated 40 A or more, and meets 
the test requirements
specified in Clauses 4.1 and 4.3; or
(e) the bond is made from a conductive element, other than a conductive element 
specified in
Items (a) to (d), that meets the test requirements specified in Clauses 4.1 and 
4.3

And table 1 indicates:

Rating of branch circuitMinimum bonding 
conductor size, AWG
required for equipment, A
15  20
20  18
30  14

Note that the 20gauge wire contradicts some stuff in NEC article 250(NFPA70), 
and CEC Part II (CSA C22.2 No 0-M9).

Brian

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Wire Questions

Brian

Grounding Conductor size

An interesting question with respect to internal grounding conductors, and one 
which made me refer to a very old copy of CSA Technical Note TN-017 “Bonding 
and Grounding of Electrical Equipment (Protective Grounding)”, dated January 
13, 1993, which I have – don’t know if there is a newer version, but I suspect 
there is (if so, does anyone have a copy of this or of whatever has replaced 
it?) so the following comments may well be out-of-date!

TN-017 refers to CSA C22.0.4, which I don’t think I have, as the basic 
requirements for grounding of equipment, so obviously not sure what that 
currently states.

However: 

Page 2 of TN-017, under “Grounded (Class I) Equipment” states that 
“IEC standards require the ground path impedance to be less than or equal to 
0.1 ohm. Although it is a satisfactory criteria for evaluating a path to ground 
where overcurrent protection is rated or set at 15A and 20A, this approach 
fails to provide proper protection when overcurrent devices are rated or set at 
30A or higher”

Page 6, Under “National Electric Code (NEC)” states:
“Article 250 of NEC defines grounding and bonding requirements for 
installations of electrical equipment in the United States. Articles250-60, 
250-95 and 250-155 also define min size of ground conductor required. Also see 
Articles 250-42, 250-45, 250-59, 250-113 and 250-114.

NEC requires the following in particular.

(a) Ground conductor must not be smaller than specified in Table 250-95 with 
the exceptions that the ground conductor:
i. Must not be smaller than 18A AWG copper and not smaller than circuit 
conductors.
ii. Need not be larger than the AC circuit conductors.

This means that the min cord size permitted is No 18 AWG, and min size of 
ground conductor shall be No 18 AWG.

(b) Ground conductor may be without insulation but if insulation is provided, 
it shall be coloured green or green with one or more yellow stripes.
(c) All non-current carrying metal parts of fixed, portable and mobile 
equipment shall be grounded. Grounding conductors not part of cable assembly 
must not be smaller that No 6 AWG.”

NB: w.r.t. (c) above, there are exceptions elsewhere for double-insulated 
(etc.) equipment!

Can’t find any definitive statement in TN-017 as to the required internal 
grounding conductor sizes, but, from the above, it seems to me that the issue 
you mention relates to a combination of the following:
- The IEC continuity test at 25A is only adequate at supply currents which 
would be protected by a 15A/20A external breaker, which is probably why 61010-1 
states different – see below;
- the potential AWG size of the external supply cord – and that the grounding 
conductor needs to be  the size of the current-carrying conductors; 
- the current rating of the protection in the installation – and if the latter 
is 15A/20A, then the internal conductor would have to be larger than 18AWG.

Since you were using a 16AWG power cord 

Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions

[Brian Oconnell]

Optos are an excellent example. There are a myriad of parameters that will 
allow the safe operation of a typical power supply that are not considered in 
certs per IEC60747-5-x and UL1577. Stuff such as CTR drift within the rated 
temperature range, themal de-rate for linear optos, frequency BW per 
capacitance per temperature, and the Bugs Bunny factor. And a 'shallow' 
assessment will only indicate equivalent ratings and test certs to same 
standards.

Brian


From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions

Hello Brian,

Most CB Test Laboratories (CBTLs) will allow and accept the use of the term 
interchangeable for some components. However, there are a few CBTLs that will 
not accept this term and they require each and every alternate source to be 
explicitly listed. If you indicated to your test lab that your CB report would 
be used for approval in one of these countries, your CB test lab may have 
proactively prevented you from including interchangeable in the report. 

Many manufacturers will structure the components list in their CB report to use 
the term interchangeable where appropriate and allowed. The manufacturer will 
then create a specific list of critical components for those countries that 
require the extra detail. The CB report is then used to provide the test data 
and construction review and the amended critical components list is used to 
meet the stricter component requirements. 

CBTLs are not required to accept alternate components that are not on the 
critical components list. It is up to the discretion of the test lab to 
determine if an alternate is acceptable.

Each CBTL will have limits on which component types are eligible for generic 
descriptions. Most will allow generic descriptions for printed circuit boards 
with only the temperature and flame ratings specified. Many will allow generic 
descriptions for X and Y capacitors. I would not expect a CBTL to allow generic 
descriptions for optocouplers as there is often more to be controlled. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer, the CB test laboratories I work with or the CB test laboratories I 
don't work with. 

From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions

Greetings, Compliance Experts,

I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had 
similar experiences, and may have some advice to share.
We are in the process of using a CB report for an industrial battery charger( 
to IEC60335-2-29) to obtain an in-country certification in an Asian country, 
and have run into an interesting difficulty. 

When our CB report was issued, the engineer was not willing to add wording to 
the Critical Components list to allow alternate components(X, Y caps, 
opto-isolators) with equivalent ratings and  Regulatory Approvals to be added, 
with the implication being that this addition was not allowed by the 
authorities.

As expected, two years later, we are going through one country's approval 
process, using our CB report, and the national regulatory organization has 
decided that the use of a different brand of opto-isolator and X/Y capacitor is 
a non-compliance, as they are not specifically in the CB report. (The 
electrical, environmental ratings, and the regulatory approvals are equivalent 
to the original components).  

a.)    Are these attitudes typical  in the CB world? 
b.)    Can anybody explain the apparent reticence of CB testing labs to allow 
alternate components in a CB report? 
c.)    Is it likely that a National Body will eventually compromise, and use 
engineering judgement in accepting alternate components? Or is this usually a 
firm no?

The North American NRTL organizations are proactive in allowing equivalently 
rated and approved components to be sourced in a product, and frequently state 
this in their reports. IMHO, it seems a bit archaic to not account for 
second-sourcing of common off-the-shelf critical components such as these.

d.)    Is there a philosophical or historical difference between the two 
systems(CB and NRTL) that accounts for this difference in approaches? 

Thanks in advance for your attention- your response is appreciated. 

Brian Ceresney

-

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 

Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions

[Brian Oconnell]

In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America 
(NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where 
state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard.

It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have 
routinely accepted a blanket 'equivalent' in the C/C table of submitted reports 
for all components. Typically stuff such as components that not across mains, 
or are not bridging insulation or a safety boundary can be cited in general 
terms with no particular mfr name or part no.

The issue is that the agency assessment engineer cannot be certain which 
characteristics of a component are important to something on the C/C table. So 
they test your box with the assumption that the design team has verified 
performance only for the particular combination of stuff on the BoM and the 
board layout that was submitted for assessment.

The other issue is that there is no formal IEC or SCC or OSHA standard or 
regulation that defines how to assess an equivalent component, or whom in the 
company shall be the qualified signatory for equivalent item approval 
(exceptions for programs such as CSA cat cert and others).

Do not agree with much of the shenanigans employed by the various agencies to 
effectively control market share through pseudo-engineering principles, but do 
agree in principle with the reductions in 'equivalent' components allowed on 
the critical component table.

Brian


From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions

Greetings, Compliance Experts,

I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had 
similar experiences, and may have some advice to share.
We are in the process of using a CB report for an industrial battery charger( 
to IEC60335-2-29) to obtain an in-country certification in an Asian country, 
and have run into an interesting difficulty. 

When our CB report was issued, the engineer was not willing to add wording to 
the Critical Components list to allow alternate components(X, Y caps, 
opto-isolators) with equivalent ratings and  Regulatory Approvals to be added, 
with the implication being that this addition was not allowed by the 
authorities.

As expected, two years later, we are going through one country's approval 
process, using our CB report, and the national regulatory organization has 
decided that the use of a different brand of opto-isolator and X/Y capacitor is 
a non-compliance, as they are not specifically in the CB report. (The 
electrical, environmental ratings, and the regulatory approvals are equivalent 
to the original components).  

a.)    Are these attitudes typical  in the CB world? 
b.)    Can anybody explain the apparent reticence of CB testing labs to allow 
alternate components in a CB report? 
c.) Is it likely that a National Body will eventually compromise, and use 
engineering judgement in accepting alternate components? Or is this usually a 
firm no?

The North American NRTL organizations are proactive in allowing equivalently 
rated and approved components to be sourced in a product, and frequently state 
this in their reports. IMHO, it seems a bit archaic to not account for 
second-sourcing of common off-the-shelf critical components such as these.

d.)    Is there a philosophical or historical difference between the two 
systems(CB and NRTL) that accounts for this difference in approaches? 

Thanks in advance for your attention- your response is appreciated. 

Brian Ceresney
Regulatory Lead
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.

-

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] CB Philosophy Questions

[Brian Oconnell]

Doug,

Thanks, will look for this stuff. The only stuff seen to date for component 
evaluation is in UL PAGs, CSA informs, and the IECEE CTL stuff. Are these 
component acceptance 'guides' part of the National Differences in a TRF, or 
regulatory law administered by the state?

According to the OSHA guy that is the NRTL program director, they are in 
process of removing component standards from their official listing (do a 
search on the EMC-PSTC listserv archives for his comments).

Do not understand Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it will 
always be accepted. Do you mean that the TRF was rejected because of poor 
component descriptions, or that changes to the C/C table in the TRF was 
rejected, or something else?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: dougp01 [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions

Brian 

I suggest you reference the IECEE website and read through the component 
acceptance requirements for each target country, including the USA. I haven't 
checked but there may also be such a document for the -2-29 you mention.  These 
can be found in the same general area as the national differences documents. 
Both are interesting reading.   If you are not able to access these contact 
your certifying agency and they should be willing to supply copies.  

As for what is typical in each country, I have learned that this is variable. 
In general the office tasked with reviewing and accepting your CB report‎ 
definitely feels they have the authority to do as they please. And to a large 
extent this is true.   Having a CB report is not a foregone guarantee that it 
will always be accepted.

‎Regards, - doug

Douglas Powell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01  
  Original Message  
From: Brian Oconnell‎
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Brian Oconnell
Subject: Re: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions

In both procedural controls and scoped test standards, North America 
(NRTL/SCC/NOM) reports and the IECEE CB scheme are becoming more similar where 
state-enforced codes do not contradict the scoped standard.

It has been several years since the NRTLs and other test agencies have 
routinely accepted a blanket 'equivalent' in the C/C table of submitted reports 
for all components. Typically stuff such as components that not across mains, 
or are not bridging insulation or a safety boundary can be cited in general 
terms with no particular mfr name or part no.

The issue is that the agency assessment engineer cannot be certain which 
characteristics of a component are important to something on the C/C table. So 
they test your box with the assumption that the design team has verified 
performance only for the particular combination of stuff on the BoM and the 
board layout that was submitted for assessment.

The other issue is that there is no formal IEC or SCC or OSHA standard or 
regulation that defines how to assess an equivalent component, or whom in the 
company shall be the qualified signatory for equivalent item approval 
(exceptions for programs such as CSA cat cert and others).

Do not agree with much of the shenanigans employed by the various agencies to 
effectively control market share through pseudo-engineering principles, but do 
agree in principle with the reductions in 'equivalent' components allowed on 
the critical component table.

Brian


From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CB Philosophy Questions

Greetings, Compliance Experts,

I'm finding myself in a curious situation, and wondering if you have had 
similar experiences, and may have some advice to share.
We are in the process of using a CB report for an industrial battery charger( 
to IEC60335-2-29) to obtain an in-country certification in an Asian country, 
and have run into an interesting difficulty. 

When our CB report was issued, the engineer was not willing to add wording to 
the Critical Components list to allow alternate components(X, Y caps, 
opto-isolators) with equivalent ratings and  Regulatory Approvals to be added, 
with the implication being that this addition was not allowed by the 
authorities.

As expected, two years later, we are going through one country's approval 
process, using our CB report, and the national regulatory organization has 
decided that the use of a different brand of opto-isolator and X/Y capacitor is 
a non-compliance, as they are not specifically in the CB report. (The 
electrical, environmental ratings, and the regulatory approvals are equivalent 
to the original components).  

a.)    Are these attitudes typical  in the CB world? 
b.)    Can anybody explain the apparent reticence of CB testing labs to allow 
alternate components in a CB report? 
c.) Is it likely that a National Body will eventually compromise, and use 
engineering

Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage

[Brian Oconnell]

Article 430 should be referenced for this stuff. In general, overload 
protection required for each branch circuit at the distribution panel.

My experience with current interrupt stuff embedded within motor is typically 
to meet the EIS ratings  (limits of windings), and unless it is thermomagnetic, 
probably cannot meet all O/L and S/C and FLA requirements.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage

Hi folks,

NFPA 79:2012 12.6.1.1 defines requirements for permitting the use of 16 AWG 
wire for motor power circuits if among other things the Circuit is provided 
with Class 10 overload protection.   Does anyone know if the Class 10 
protection rating applies/can be implemented with a motor's internal automatic 
thermal protection or if the requirement can only apply to external overload 
protection relays?


David P. Nyffenegger, PMP, SM-IEEE
Product Development Manager

-

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] 16 AWG wire usage

[Brian Oconnell]

Have an aphorism for this that was derived from another common one (Shaw), that 
found its way into a product's installation instructions:

Do not argue with an AHJ, you will get dirty and the AHJ probably likes the 
dirt.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage

In message 
blupr02mb116aef4c518d40f7344d15dc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com 
writes:

Article 430 should be referenced for this stuff. In general, overload 
protection required for each branch circuit at the distribution panel.

Less bother doing it that way, than arguing with the AHJ.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage

[Brian Oconnell]

UL/CSA60950-1 has very specific material requirements for motors. And 508C 
being deprecated, we now have UL61800-5-1, so that might be helpful if this is 
a controlled-drive motor, but have not read so not certain. IEC60204 has broad 
scope, so there an 'equivalent' ANSI or CSA standard not available.

Also,  remember that NFPA79 has some stuff that required same awg wire into 
equipment as provided by the external distribution circuit. But if the 
equipment terminal goes into rated interrupt device, then should be ok for 
decrease wire size.

Happy reading, the scoped standards and code cannot possibly be more than 1500 
pages

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage

I'm trying a preemptive attack on the design to make sure it complies before we 
get questioned by any AHJ or NRTL.  Perhaps I should clarify the my original 
question is relevant to wiring internal to machinery hence the reference to 
NFPA 79.  I'll take a look at NFPA 70 in a bit.  Next on my list it to look at 
EN 60950-1 and EN 60204-1 to look for any similar relevant restrictions as I 
need compliance with all of these.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:30 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 16 AWG wire usage

In message
blupr02mb116aef4c518d40f7344d15dc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:

Article 430 should be referenced for this stuff. In general, overload 
protection required for each branch circuit at the distribution panel.

Less bother doing it that way, than arguing with the AHJ.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] EMC software

[Brian Oconnell]

There have been previous questions to this listserv about EMC software. April 
issue of Incompliance magazine has article on evaluation of this stuff by Jack 
McFadden. The 'turtle' analogy is a bit strange, but the article does seem to 
cover most of what should be evaluated. In my little EMC-amateur mind, the only 
major issue not addressed is platform abstraction and dependency. Found it 
interesting that the author emphasized SWEBOK, which many consider intimidating 
because of its large technical scope.

The same guy also wrote a paper that covers the intersection of software 
engineering and EMC test design:
http://www.ets-lindgren.com/pdf/IC102013.pdf

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

Re: [PSES] IEC60950-1 Table 4B insulation temperatures

[Brian Oconnell]

Someone with TC108 connections needs to shout out. In any case, Table 4B is 
based on stuff in UL446 and IEC60085, where the delta T is based reliability of 
safety for the life of the equipment for windings in motors and transformers. 
The original IEC85 stuff was based on paper by T. W. Dakin written well before 
my parents found me under a desert rock. Also UL746B has long-term polymeric 
stuff to determine RTI.

The standards for electrical insulation systems and polymerics are designed for 
a long-term safety margin and to handle fault conditions and a 10 degC hot-spot 
margin but, for obvious  reasons, thermal limits should be observed.

Brian

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC60950-1 Table 4B insulation temperatures

All

I'm looking at an enclosed IT system that contains a number of 3rd party power 
supplies and, under normal conditions, the ambient temperature around various 
wall-wart and soap-on-a-rope power supplies is a few degrees above their 
stated maximum ambient temperatures.

The parts that make up the system are being used with their supplied PSUs and a 
future redesign will look at using a higher temperature rated open frame power 
supply and DC bus, or other solution, but we can't do that for the initial 
customer demonstration unit. 

The customer demonstration unit needs to be run at their site for a period of 
time and we obviously want it to be safe.

Where do the maximum temperatures of insulation in table 4B originate from - is 
it extensive experiment, or finger in the air?
Where insulation is run above rated temperature, what is the degradation method 
and does it follow the Arrhenius equation?

Several of the system parts are standard off-the-shelf pieces of IT equipment 
so the 40C rating is probably based on standard expectations for indoor 
environment and it would be a coincidence if it was also exactly the maximum 
permitted temperature under 60950, so there's almost certainly some hidden 
margin, but of course that's difficult to prove and quantify with an 
encapsulated PSU.

I'm trying to develop an argument as to how the initial customer demo system 
might still be considered safe, for a period of say 2-3 months, whilst not 
meeting the letter of the appropriate standard.

Suggestions and comments welcome.

Regards
Charlie


Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
LinkedIn: uk.linkedin.com/in/charlieblackham/
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 
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] IEC60950-1 Table 4B insulation temperatures

[Brian Oconnell]

Perfect. Cookies and ale for Ted. 

While normal operating ambient limits are largely based on heat energy transfer 
(or lack of), the thermal de-rating portion of a power supply is typically 
limited by the EIS class. And note the Arrhenius equation, where reliability 
rapidly takes a dive for increasing component temperatures. So you could be 
looking at reliability problems.

There are probably no modern converter designs where there is not one or more 
types of thermal limiting circuits or components. As airflow through and around 
the power supply, whether convection or forced, cannot be reliably modeled for 
all end-use conditions, designs include stuff in to disable the unit when 
something critical is out of its SOA.

Brian

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 2:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC60950-1 Table 4B insulation temperatures

The insulation is tested to determine what rating it is given. In the United 
States, the test procedure is UL 1446. The manufacturer specifies what 
temperature rating they want for their insulation system and it is tested to 
that limit. If it retains its dielectric strength, it passes.

I can't tell you how insulation behaves above its tested temperature. Part of 
the problem is that an insulation may be good to 165, but if the manufacturer 
only asks for Class 120 test, it won't get tested at a higher temperature. The 
test is only done to the limit requested, not to failure. 

As such, it may be difficult to determine if the insulation in your system is 
close to the limit or if it has plenty of margin. 

That being said, my experience is that the ambient temperature limits for power 
supplies are typically determined by their ability to dissipate heat, not by 
the insulation rating. The output current limiting is often done with 
thermally. If the ambient exceeds the rating, the thermal limiting may shut off 
the output at a lower current than what the power supply is rated for. There 
will also likely be thermal limiters on the semiconductors to keep their 
junction temperatures within acceptable limits. These thermal cut-outs may 
activate at higher ambient temperatures shutting off the switch-mode system. 
The system doesn't become unsafe above the specified ambient temperature, but 
it can stop operating. 

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

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

-

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] directives for ITE equipment

[Brian Oconnell]

Good People,

Have a customer that wants 2004/40/EC on the D of C. The declaration that was 
provided listed the EMC, ROHS and LVD, and cited the respective harmonized 
standards per the OJ.

Because 2004/40/EC  is not a marking directive, and the equipment is not an 
intentional radiator, would seem that Class B ITE would be covered solely by 
the standards per the EMC directive.

Dissenting opinions are welcome.

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

Re: [PSES] Germanwings crash

[Brian Oconnell]

In another life, long ago, in a galaxy far away, was a member of a squadron 
that frequently deployed detachments to isolated and not nice places. Our 
security model was based 99% on exogenous events/effects. The only internal 
influence considered was weapons proficiency and material assignment for the 
tech or mechanic that was on watch. Internal personnel security failure, until 
the recent sand-pile wars, had not been addressed by the military managers that 
were planning deployments.

Perhaps it is time for commercial aviation to study procedures and processes of 
internal security for forward deployed military units.

Boeing and Airbus spend their lobby dollars on procurement issues; and it may 
have never occurred to senior corporate management to consider because of the 
ROI for development of materials to support logistics and tactics of cockpit 
security.

Is the failure of internal personel an extension of 'forseeable misuse' ?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:37 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Germanwings crash

In message d1418932.6b4da%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dated Wed, 1 
Apr 2015, Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes:

These type doors became mandatory after 9/11. Boeing was sued after 
9/11 because these type doors had not been installed.

What is the manufacturer to do?

I feel that Boeing and Airbus have enough clout to get bad decisions by 
FAA, ICAO or whomever reconsidered.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Basic instruction in EMC and safety requirements for the non-professional

[Brian Oconnell]

Mr. Nute,

As this is probably for management, respectfully suggest that the premier 
exposition for PHBs is none other than a reference to some Wile E. Coyote 
videos. This is well within the MBA attention span and their required level of 
understanding for product performance and conformity.

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:57 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Basic instruction in EMC and safety requirements for the 
non-professional

Hi Ken:

Oh, boy.  EMC and safety requirements are a cost without a sale.  That is what 
a VP of marketing told me.   For the most part, management would prefer to keep 
the costs at a minimum.

EMC, ROHS, and safety requirements are rules that the products must comply with 
in order to sell in various countries.  

1)  The requirements must be included in the design of the product.

2)  Tests verify that the product complies with the requirements and 
determine whether the product can bear certification marks.

3)  Marks applied to the product attest to compliance with the requirements.

4)  For some countries, documents accompanying the product attest to 
compliance with the requirements.

5)  Some countries and certification houses require factory inspection as a 
condition for marking the product.

6)  Some certification houses require periodic factory surveillance.

7)  The cost of compliance at our company is.  The number of full-time 
employees in this activity is.

I'm sure that you can amplify on any of these points if asked.


Good luck, and best regards,
Rich

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Basic instruction in EMC and safety requirements for the 
non-professional

Can anyone out there suggest either some texts or urls covering the subject 
matter for management at a higher level not interested in details?  Especially 
as to impact on selling equipment outside a country's own borders.

Thank you,

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 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] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection

[Brian Oconnell]

5085-3/CSA No66.3 scoped only where class 2 or 3 stuff is required, and 
generally not considered for industrial environment where the secondary circuit 
not exposed. Other than Class 2 would be scoped by UL1012 and CSA107.1.

For industrial control transformers, the scoped standard would probably be 
UL508 or UL508A, where the tables in clause 42 of 508A would apply for 
overcurrent protection of both transformer sides. In U.S. (not certain about 
Mexico), anything over 2kVA is considered a power transformer, where branch 
circuit protection is required; for Canada all power transformers are provided 
current interrupt via the branch circuit protection, and supplementary 
protection device must be certified per CSA No235-4. 

For distribution transformers over 10kVA, UL1561 and CSA No47 are scoped, where 
branch protection not necessarily considered, and probably not relevant to this 
discussion.

Brian


From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 10:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection
 
I'd restate Dave's case below to say:  PE's are really only required for Public 
Sector work.  Industrial/commercial products are certified (where necessary) by 
NRTL testing, and - as Brian has noted - by application of CEC/NEC.
 
Brian Kunde's situation appears to be that NEC and CEC have conflicting 
interpretations of what allows for a safe installation.
 
1.  dry type is any transformer not encased in oil or other cooling 
dielectric media.  It can be encapsulated.  See UL 5085 or CSA C22.2 No.66.1 to 
be sure.
2.  Ideally, the vendor has guidelines backed up by test data, or if it's CSA 
listed, their file provides guidance;  but that may not be judged suitable to 
your application.  When confronted with a picky inspector (right or wrong), you 
get into a difficult place.  I agree with you that a 2 or 2.25 A slo-blow fuse 
is best, esp. when the vendor says 1.8 is too small and you have to go looking 
look for special long-delay types (which will vary, thereby pose reliability 
problems).  However, an inspector is difficult to outflank, for reasons which 
are generally all good.
 
So, if #2 (mfr. test data) doesn't resolve the situation, I see two 
alternatives: 
 
2a:  have test data showing that ~2A sustained** current does not lead to 
temperatures that lead to an insulation breakdown, and present that to the 
inspector.
2b:  have an NRTL do a field label of the equipment to allow the inspector to 
hang his safety hat on the NRTL report.
 
 
**  The time that this current needs to be sustained would be in either UL 
5085-3 or C22.2 #66.1 under temperature or abnormal testing (sorry, don't have 
them handy) in real world terms, this is 10~15 min. but in some cases is 
stretched out until the XF gets to a stable temperature.
 
Good luck!
 
Brian Gregory
720-450-4933


-- Original Message --
From: Nyffenegger, Dave dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:03:28 +

Engineers doing any sort of direct public work in the U.S. must be licensed 
or working under a (licensed) PE (in which case they are not an engineer in the 
eyes of the law) regardless of the discipline.  This applies to private 
consulting firms doing public work or within government agencies.  The same 
industrial exception exists in the US and this does carry through to products 
for sale.

-Dave
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection
 
Please help.
 
We have a product, laboratory equipment, that has a 330 watt 1:1 230Vac 
isolation transformer.  330w / 230V = 1.34 amps.
 
To protect this transformer we applied the US-NEC table 450.3(B) to where the 
primary protector can be up to 300% of the of 1.34 amps. The transformer 
manufacturer recommended a 2.25A time lag circuit breaker to handle the inrush 
current from this transformer. Life is good.
 
Then, we had this product inspected in Canada to which they apply the Canadian 
Electric Code section 26-256, Overcurrent protection for dry=type transformer 
circuits rated 750V or less, which states the primary overcurrent protection 
device cannot exceed 125% of the transformer current rating. That's 134 amps * 
1.25 (125%) = 1.78 amps. Rounded up, the inspector said we had to use a fuse or 
breaker no larger than 1.8 amps.
 
We notified the transformer manufacturer who said (and we confirmed) that 1.8 
amp protection device will nuisance trip due to Inrush Currents.
 
The transformer CSA inspector and a representative from Littelfuse both are 
telling us that the inspector applied the wrong section of the Electric Code 
and that section 26-254, Overcurrent protection for power and distribution 
transformer circuits rated 750 V or less, other than 

Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection

[Brian Oconnell]

Inrush peak for 50/60Hz transformers mostly from  magnetizing current - core 
saturation and residual flux, and of course input V. As the saturation curve 
does not extend past the pi/2 inrush peak, any further inrush past a few mSec 
is typically from filling up the coulomb buckets on the secondary side. This is 
a tau-based thing, so both DCR and Z would be used to determine the 
current-interrupt component's expected I2T. Inrush for the 'small' transformer 
is being discussed can have peak inrush well over 20x rated continuous. For the 
smaller industrial control stuff under 5kVA, series thermistor in lieu of fuse 
is common where wire and breaker are correctly sized.

The AHJ's focus should be on SCCR, which is inversely proportional to the DCR 
of the secondary windings, and coordination between the distribution breaker 
and the fuse. Perhaps you can distract the assessment person with a Bugs Bunny 
or Daffy Duck cartoon on your pad/laptop.

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

Re: [PSES] USB and radiated emission issues

[Brian Oconnell]

From Intel: www.ti.com/sc/docs/apps/msp/intrface/usb/emitest.pdf

Brian
 
 
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: 20 March 2015 12:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] USB and radiated emission issues
 
Got some serious radiated emission issues from a USB 2.0 stick (high-speed 
480Mb/sec).
Spectrum shows the 480MHz way over the EN55022 limit line.
 
We’ve been told to implement a common mode choke between the USB IC and the 
input/output port. That means on the D+ and D- transmission lines.
http://www.coilcraft.com/0805usb.cfm
 
Anybody who have experience with such design?
 
#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 
emc-p...@ieee.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

[Brian Oconnell]

John Allen's approach and advice is reasonable.

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

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

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

Brian


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

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

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

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

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


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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive

[Brian Oconnell]

Did not that ISO stuff was required. What is basis for requirement to indicate 
accreditations/certifications on the machinery directive D of C?

Another member of the esteemed Brian Club.

Brian


From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive

 
Advice from one with mostly US experience, but with an NRTL/NB:
 
Until otherwise prohibited by MD, best practices are:
 
- use of company issued documentation to properly describe the products covered 
by a DoC.   Types, application and ratings need to be crystal clear in the 
documentation.  Use product safety reports from NRTLs as a guide.  I would not 
use either S/N or model numbers.
 
- Be accurate and precise about the scope (the extent) of your organization's 
ISO 9001 or (other relevant) certifications or accreditations, as far as both 
the activities and geographical locations covered by the certifications and 
product use applications are concerned.
 
 
another Brian 


-- Original Message --
From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - msherma...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive
Brian --
 
I would think a model number might suffice as designation of the machinery. 
In my way of thinking, there has to be something that ties the nameplate to the 
DoC; we use the model number, not a functional description---have never run 
into that interpretation before.
 
Although the Annex describing the contents of the DoC includes a SN, the 
required markings on the machine in Annex I do *not* require a SN. My approach 
is that if it's not required to be on the machine and therefore is not on the 
machine, it doesn't exist and therefore is not required to be on the DoC. 
 
I think there's nothing wrong with electronic signatures and generic DoCs. How 
many of us have seen exactly that printed in owner's manuals?
 
Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.
 

From: Brian Kunde brian_ku...@lecotc.com
To: EMC-PSTC EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:18:55 PM
Subject: [PSES] Nameplate and DoC requirements Machinery Directive
 
I'm getting beat up again in France for non-compliances according to the 
machinery Directive on our Nameplate and DoC. I know we have discussed these 
issues in the past but I was wondering if things have changed or become clearer 
over time. We want to do things right but some items are hard for us to 
implement and don't want to have to do unless we really have to.
 
Nameplate (label) according to MD 1.7.3 - designation of the machinery.  The 
Test Lab in France wants up to put something like Carbon and Sulfur 
Determinator on our nameplate which we just do not have room for. Do others 
struggle with this requirement? What ways have you found to comply with this 
requirement?
 
Declaration of Conformity according to MD Annex II, Serial Number.  The Test 
Lab insist that the serial number must be on the DoC even though many have 
explained why this is not required. TUV:SUD has also told us that the serial 
number does not have to be on the DoC unless it is needed to determine a CE 
Compliant instrument from a non-CE compliant instrument, but we do not have 
this in writing. All of our products are CD compliant so the serial number has 
no purpose. Does anyone have a document that clearly explains when the serial 
number is and is not required on the DoC?  We cannot really use the methods 
described in the Guide, such as using a Range of serial numbers because we 
built one at a time per customer order.  The Test Lab wants the DoC to have the 
exact same information as the Nameplate so they say we cannot use Series in 
the model number or Product Name.  Do others use such shortcuts?  To do what 
they want we would have to type up a custom DoC for every instrum!
 ent we build with a dedicated document number, have it signed, and store 
copies either paper or electronic file for 10 years. That's crazy.
 
Should I just give in or do I have any ammo in fighting this?   Some of the 
items this Test Lab said was required six months they are now backing down 
saying things like it would be nice . . . .
 
Thanks for the help.
 
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 
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: 

Re: [PSES] Encapsulation for Creepage Clearance

[Brian Oconnell]

Before we walk up the hill(sunny and 27degC) to Stone to partake of 
honey-mustard pretzels and IPA have an off-site engineering meeting, want to 
add to Mr. Nute's most thoughtful reply that 'conformal' coatings (at least for 
NRTLs) is more process-oriented than just material. That is, the application 
must be part of the FUS audit. Potting and coating requires recurring test.



Brian



From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]

Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:28 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] Encapsulation for Creepage  Clearance



Hi John:



Clearance is defined as the shortest distance between conductors in air.



Creepage is not an insulator, but the interface between air and solid 
insulation.  Creepage is defined as the shortest distance between conductors 
across the surface of the interposed solid insulation.  (Physically, creepage 
cannot be shorter than clearance.)



Encapsulation and conformal coatings supposedly displace the air with a solid 
insulation; since there is no air, there is no clearance or creepage between 
conductors.  (Some authorities and standards will disagree with this 
statement.)  There is only distance through solid insulation.



The issue is whether the encapsulation and conformal coatings truly displace 
the air.  And, if the encapsulation and conformal coating material is 
impervious to air.  And, the stick-to-it-ness of the materials to the 
conductors and substrate.  And maybe some other parameters.



If your product complies with the required clearance and creepage without the 
encapsulation or conformal coating, then you don't have to address the 
encapsulation and conformal coating requirements.



I know that I haven't answered your questions.  But, maybe, I have given you a 
perspective.



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] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

[Brian Oconnell]

Thought about this and realized that I have never seen crimped connector fail 
where the connector components have  test certificate, and where the crimping 
tool is subject to recurring calibration, and where the correct wiring 
materials implemented. And have never used crimping tools or connector 
materials that did not have instructions and conditions of acceptability. You 
get what you pay for.

This is basis of my requirement for crimped pins on transformer flying leads, 
which are then soldered into the PCB.

Would be very interested in other's experience with crimped connector failures.

Brian

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

I agree with Gary, but the quality depends on wire type and match between wire 
and crimp.
Also the tool quality (if the right tool is used at all) is essential.
Crimps are suitable for stranded wire only, and the wire need to be inserted 
far enough.

Crimps are subject to a number of failure causes, and I have seen many wires 
come out of a crimp
connector without force.

Not all safety critical parts have full compatible flat 6.3 mm terminals, the 
retention hole is missing or adapted so as
to allow wires be soldered into.
Manufacturers of crimp terminals often fail to provide decent assembly and 
safety instructions with their products leaving ample space to for misfits..


There is also no (safety) convention on where to select what type of terminal, 
be it ring, fork or pin or connector type, so
the component applied determines the choice of type, not necessarily leading to 
 a safe solution.

This is the more true as component manufacturers provide safety-approved and 
non-approved types of the same component, mostly at a better price, differing 
only a type of connection. 

I have seen pin type of crimp connectors used at a screwed power supply 
terminal (mains side), and
I fail to see the added value of the double crimp action in that case. If the 
screw comes loose then.

I have seen no safety standard explicitly  refusing shrinked connections within 
the restrictions Rich mentioned.

Interesting question on heat shrinks is there possible qualification as an 
insulator... ??

Gert Gremmen
Ce-test

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 20:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

I've seen the same, although I generally use double crimp wire connections even 
on the smaller gauge wires. One crimp obviously attaches to the copper 
conductor the other crimp attaches to the wire insulation. Both Crimps are made 
with the same tool in the same crimping action. I suppose there is  a small 
cost difference in the piece part, but it's a better, in my opinion, method for 
providing a secure double connection

mac

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections



Hi Charlie:


On certified products, I have seen shrink-wrap holding soldered connections in 
place.  

The shrink-wrap must attached to both the wire and some other thing that 
holds the wire in place should the solder connection fail.  I have seen the 
shrink wrap covering both the solder joint and the terminal such that the 
terminal is the other thing that holds the wire in place.  

The issue is that if the solder joint fails, the wire can contact some other 
potential that would create a dangerous situation.  I have seen cabling used 
for this purpose.  

Note that the solder joint itself must be mechanically secure prior to 
soldering.


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

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

Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

[Brian Oconnell]

Concur. Two methods of securement are required for ground bond material 
connections.

And assume that heat-shrink material is being referenced. Heat shrink is not 
intended for this use, nor has any safety standard provided assessment methods 
where heat shrink is used for other than boot and insulator.

Brian

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

I'd think not,, especially earth wire connection unless the shrink wrap 
manufacturer  claims it can be used for securing.   Soldering is generally 
frowned upon in the safety standards and especially for earth connections.

-Dave

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

Group

I'm looking for examples of what would and would not be considered as 
acceptable positioning or support devices for soldered connections.

Can shrink-wrap alone be considered to provide acceptable holding in place , 
particularly in the earth wire.

I think not, but would be grateful for other opinions 

Regards
Charlie

-

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] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public

[Brian Oconnell]

This is probably better idea, as the material designation is typically part of 
the silk screen. The 'IQ' databases for PCBs can search via this designation.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:35 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public

Carl

Have you looked at
http://iq.ul.com/

regards
Charlie

-Original Message-
From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 09 March 2015 16:56
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public

Members,

UL has always kept the list of their customers trademarks and tradenames 
indexes public.  I've always relied heavily upon that information for
ZPMV2 printed wiring board identification.  I need to know what the temperature 
rating is on a power supply PWB and as usual, all I have to work with is the 
PWB manufacturer trademark.

The following link is no longer functional:
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/glocids.html

I called UL and the customer service rep was as helpful as possible.  But the 
short answer after he chased the question a bit is that UL will no longer make 
this information public.

Have any of you bumped into this issue yet, and if so, have you found an 
alternate solution?

Thanks,

Carl

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 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] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public

[Brian Oconnell]

Available if you know company name when you look at the vendor's  'ZPMV2' file 
number
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm

But do not understand your need to know PCB ratings. If you must evaluate 
construction of the component power supply, then respectfully suggest that you 
find another supplier. Or am missing something obvious?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 9:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL Trademark and Tradename Indexes no longer public

Members,

UL has always kept the list of their customers trademarks and tradenames  
indexes public.  I've always relied heavily upon that information for  
ZPMV2 printed wiring board identification.  I need to know what the  
temperature rating is on a power supply PWB and as usual, all I have to  
work with is the PWB manufacturer trademark.

The following link is no longer functional:
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/glocids.html

I called UL and the customer service rep was as helpful as possible.  But  
the short answer after he chased the question a bit is that UL will no  
longer make this information public.

Have any of you bumped into this issue yet, and if so, have you found an  
alternate solution?

Thanks,

Carl

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

[Brian Oconnell]

'TANSTAAFL' format is from Heinlein's Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, and is, as 
Mr. Woodgate notes, the literally correct acronym.

The ' TAANSFL' format is from some of Friedman's stuff, where there are at 
least three forms of this acronym for (presumably) the same thing. 

While in this divergent context, worth noting that Heinlein's books directly 
address the ethics (but not morality) of public and worker safety vs cost to 
the individual and the cost to the society.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

In message 
blupr02mb116c7f64747a124b4c99cdbc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com 
writes:

 TAANSFL.

Pardon? TANSTAAFL?
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

[Brian Oconnell]

Process Control; that is, the construction prints and BoM are controlled 
documents, and any deviations are subject to a formal change order where the 
senior regulatory person is final signatory. Makes some people rather unhappy, 
but seems to work for my employer. The downside is the significant chunk of 
time that a senior member of the design team must devote to sustaining. 
TAANSFL. 

And I do 'own' it forever.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

On 3/5/2015 5:36 PM, Richard Nute wrote:
 The product safety engineer is a member of that
 team, overtly or not, and owns the safety of the
 product.
S(he) can't own it forever, though.   One designed, a product is subject 
to being changed by people the safety engineer might never know -- and 
never control.

Cortland Richmond

-

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] Signal words, definition and usage

[Brian Oconnell]

Software, where not safety-critical, is a different subject. Microsoft has 
published several design guides (most are on the MSDN site) and has several 
long web pages that instruct and admonish programmers about the proper use of 
the various dialog boxes and how to phrase and title the dialog strings. Code 
monkeys seldom read this stuff.

The general level of recommended escalation is typically
1. info/notification msg
2. warning msg
3. error msg
4. system exit

Warnings resulting from a programmatic process are appropriate even where 
safety is not involved, as there could be an impending loss/corruption of data 
- analogous to equipment damage. For most programming language compilers, a 
message that is not a result of normal progress, is considered a 'warning' or 
an 'error'. Warnings can be specifically ignored/overridden, but errors (by 
definition) can halt the tool-chain sequence.

Most software shops have formal policies for messages emitted by the elements 
of the tool-chain. It becomes a really big thing for security and/or 
safety-critical code where MISRA C or Ada is implemented, as suppressed warning 
flag settings must be approved by quality managers.

Brian


From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Signal words, definition and usage

Re use the signal words for other purposes than potential injury:
1.  Windows 95, I think it was, broadly corrupted the exclamation 
point/triangle hazard symbol by placing it in their pop up system error boxes. 
I'm glad to see that this is no longer practiced.
2.  I once had a discussion at a former employer with software GUI programmers, 
who similarly used the word warning for software system error messages that 
again had nothing to do with safety.
My argument was that we, as the manufacturer, had to have a consistent 
vocabulary across our entire user interface---labels, manuals, GUI, training 
materials---and I reserved the words DANGER, WARNING and CAUTION for personal 
injury issues. The software programmers then switched to ALERT or other words 
for software issues not related to safety.

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 
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] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

[Brian Oconnell]

CSA provides the respective standard's Design Manual for clients that are 
accredited per their Category Certification program.

Coatings and paint are specifically disallowed per CSA No. 0.4 (which is a 
requirement per ANSI60950-1), and this standard is the basis of the 40A test. 
Also, various NEC code articles such as 200,250, and 690 specify materials and 
construction where being used as any electrical bonding surface.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 6:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

Is there a free on-line reference showing acceptable methods for ground 
bonding? Screws vs studs? How to properly stack ground bond lugs on to a single 
stud? Lock washers, star washers, lugs with serrated edges, screws with 
serrated heads, etc..?  Something like this would be most helpful. I recall 
seeing this kind of information in the back of safety standards we used years 
ago.

BTW, I have reviewed products from several far east companies who use heavy and 
thick powder coat paint on their products. Then they'll use a screw into a 
threaded whole for ground bonding without removing the paint. When I bring this 
to their attention as a possible non-compliance, they reply, Test It. Sure 
enough, it will pass a Ground Bond test at 40 amps for 2 minutes.  So it is ok 
as long as it passes the test? The standard we deal with doesn't say anything 
about surfaces being paint free, cutting through paint, gas-tight, or what type 
of lock washers to use. It only says, Screw connections shall be secured 
against loosening. It doesn't say anything about stacking ground bond lugs on 
a stud or if you have to use individual nuts between each lug.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

The 'star' washer should be gas-tight seal. If a serrated-headed screw is even 
less of seal, than higher risk-level indicated. Faulty logic? Anyone else 
observe failure modes of ground-bond hardware?

The CSA Design Manuals (not all standards have a respective D.M.) have drawings 
and specifications for acceptable materials and combinations of ground bond 
hardware. Recommended.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

In message
blupr02mb1160acb7f7c87a911caabc6c1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
writes:

Saw exactly this happen on flight deck of USS Midway during 1979. While
troubleshooting APD10 radar, the hydraulics guy that was helping me
shorted the 400Hz bus to the box containing the power supply, and a
star washer vaporized because part of the converter was floated. The
star washer was not authorized construction.

I was talking about serrated-headed screws, not star washers.

-

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


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 
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

Re: [PSES] Harmonised Standards for EMC Directive 2014/30/EU and Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU

[Brian Oconnell]

Picochance? What SI unit is the 'chance' derived from? 

This could be useful in my uncertainty calculations.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised Standards for EMC Directive 2014/30/EU and Low 
Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU

In message 000f424e.66f2bca822817...@rpqconsulting.com, dated Tue, 3 
Mar 2015, Ron Pickard (RPQ) rpick...@rpqconsulting.com writes:

For your question, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the member 
states and ETSI meet the 2016 dates in those directives.

I meant a bit more than that. What chance is there of all the work being 
done in time? 1 picochance?
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate

-

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] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

[Brian Oconnell]

The 'star' washer should be gas-tight seal. If a serrated-headed screw is even 
less of seal, than higher risk-level indicated. Faulty logic? Anyone else 
observe failure modes of ground-bond hardware?

The CSA Design Manuals (not all standards have a respective D.M.) have drawings 
and specifications for acceptable materials and combinations of ground bond 
hardware. Recommended.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

In message 
blupr02mb1160acb7f7c87a911caabc6c1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com 
writes:

Saw exactly this happen on flight deck of USS Midway during 1979. While 
troubleshooting APD10 radar, the hydraulics guy that was helping me 
shorted the 400Hz bus to the box containing the power supply, and a 
star washer vaporized because part of the converter was floated. The 
star washer was not authorized construction.

I was talking about serrated-headed screws, not star washers.

-

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] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

[Brian Oconnell]

Saw exactly this happen on flight deck of USS Midway during 1979. While 
troubleshooting APD10 radar, the hydraulics guy that was helping me shorted the 
400Hz bus to the box containing the power supply, and a star washer vaporized 
because part of the converter was floated. The star washer was not authorized 
construction.

This was my first experience with 'compliance engineering' .

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 11:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

In message 001401d0546c$35404530$9fc0cf90$@ieee.org, dated Sun, 1 Mar 
2015, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:

OTOH, there is still that possibility of a heavy fault current blasting 
away tiny point-contact conduction paths.

I wonder whether that actually happens. It seems to me that the points 
might, instead, melt and weld to the substrate. That's how spot-welding 
works. An experiment or three is indicated.

-

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] EN 55024 updates

[Brian Oconnell]

https://www.vde-verlag.de/standards/1800179/e-din-en-55024-a1-vde-0878-24-a1-2015-02.html


From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 55024 updates

Hi all,

Can anyone share knowledge of the 2015 Amendment of EN 55024? I haven't heard 
details of what is being changed. 

Thanks,

David Schaefer

-

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] Is NRTL listing mandatory for consumer-grade telephone terminal equipment?

[Brian Oconnell]

Non sequitur? The survey indicated injury rates, not recalled products 
(actually preferable to injuries).

A small example from my edge of the desert. With exception of the U.K. and 
Germany, all of the PV stuff that has been reviewed by self that was built in 
the EU required some significant fixes - did not conform to EN62109-1 much less 
UL1741/1703. Methinks the industry attitude of many southern EU states needs 
some adjustment.

The only thing that OSHA and SCC should fix is the mess that is the (lack of) 
mutual recognition among accredited labs. If one NRTL thinks another NRTL's 
work cannot be accepted, then make a regulatory framework where they are 
required to be doing the same thing or the offending NRTL's VP of engineering 
goes to jail.

Brian


From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is NRTL listing mandatory for consumer-grade telephone 
terminal equipment?

Good morning (London time!)

W.r.t. the OSHA survey – things have changed a bit in the EU since 2008 – for 
both good and bad! 

I think there is more general awareness of the hazards of electrical and other 
goods – and certainly there are more product recalls than there ever were in 
earlier days, and the supply chain is more aware of its responsibilities to 
ensure that only “safe” items are supplied. You only have to look at the number 
of high-profile product recalls that now routinely occur!

OTOH, the ranges of goods on offer, and the variety of sources from which they 
come, have expanded enormously – and that, unfortunately, has lead to more 
“holes in the systems” for trying to ensure that only “safe” items are put on 
the market.

However, I think that there are several common factors which are tending to 
reinforce the overall trend towards safer products across the World, and thus 
in both N.America and Europe, such as:

1) More and more products are being developed for worldwide, as opposed to 
national, markets, and that means that the designers and manufacturers have to 
take all the market requirements into account – and, with the welcome rise in 
the importance of truly international safety standards, that means that those 
suppliers do more closely try to meet them (or then either fail to get their 
products into the big markets, or else get widely taken to account for 
supplying unsafe products)

The NTRL approach in N. America and the EU CE marking requirements over here 
have both substantially contributed to that  both directly in their own 
marketplaces and more globally as the less economically-developed countries 
(even the big ones like China!) pragmatically adopt the similar standards and 
regulatory controls on the basis that “if it works in the big countries then it 
should work for us as well” (and as well as encouraging and helping their own 
manufacturers to meet those same standards in order to have much wider export 
markets – or at least not to lose them!).

2) Intelligence gathering and dissemination of information on unsafe products 
is now much more worldwide – and so knowledge of those products quickly gets to 
both the regulators and the general public, and the latter are in a much better 
position to put pressure on the former to get the suppliers to get the problems 
fixed! 

Gone are the days when a supplier in one country could be reasonably sure that 
faults in products on one side of the World would not become public knowledge 
elsewhere – or that a local supplier could claim that a product was OK and a 
particular safety problem had never been known about in his marketplace, even 
though it was well known to the suppliers and regulators in another.

National product-alert/recall regimes are much more established in both of the 
big markets – the legally-enforced systems such CPSC/OHSA in the US and RAPEX 
in the EU have more clout than they did before. Even if many of the individual 
regulators are short of funds to enforce the rules, the combined effects of all 
of them help collectively

So where do I think that leaves us?  Well, collectively a lot better than we 
were in 2008, and with a general way forward to better, safer products. 

Is the NTRL system in the US still necessary? Yes, because that is how the 
State regulators and the public expect/require it to be at present – but in 
another 10-20 years, maybe it will become a fond memory from the past! ☺

John Allen
W.London, UK

From: Kevin Robinson [mailto:kevinrobinso...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 21 February 2015 03:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is NRTL listing mandatory for consumer-grade telephone 
terminal equipment?

OSHA Conducted a Request for Information (RFI) back in 2008 that compared the 
effectiveness and overall costs of SDoC vs 3rd Party Conformity assessment, the 
full summary report can be found here 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OSHA-2008-0032-0099 .  While 
there was no 

Re: [PSES] Class 1 appliances

[Brian Oconnell]

Rich,

Dunno what 'class' a 5-15 receptacle would be considered, because could be used 
with Class  I or II equipment. 

As newer 5-15R stuff is supposed to be 'polarized', the intention is for 
connection to both classes of equipment, and to accommodate the idiots that 
clip the ground pin, so that L/N polarity is retained. 

From UL63368-1, F.3.6.2 Class II equipment:

 Equipment providing protective earthing to other equipment cannot be regarded 
as CLASS II EQUIPMENT

For CLASS II EQUIPMENT provided with a MAINS cord having a conductor with 
green-and-yellow insulation that
is used only to provide a connection to FUNCTIONAL EARTH , there are no 
requirements other than those in 4.6
regarding the termination of this conductor at the equipment end.

Still confused.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:48 AM
To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Class 1 appliances

Hi Brian:  

I said such designation is not a requirement in
any safety standard that I know of.  I didn't say
that it was not a part of a TRF.

I am not familiar with NFPA 70, 70E, and 99.  Hmm.
Are 5-15R Class II?


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 
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] Class 1 appliances

[Brian Oconnell]

Hello Mr. Nute,

Not certain of your meaning for  Designating a product as a Class I, Class II, 
orClass III is not a requirement in any safety standard that I know of.

In all of the IEC-format TRFs issued as CB reports issued for my employer's 
stuff, the first or second page has 'Class of Equipment', wherein 'Class I' or 
'Class II' or 'Class III' is indicated. A similar classification of electrical 
equipment and components is also indicated per NEC (NFPA70, 70E, and 99).

So what am I missing in the use and definitions of class designations?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Class 1 appliances

Designating a product as a Class I, Class II, or
Class III is not a requirement in any safety
standard that I know of.  

We safety professionals use the Class designations
to evaluate the safeguards in the product.

We fool ourselves by designating the Class, and,
often, by ignoring other Class construction within
the product. 

I prefer not designating the product class, but
designating where the Class I and Class II
construction exists within the product.

For a moment, consider the common brick power
supply used with laptops and other computer
peripherals.  Most are insulation encased.  Some
have a mains cord with a PE (protective earth).
In today's SMPS, there is no grounded barrier in
the transformer, so Class I construction is not
used in the transformer as a barrier between the
mains and the SELV output.  Instead, the
construction between mains and SELV is Class II.
So, what is the PE used for?

In most brick power supplies, the PE is used to
connect the system FE (functional earth) to earth.
(Often, one pole of the d.c. output is connected
to FE.)  

If the brick employs Y1 EMI capacitors, the
earthed side if the capacitors is FE.  Is the
brick a Class I or Class II product?

If the brick employs Y2 EMI capacitors, the
earthed side if the capacitors is PE.  Is the
brick a Class I or Class II product?

If the d.c. FE passes the high-current test, but
not the constructional requirements, is the FE a
PE and is the product a Class I product?

The argument as to the Class designation of a
product is futile and not useful (and unending
with no conclusion).


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 
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] Surge Testing 3 phase Equipment

[Brian Oconnell]

The phrase all lower levels must be satisfied” is what bites you for 
three-phase. Did this recently, where the only mitigation was to rent a 3-ph 
master-blaster tester and do a complete pre-comp series, where the data was 
used to justify the (much reduced) test series done by the lab that wrote the 
report. Talk to your local EMC lab guys, they probably have developed a 
rationale for reduced testing.

Brian


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:20 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Surge Testing 3 phase Equipment

We perform Surge Immunity test according to IEC/EN 61000-4-5. Family and 
Generic standards call out voltage levels for “Line to Line” and “Line to 
Earth”.  
 
So for single phase electrical equipment we perform surge test on the following 
coupling modes which can take between 1-4 hours to perform depending on the 
time between pulses, number of phase angles tested, and number of voltage 
levels tested:
 
L1-N
L1-PE
N-PE
 
We are looking to perform the Surge test on a 3 phase device (first time for 
our corporate lab). However, the possible coupling choices appear to be almost 
endless (18 additional modes). To test all coupling modes available from our 
test equipment, this test could take an entire week to perform.  I’m guessing 
we can reduce the number of coupling paths. What do most other labs do?  What 
would you do? For instances; 
 
Line to Line
L1-L2
L1-L3
L2-L3
L1-N
L2-N
L3-N
 
Line to Earth
L1-PE
L2-PE
L3-PE
N-PE
 
Is the above adequate or do I also have to test these Line to Earth 
combinations, such as:
L1+L2-PE
L2+L3-PE
L1+L3-PE
L1+N-PE
L2+N-PE
L3+N-PE
L1+L2+L3-PE
L1+L2+N-PE
L1+L3+N-PE
L2+L3+N-PE
L1+L2+L3+N-PE
 
Pros, Cons, Suggestions, opinions, etc.??
 
Thanks to all.
 
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 
emc-p...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UL updates

[Brian Oconnell]

http://industries.ul.com/blog/effective-date-information



From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL updates

Dear colleagues;

Can anyone let me know if there is website that lists all the amendments and 
updates to a particular standard.
In this case I am interested to know all the latest updates to UL 60065.

Many thanks in advance; 

Ian McBurney
Design  Compliance Engineer.

Allen  Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Simulating soft errors in memory

[Brian Oconnell]

This is not among the easy tests. Did something mathematically analogous to 
prove that the code was not a safety-critical component for a custom power 
converter, but was much easier than your case because the processor could 
operate down to static clock mode and memory was only EEPROM and flash, so 
simulated corruption of opcode/operands was relatively easy . My initial 
approach was using continuously random variable pairs to bias memory locations, 
but it gave the agency assessment people migraines. In any case, do not believe 
that 'gaussian' random variable pairs are legit for bit upsets due to particle 
hits, but ya gotta use whatever the agency people can understand.

For statistical simulations, DRAM test fixtures would require an interface that 
could affect the data and address bus, and/or the refresh strobes.

For physically induced failures, you would need a controlled radiation source 
(see JESD89 ). And alpha particles are only one of three sources for radiation 
upsets. Note that smoke detectors can emit both alpha and gamma stuff.

There have been many papers on testing and simulating DRAM soft errors; the 
Emperor's Search Engine awaits your bidding. Ignore the cosmic-ray stuff.

Brian

From: Moshe Valdman [mailto:mvald...@netvision.net.il] 
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 7:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Simulating soft errors in memory

Hi all,
 
Sorry if this is a bit out of this forum's theme.I hope some of you might be 
able to help (or at least direct me to a more relevant forum)
 
I am looking for a simple, inexpensive way to cause soft errors (AKA SEU) im 
dynamic memories, FPGAs etc. in an operating system. The idea is: see what the 
effects are and convince designers we have to handle the problem
 
Could smoke detectors or other devices which create some alpha particles help 
create soft errors effects?
 
thanks,
Moshe Valdman

-

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] ISO17025 calibration lab

[Brian Oconnell]

Also, have used the Arbiter Model 936A to verify a 1000A shunt. Some rental 
houses have this unit.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell 
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] ISO17025 calibration lab

Required bandwidth?


From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ISO17025 calibration lab

Can anyone recommend a calibration lab for current tranducers rated to 3,000A 
(ac and dc) to ISO17025 with a certificate? 

-

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] ISO17025 calibration lab

[Brian Oconnell]

Required bandwidth?


From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ISO17025 calibration lab

Can anyone recommend a calibration lab for current tranducers rated to 3,000A 
(ac and dc) to ISO17025 with a certificate? 

-

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] OSM decision

[Brian Oconnell]

Mr P - Correct about the change of scoped voltage. UL62109-1 scopes 1500Vdc 
(not listed by ANSI or SCC yet), and NEC article 690 will be also updated.

FWIW, took customer's box back to the ranch and did several fault conditions 
and some surge stuff(C62.41 and 4-5). What a mess. They never listen. What a 
maroon.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FW: [PSES] OSM decision

Rich, et al,

I wouldn't be so quick to claim that dc systems will not have
transient voltages on them. 

I recently worked on a certification project that included solar
panels feeding power back into the line to make the overall project
'greener'.  

In commercial systems solar panels are ganged together to get the
overall voltage up to 600Vdc with 10's of Amps per ganged collexion.  10 or
more of these are combined to drive a SMPS inverter which outputs AC fed
into the power system.  Atmospherics can disrupt either the dc or the AC
side so protection of the SMPS inverter on each side should be considered.
More nightmares for the designers and field folks who need a clean design
that is robust and long-lived giving continued protection.  

Some new work is being done with SPDs.  See IEEE Xactions on EMC
v56n6 Dec 2014: HE  Dy, SPD Protection Distance to Household Appliances
Connected in Parallel.  There might be other info that could be pulled from
the bibliography for this paper.  

Finally, for your fun and enjoyment, the US NEC is being updated to
allow the Low Voltage DC limits to go to 1000V soon and 1500Vdc later to
accommodate larger solar panel installations.  

:) br, Pete
 
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety Engineer
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
 
503/452-1201 fone/fax
p.perk...@ieee.org
 

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:52 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] OSM decision

What is the purpose of the MOV in this situation?


What is the MOV Joule dissipation rating (can it dissipate the expected
overvoltage)?

Is the MOV protected by a fuse?

(An equipment d.c. bus is not likely to have high-voltage transients.)



-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell
[mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] OSM decision

Was reviewing customer's construction where a 475V MOV was across the
(floated) 420Vdc bus. Said this was bad idea, and they referred me to OSM/EE
decision sheet 09/01 for EN60950-1:2006; which says ok to do whatever you
want with a VDR on primary side that is not connected to mains. Can think of
more than one SFC that would result in this combination of circuit
configuration and component ratings making a mess.

Any record of TC108 having affirmed this?

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] OSHA NRTL lists

[Brian Oconnell]

Can the Recognized Testing Standards lists on the OSHA (NRTL) web site be 
considered current ?

If not, what is the canonical and authoritative listing for each recognized 
NRTL?

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

Re: [PSES] ESD protection for USB 3.0

[Brian Oconnell]

Just finished with a box having USB port - what a pain.  Test, testing, and yet 
more tests are the only way to go.

Lotsa stuff and papers from TI, On semi, TE, Littelfuse, etc. If you are very 
lucky, and the space aliens do interfere, you may be able to find a FAE that 
actually knows this stuff and can save you from making poor layout and 
component selection decisions. That is, the physical construction of your box 
can be just as important as the TVS that is incorporated. Lotsa luck.

Brian

From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 12:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ESD protection for USB 3.0

Hello all,

Does anyone have a paper/info on the problems of (and hopefully the solutions 
for!) ESD protection 
on the USB3.0 interface?

Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications

-

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] Historical question, 7 hours

[Brian Oconnell]

Whatever the reason, may have to go back 100 years. Go to books.google and read 
Practical testing of electrical machines by Leonard Oulto. Remember that the 
periods for some test sequences are similar. Same time period also found in 
other standards for some types of mold stress-relief tests, min 
pre-conditioning, and other non-electrical stuff. 

So your theory of the work-day period seems more than coincidental. But we 
still need the insight from those older and wiser as to why this time period 
seems to be common.

Note that most of the transformer standards have a (convoluted) test flow where 
the 7 hour over-load test is just the 'gateway' for other longer-term stuff.

Brian

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 4:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Historical question, 7 hours

All,
Today I was reviewing an output overload requirement and once again there is 
that ubiquitous number of 7 hours in the test duration.  I have seen this in 
a wide variety of tests such as power supply output overloads and short 
circuits, locked rotor tests, battery reversal tests and so on. Of course, 
there are many other tests with different durations, but this #7 seems to be 
very common.  For a number of years I have wondered what is the magic behind 
this number and so today I am asking if anyone actually knows the history 
behind this choice.
My suspicion is that this number is based the need of a 1/2 hour to set up the 
test and a 1/2 hour to record the results, 7 hours to stabilize the results, 
making for an 8 hour day.  Apparently, back in the mists of time, someone came 
up with this scheme and thereafter everyone else copied it (plagiarism being 
the sincerest form of flattery). Could it really be as simple as that or is 
there no other scientific basis to prove all tests lasting at more than 7 hours 
will not fail... say 7 hours and 5 minutes?


On a side note, I have worked with products having enough thermal capacity that 
one thermal time constant is on the order of hours.  On some of those products, 
thermal stability is not achievable in less than 10 hours.

Thanks, :Doug
Douglas E Powell

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

-

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

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 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] Historical question, 7 hours

[Brian Oconnell]

Which is why many of these Type Tests should be automated - human testers miss 
too much stuff during a long-term test. And choose to not live at work for the 
15 day tests required for some of the over-loads that must be done on 
employer's stuff.

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 5:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Historical question, 7 hours

Hi Doug:

You are correct.  One-half hour to set up, seven hours to test, and one-half 
hour to record results and take down.  Eight-hour day.  Works for most 
equipment.

For small equipment, it is a long test.  For large equipment (intended for 
long-term operation), it may be too short.

And, the equipment should not be unattended during the test as unanticipated 
failures can occur.


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 
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] OSM decision

[Brian Oconnell]

Was reviewing customer's construction where a 475V MOV was across the (floated) 
420Vdc bus. Said this was bad idea, and they referred me to OSM/EE decision 
sheet 09/01 for EN60950-1:2006; which says ok to do whatever you want with a 
VDR on primary side that is not connected to mains. Can think of more than one 
SFC that would result in this combination of circuit configuration and 
component ratings making a mess.

Any record of TC108 having affirmed this?

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

Re: [PSES] OSM decision

[Brian Oconnell]

Greetings Mr. Nute,



See below.



Brian



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:52 PM
To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] OSM decision



What is the purpose of the MOV in this situation?



As SPD, and to push me one step closer to madness



What is the MOV Joule dissipation rating (can it

dissipate the expected overvoltage)?



NO - at least not by my calculations - and the MOV will, during some line/load 
conditions,  probably start conducting a few mA during 'normal' operations



Is the MOV protected by a fuse?



Fuse on line input. And doubt that it would pass the G.8 stuff in 63268-1(but 
submittal is 60950-1)



(An equipment d.c. bus is not likely to have

high-voltage transients.)



AC mains input to this equipment, so must assume the box will see at least 2500V





-Original Message-

From: Brian Oconnell

[mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]

Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:56 AM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: [PSES] OSM decision



Was reviewing customer's construction where a 475V

MOV was across the (floated) 420Vdc bus. Said this

was bad idea, and they referred me to OSM/EE

decision sheet 09/01 for EN60950-1:2006; which

says ok to do whatever you want with a VDR on

primary side that is not connected to mains. Can

think of more than one SFC that would result in

this combination of circuit configuration and

component ratings making a mess.



Any record of TC108 having affirmed this?



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

Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

[Brian Oconnell]

Class II is a type of construction - not necessarily relevant to this thread ? 
Class 2 is a North American code stuff (similar to an LPS).

Brian

From: Scott [mailto:0182a58d8335-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

Try class II, class 2, or current limiting devices.

Scott B

On Jan 21, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Dan Roman danp...@verizon.net wrote:
I am afraid it is even worse for SELV than a search of “SELV” would appear.  
Some standards do not use the acronym and do not show up in a “SELV” search.  
Do a search for “safety extra-low voltage” and you get even more!  Did not try 
expanding out the other acronyms.
Dan
--Original Message-- 

From: Richard Nute 
Date: Jan 16, 2015 2:37:58 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

See: http://std.iec.ch/glossary?ref=extfooter 

Enter SELV, PELV, and FELV, and enjoy! 

There are many definitions of SELV and PELV. It
would seem that every TC has its own definitions.


Just 5 for FELV and they are consistent. 

Also, check out ELV (which makes the FELV
inconsistent).


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] SELV rated power supplies

[Brian Oconnell]

Mr. Nute's response is significant and is worthy of re-emphasis.



And Mr. Woodgate answered this same question to Mr. Nyffenegger previously:



 The power supply as a whole cannot claim that unless ALL its outputs

meet the SELV requirements. But it does meet the requirements for safety

isolation, so those outputs that meet the voltage requirements are SELV.



SELV, TNVx, LPS, LCC, etc are specific ratings that would be indicated in the 
Conditions of Acceptability in both the test certification document required to 
bear a CAB's logo and the respective CB report. And as many power supplies are 
components, the report will be necessarily incomplete; and only the assessment 
in the end-use construction can provide a complete report.



Per Mr. Nute, other than simple flyback converters, most component SMPS are too 
complex to be evaluated by other than an assessment directed by the original 
manufacturer (in last 15 years, have encountered only three agency engineers 
capable of a complete and independent assessment of SMPS). There is never any 
logical reason to assume a 'certified' component power supply will meet any 
specific ratings unless stated in a CAB's report.



Brian



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 12:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SELV rated power supplies



Hi Dave:



EN60950-1 is not equal to SELV.



Certifications and reports do not necessarily

indicate outputs are SELV, although careful

reading of the test results can conclude that the

outputs are SELV or not.



Not all outputs of EN60950-1 power supplies are

SELV and need not be.  The power supplies are

nevertheless EN60950-1 power supplies.



The requirement for SELV is whether or not the

circuit is accessible.  Accessible circuits must

be SELV.



To perform a single-fault test, one must

understand how the circuits operate, and what

faults could cause the output to possibly exceed

SELV limits.  In today's power supply topology,

such circuit analysis is not necessarily

straight-forward.



Your statement



Therefore my contention is it cannot be assumed

that a power supply listed as EN 60950-1 compliant

on a manufacturer's data sheet is also SELV

compliant unless explicitly stated so or proven in

the test report results.



is correct.



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 
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] CE Declaration of Conformity

[Brian Oconnell]

Dunno, as my only experience was doing some power converters for an industrial 
scale.

My customer used the WELMEC organization to advise on scoped directives and 
standards and marks. Have you read 2014/32/EU ?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 10:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CE Declaration of Conformity

Hi folks,

I design and manufacture light machinery that includes some sub-assemblies 
which we purchase and integrate.  The sub-assemblies come with their own DoI.  
In particular I may integrate automatic and non-automatic weighing scales that 
would come with a DoI or DoC for the machinery and directive and a DoC or DoI 
for the EMC, 2004/22/EC Measuring Instruments, and 2009/23/EC Non-automatic 
Weighing Instruments directives.  I do not modify the weighing functionality of 
the scales nor do I do any additional certification on them.

The metrology directives require special marking, the CE mark as well as the 
M mark and notified body ID which come already on the units I integrate.

There are no weighing devices that  I directly manufacturer that are part of 
the machinery.  What I'm not clear on is whether I should claim compliance to 
the 2004/22/EC Measuring Instruments and 2009/23/EC Non-automatic Weighing 
Instruments directives on my DoC and/or product nameplate for the complete 
machine or whether I should just include the OEM's DoC along with my DoC in the 
paperwork supplied with the machine (and technical file).

I don't know if this situation is different than any are CE marked component 
within the machine but it would seem so.  The EU directives do not actually 
apply directly to many components that the OEM marks and claims compliance to 
CE to make it easier for system builders like me.  (Some actually state that on 
their DoCs).   The Metrology directives are specific to the scales.

Does anyone have any experience with this or something similar?

thanks

David P. Nyffenegger, PMP, SM-IEEE
Product Development Manager

-

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] CISPR 32 adoption

[Brian Oconnell]

Which is why some never bother to renew IEEE membership. After several years of 
membership, the IEEE 'lost' my data, yet still seems able to retain enough of 
my personal info to send email and snail mail about re-join. Maroons.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 12:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR 32 adoption

In message 003701d031c0$75888ef0$6099acd0$@ieee.org, dated Fri, 16 Jan 
2015, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:

For attachments, see instructions below the dotted line.

DOH! As is **far too often the case with the IEEE web**, the site

http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/

claims that my account is suspended and the link to contact IEEE to 
complain does not work; it just refers back to the Error page. I have 
never found a link to complain about being rejected that works for me.

What has the IEEE got against me?

Alternatively, use Dropbox and send the URL.

I don't like Dropbox for security.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

[Brian Oconnell]

The Union of Allied Planets does not desire the overt and published knowledge 
of 'FELV', and would prefer that one not meddle in the tools of an Operative. 

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 12:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

Yes, I'll run - but in which direction for safety? (and that's the problem
here as well: to SELV, PELV,  FELV or somewhere / something else ?) ;-)

John

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: 16 January 2015 19:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

John, when you are visited by two men in suits with blue nitrate gloves and
your nose and eyes start to bleed, RUN!!

Two by two, hands or blue - River (Firefly)

The other Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:48 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

Rich

That seems like a classic case of the IEC management not clearly laying
down the law on the need for the various TCs to ensure that they operate in
a consistent manner - maybe these terms should be defined clearly in IEC
60050 and for the various TCs to use those definitions very consistently,
and without deviation? (or have I just opened another can of worms that
nobody wants to get to grips with?)

John Allen
W. London, UK

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: 16 January 2015 19:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

See:  http://std.iec.ch/glossary?ref=extfooter

Enter SELV, PELV, and FELV, and enjoy!

There are many definitions of SELV and PELV.  It would seem that every TC
has its own definitions.


Just 5 for FELV and they are consistent.

Also, check out ELV (which makes the FELV inconsistent).


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

-

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


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
emc-p...@ieee.org

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

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

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

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

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

-

Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

[Brian Oconnell]

Other than BS7671/IEC60364, what standards or codes use 'FELV' and what is 
intended end-use?

Have never seen in NFPA70, but remember something in IEC60364 that restricts 
plug configurations.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 9:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

In message 
blupr02mb11639e55993bee1e45c09ffc1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com 
writes:

 if the input and/or output referenced to reliable ground bond.

Note that only(?) 60950-1 allows SELV to be grounded. Other standards 
require it to float, and call the grounded kind FELV (Functional...).
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

[Brian Oconnell]

a. Depends on measured WV of the converter. Fault tests non sequitur for 
functional insulation as basis for protection from shock or prevention of fire. 
Fault tests are indicated only to demonstrate SELV during fault. By definition, 
FI does not provide any level of protection. Di-electric withstand to indicate 
BI performance levels for FI also non-sequitur unless you want this as part of 
your internal product spec.
b. Use of spacing and materials to meet BI requirements has nothing to do with 
unit's performance during abnormal operating conditions.
c. Unknown as depends on where the WV was measured and if input and output 
terminals remain reliably SELV during faults and abnormal operating conditions 
and if the input and/or output referenced to reliable ground bond. 

See table 2H.

Brian

From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 10:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] safety distances in DC/DC

Dear experts,

We are evaluating DC/DC converter with SELV-in/SELV-out specification according 
to IEC 60950-1. We have measured internal working voltages on the transformer 
between input and output side and they were above SELV circuit (88Vpk).

Could you please comment following scenarious:


a) If internal distances input to output comply with functional insulation 
only, fault condition tests need to be performed on functional insulation 
(including transformer) in order to be sure that output remains SELV. In 
addition, transformer needs to pass electric strength test for basic insulation
b) If internal distances input to output comply with basic insulation, there is 
no need for fault condition tests.
c) Since measured working voltage 88Vpk is above TNV-2 limit it is considered 
as hazardous secondary voltage and  we need reinforced insulation in order to 
avoid fault condition tests.


I am quite positive about scenario a) and c)  but not sure about scenario b).

Thank you for your support.
Best regards,

Boštjan Glavič

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

[Brian Oconnell]

This is good stuff, and Mr Nute reminded me of related stuff that UL has 
recently changed. Where construction of magnetics incorporates an UL-recognized 
Electrical Insulation System, the component can now reference the UL file 
number and EIS designation on the label without necessarily having been 
evaluated in any way by a NRTL. And the component's label could indicate 
something like this:

EIS B1234  Class 130
UL File E123456

So upon looking up the file reference 
(http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm), you 
would not see any reference to component models, but only an EIS. Note that 
UL1446 does not scope any performance requirements for any class of end-use 
equipment.

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors


Hi Brian:


when we attempted this test the motor got hot very quickly and then failed open 
circuit

Failure is acceptable provided it is repeatable.  In the past, UL would require 
three repetitions of the tests to prove that the failure is repeatable; I don’t 
know if this is still their rule.  Another rule is that the motor does not 
cause a fire (in the end-product).  

What component or part failed (opened the circuit)?  I would want to know what 
part failed as this becomes a critical part of the motor.  And then, 
periodically inspect the motor to determine that the construction or part is 
still as in the tested motors.

I suspect the failure is a wire leading to one of the windings, either the 
stator or the rotor.  If so, the length in free air is probably the point where 
the wire heats to the point of failing.  This will be hard to control as a 
critical component.

stable winding temperature reading

Sneak up on the temperature by loading the motor or by using a variable dc 
supply.  This way, you can get a temperature reading just before the winding 
opens. 

The pump manufacturer is telling us the motor is UL Recognized even though the 
marking does not appear on the motor.

Ask the manufacturer for a copy of the UL report.  If he won’t provide the 
report (because it contains proprietary information), ask for his UL file 
number and UL Project Number and the name of the UL project engineer.  You can 
then call UL and confirm that the motor is UL-Recognized (or not).  I suspect 
that it is not recognized.  He may believe that since he uses UL-Recognized 
magnet wire, his motor is UL-Recognized.  

If the motor is not UL-Recognized, I suggest you look for another motor that is.

You can put a fuse in series with the motor to keep it from overheating under 
stalled rotor or other overload conditions.  This will enable you to use the 
motor as-is.  If you do this, UL will not care that the motor is not a 
UL-Recognized component.


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 

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

[Brian Oconnell]

Clauses 6, 9, and 10 provide definition of a hazard and a hazardous condition.

Some motors are designed with a section of the winding to act as a fusible 
link, so not unreasonable for a section of the winding to melt. In any case, it 
is advisable to repeat abnormal operating conditions tests in the end-use 
installation to verify the component meets the original safety assessment.

Avoid using the term 'inherently' unless the component has been assessed and 
there is certification. If the motor is an UL- recognized component, then there 
will be a file number, designation, and conditions of acceptability that 
specify the ratings. Each section of an UL file indicates what pages may be 
reproduced.

Brian

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 12:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

We want to use a small air pump, about the size of an aquarium pump,  in one of 
our products (laboratory equipment). It has a small 24Vdc brushed motor without 
any visible safety certification markings. 
 
In these cases, we usually perform the locked rotor test according to IEC/UL/EN 
61010-1 section 14.2. However, when we attempted this test the motor got hot 
very quickly and then failed open circuit before we could get a stable winding 
temperature reading. Max. temperature read was about 120ºC at 40ºC ambient. 
This motor has Class F insulation which can handle 190ºC in a fault condition, 
but like I said the motor failed before we could reach a stable temperature.
 
If the winding overheated and melted open, would this be considered a fire 
hazard?  Or because something in the motor failed before the winding 
temperature reached 190ºC that this motor can be considered inherently safe?
 
The pump manufacturer is telling us the motor is UL Recognized even though the 
marking does not appear on the motor. If this motor is UL Rec. can I assume it 
would pass the locked rotor test?  I have heard in the past that UL certified 
motors are not always tested for locked rotor.  Is this true?  
 
If you were me, what criteria would you require for use of such a motor in your 
product?  
 
Thank you in advance.
 
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 
emc-p...@ieee.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

[Brian Oconnell]

Clause 16 has that wonderful 'forseeable misuse'. Whatever the rating and 
certification of the motor, all of these abnormal operating conditions should 
be performed as part of the assessment for the end-use equipment.

As for Listed vs Recognized - not gonna know what was tested until you look at 
the UL report's conditions of acceptability. 

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

I've been told  that UL does not necessarily do locked rotor test for 
recognized motors, they would for listed.  If you can get locked rotor test 
data from the OEM you can use it otherwise you need to do it yourself.I 
recall the standard says for integrated blowers and such you don't actually 
lock the motor, you block the ports.  Did you lock the motor on your pump or 
block the port?   Don't  know which would apply depending on the details of 
your pump construction.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

Clauses 6, 9, and 10 provide definition of a hazard and a hazardous condition.

Some motors are designed with a section of the winding to act as a fusible 
link, so not unreasonable for a section of the winding to melt. In any case, it 
is advisable to repeat abnormal operating conditions tests in the end-use 
installation to verify the component meets the original safety assessment.

Avoid using the term 'inherently' unless the component has been assessed and 
there is certification. If the motor is an UL- recognized component, then there 
will be a file number, designation, and conditions of acceptability that 
specify the ratings. Each section of an UL file indicates what pages may be 
reproduced.

Brian

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 12:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

We want to use a small air pump, about the size of an aquarium pump,  in one of 
our products (laboratory equipment). It has a small 24Vdc brushed motor without 
any visible safety certification markings. 
 
In these cases, we usually perform the locked rotor test according to IEC/UL/EN 
61010-1 section 14.2. However, when we attempted this test the motor got hot 
very quickly and then failed open circuit before we could get a stable winding 
temperature reading. Max. temperature read was about 120ºC at 40ºC ambient. 
This motor has Class F insulation which can handle 190ºC in a fault condition, 
but like I said the motor failed before we could reach a stable temperature.
 
If the winding overheated and melted open, would this be considered a fire 
hazard?  Or because something in the motor failed before the winding 
temperature reached 190ºC that this motor can be considered inherently safe?
 
The pump manufacturer is telling us the motor is UL Recognized even though the 
marking does not appear on the motor. If this motor is UL Rec. can I assume it 
would pass the locked rotor test?  I have heard in the past that UL certified 
motors are not always tested for locked rotor.  Is this true?  
 
If you were me, what criteria would you require for use of such a motor in your 
product?  
 
Thank you in advance.
 
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 
emc-p...@ieee.org

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how

Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

[Brian Oconnell]

No.

As for an EIS, the UL file will specify this in the respective section's 
general description unless the mfr has de-rated the unit, then the max 
operating temp will be in the C of A.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

The pump manufacturer just sent me a picture of the motor name plate which must 
somehow be hidden from view when installed in the pump assembly. Anyway, the 
motor is made in Germany and has the CE marking and the UL Recognized component 
mark.  Is this adequate to determine the pump/motor is safe for use or does it 
still have to pass the locked rotor test?

The pump manufacturer says the motor is not thermally protected but has Class F 
insulation.

I will ask if there are any Conditions of Acceptability for the motor. I can 
also ask if the motor has any component or section of the windings that acts as 
a fusible link. That would explain why the motor went open circuit before we 
could get stable temperature readings.

Thanks to all.



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety of Small Motors

In message
64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB026CA9B0@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local,
dated Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes:

If the winding overheated and melted open, would this be considered a
fire hazard?

Not just for that reason. Does it emit flame or flammable vapour?
61010-1 is rather too vague about what constitutes a fire hazard.

Or because something in the motor failed before the winding temperature
reached 190ºC that this motor can be considered inherently safe?

Perhaps. The standard allows a thermal cut-out:

Motors which, when stopped or prevented from starting (see 4.4.2.5), would 
present an electric shock HAZARD, a temperature HAZARD, or a fire HAZARD shall 
be protected by an overtemperature or thermal protection device meeting the 
requirements of 14.3.

Does the manufacturer say whether there is a cut-out?
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] CISPR 32 adoption

[Brian Oconnell]

2d ed of CISPR32 just published as FDIS, with a  proposed publication date of 
March 2015.

As the FCC (47CFR) references ANSI C63.4, and EU obsoletion of CISPR22/EN55022 
seems to be years away (new EMCD not effective until April 2016), so will 
probably advise customers to not worry for at least three years. The risk is 
that Canada ICES003 will not continue with C63.4, and/or the Pacific rim states 
will go to CISPR 32 more sooner than later.

Opinions ? Assumptions reasonable? 

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

Re: [PSES] CISPR 32 adoption

[Brian Oconnell]

As an EMC amateur, have believed that '80/80' rule is about production 
variations, so that an emissions failure on a single unit cannot be necessarily 
considered an issue (until further batch investigation). So are you saying that 
they want to also codify the site's measurement and other uncertainties into 
the mix to enforce a margin that is more stringent than the standard's limits 
such that a single field failure would represent a regulatory violation/legal 
problem ?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 12:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR 32 adoption

In message 
blupr02mb1162390c6fb353ca7ba2677c1...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook
.com, dated Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com 
writes:

2d ed of CISPR32 just published as FDIS, with a  proposed publication 
date of March 2015.

It still might not pass the vote. CENELEC is having palpitations about 
the EC ruling that the 80/80 rule is regulatory. Now try to explain to a 
lawyer that the Laws of Physics require it to be taken into account 
somewhere, and if it is regulatory it should be in the Directive.

As the FCC (47CFR) references ANSI C63.4, and EU obsoletion of 
CISPR22/EN55022 seems to be years away (new EMCD not effective until 
April 2016),

The new EMCD has nothing to do with when EN 55032 comes into mandatory 
effect.

 so will probably advise customers to not worry for at least three 
years. The risk is that Canada ICES003 will not continue with C63.4, 
and/or the Pacific rim states will go to CISPR 32 more sooner than 
later.

Opinions ? Assumptions reasonable?

Any country that applies CISPR 32 (not the EN) to imports stands to have 
it applied to its exports.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] fusing outputs of small power supplies

[Brian Oconnell]

Very much concur with Mr. Nute for ITE and CTE stuff.

My employer makes all manner of power conversion stuff. Approx 20% of my time 
is for direct customer support or supporting the documentation requirements of 
the Conformity Assessment Body's engineer that is looking at the customer's 
stuff. Suffice to say, have seen much weirdness for employer's products where 
used in industrial equipment. The component power supply is one of the 
principle instruments intended to provide galvanic isolation and to provide 
other forms of protection from shock and fire. Circuits and materials that are 
incorporated in the end-use installation of the CPS, typically intended to 
increase safety margin, may decrease the margin.

1. UL508 and 508A, depending on the OVC and operating environment and other 
installation peculiarities for your equipment, can have some significant 
requirements not seen in ITE. The tables in UL508A for SCCR will kill many 
ITE-certified CPS.
2. Fusing of the mains input should be part of the component power supply's 
construction. Recommend that additional current interrupt components not be 
installed at input to CPS unless the conditions of acceptability or 
installation instructions for the power supply clearly indicate requirement for 
input fusing. Type tests for an ITE CPS are typically performed to verify there 
is no fire or shock hazard that would result from a fault condition. Type tests 
for a typical CPS rated for OVC II/III must be performed with a 20A (or 
greater) distribution breaker, lo-Z, and 'stiff' mains. So your input wiring 
and connection components must support the unit's least favorable 
abnormal/fault condition. NFPA70 (mostly article 310) and NFPA70E has ratings 
for this stuff.
3. Current limiting components on the output of a power supply, as others 
indicated, must have the margin to tolerate the conditions of the least 
favorable fault conditions that were observed during the assessment of the CPS. 
This information would be available to the CAB engineer via the TRFs that 
support the units certification. Do NOT use a CPS where the CAB engineer cannot 
obtain a copy of the certification report.
4. Most CPS are not intended for powering motors of significant power levels.

Nollaig Shona Daoibh,
Brian

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:57 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fusing outputs of small power supplies

Hi Bob:

You have three issues to deal with:

1)  Regulatory - standards and codes;
2)  Safety;
3)  Reputable manufacturer.

For regulatory, see IEC/EN/UL/CSA 60950-1, Tables 2B and 2C.  These two tables 
define a NEC Class 2 circuit.  Class 2 circuits are doorbell circuits; the 
wires can be run without mechanical protection and a fire enclosure, and can be 
accessible.  

Your specs, 24 volts and 4 amps, are very close to the 100 VA limit.  You will 
exceed the 100 VA limit with any load that exceeds 4.17 amps, let alone 
short-circuit (Table 2B).  So, you need to go to Table 2C to select a fuse 
value.  Since your output voltage is more than 20 but less than 30, the maximum 
output fuse value is 100/24 (assuming the supply is less than 250 VA before the 
fuse).  You are stuck with a 4 amp (or less) fuse to achieve Class 2 (which is 
desirable for avoiding further regulation of your wiring).  

Fuses and equivalent operate under fault conditions to prevent fire.  To 
determine an effective fuse value, test - without overcurrent protection -- 
under short-circuit to see what overheating and possible fire occurs.  Then, 
select a fuse rating that will prevent the overheating and fire.

Since the power supply manufacturer doesn't know this stuff, I would select 
another manufacturer who does.  You may have a power supply that will catch 
fire or cause an electric shock despite the fusing.  


Good luck, and have a happy holiday,
Rich


From: Bob LaFrance [mailto:b...@creare.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] fusing outputs of small power supplies

Greetings,

I am curious to know what guidelines to use when fusing power supplies.  I have 
a machine with some small 4amp 24v power supplies.  I have placed breakers on 
the input side of supplies.  I don't know if the current limit circuits within 
the power supply can be expected to protect output wiring.  I am mainly 
concerned with NFPA 7  NEC, but I would like to hear UL or IEC thoughts on the 
subject.  The power supply manufacturers I have asked don't seem to know - that 
struck me as very odd.

Many years ago I worked for a manufacturer of motor drives.  We developed a 
software implementation of a motor overload relay and got UL 508 blessing.  I 
am looking for similar arrangement.

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Bob
N9NEO

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 

Re: [PSES] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79

[Brian Oconnell]

Unless specifically stated in the safety standard used to assess the end-use 
equipment, dunno. Might want to look at NFPA70E article 130.

Due to the calculations that must be performed in order properly label 
equipment, gonna guess that the 'generic' warnings/cautions and symbols could 
be applied at factory, with specific data at installation.

Brian

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79

So I’m looking at the new NFPA 79 2015 (which you can view on-line for free 
now) and they have added 16.2.3 Electrical equipment for industrial machines 
such as control panels and disconnects shall be marked according to ANSI Z535.4 
to warn of shock and arc flash hazards.  I don’t have a copy of the ANSI 
standard.    NFPA 79 doesn’t say anything further regarding applying the label 
in the field or in the factory.    Do we assume this implies field labeling as 
it’s been or does this mean we are now to apply the arc flash labels in the 
factory?  I’m guessing the ANSI standard only covers the label and says nothing 
about when the label is applied.

-Dave

From: Scott Aldous [mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79

FYI - Regarding the SCCR, it's really not about the interrupt rating of 
overcurrent protection devices. It relates to the ability of the equipment to 
withstand the fault currents that overcurrent devices would let through in a 
short circuit event. Looking through the supplement in UL 508A is instructive. 
If you try to evaluate through the weakest link method rather than testing, 
values are assigned to components commonly found in switchgear, including bus 
bars. If you have overcurrent protection that is current lmiting, it helps 
reduce the required withstand rating of components downstream, but this is 
dependent on the extent of current limiting rather than interrupt rating.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Ted Eckert ted.eck...@microsoft.com wrote:
Hello Brian,

The role the enclosure plays in arc flash protection may be less than you would 
expect. The concern about arc flash isn't for normal operation of the 
equipment. Arc flash and arc blasts are considered an issue for the servicing 
of equipment. The concern is that service personnel may accidentally create a 
short circuit between two phases or a phase and ground. This could occur due to 
improperly de-energizing circuits or when a metal tool or part is accidentally 
placed such that it creates a short circuit.

NFPA 70E requires that the arc flash boundary be calculated, although it is 
assumed to be 4 feet (1.2 meters) for typical small equipment rated 250 V or 
less connected to a branch circuit breaker. The boundary will be greater 
depending on the rating of the circuits overcurrent protector. NFPA 70E 
requires that untrained and unprotected personnel must remain outside of that 
boundary during the service of equipment. Personnel inside of that boundary 
must be properly trained and they must be wearing the correct PPE based on the 
arc flash hazard risk. Since this is an issue during the servicing of equipment 
when doors are open and covers are off, the enclosure provides no protection. 
The arc flash rules just require marking indicating the hazard so that service 
personnel can take the proper precautions.

Field wired equipment that never needs to be serviced live should be marked 
with instructions to disconnect all power before servicing. If this can be done 
properly, arc flash marking may not be required. The marking may not be 
required if the equipment is installed with an external disconnect. Arc flash 
marking is generally not required for plug connected equipment.

Pick your favorite search engine and search for arc flash labels and you will 
find examples of the marking typically required.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

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

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79

Thanks for the input.

Because our products are Laboratory Equipment and not Industrial Machines, I 
assume NFPA 79 would not apply. So the SCCR on the nameplate would not be 
required. It would be difficult to provide anyway. Since we are only required 
to provide supplementary over current protection the SCCR value is really 
unknown. Our Circuit Breaker manufacturer rates their parts with a 5kA SCCR but 
to my understanding they don't even have to survive the test. So the Branch 
Circuit Breaker is relied upon to provide the protection and the necessary SCCR 
value would be based 

Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)

[Brian Oconnell]

Pathos and tragedy, with a bit of comedy, in the EMC lab. Once had the sales 
manager for a major lab say we have never done that test but would give you a 
good deal so we could get experience...

Brian

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)

Ghery:

I found that business conditions have created large labs which strive to 
provide one-stop compliance services, and that this concept is subject to 
corruption by enthusiasm. By that, I mean that the labs often have a little 
subsection which is tasked with doing nothing but expanding the range of 
accreditations; these are the chaps who paper entire hallways with certificates 
of accreditation, allowing you to take comfort that if you ever needed a 
machine safety certificate for Kleptostan, you were already in the right place. 
A certain disconnect exists between these certificate harvesters (think 
marketing) and the other part of the lab (think engineering) which actually has 
to do that rare and idiosyncratic test.

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)

I brought up some serious problems with accredited labs at the ASC C63 meetings 
in Mesa last month.  One accrediting body seems interested in dealing with the 
issue, the others not so much.  It's so much fun to go into a lab that isn't 
properly equipped to perform tests listed on its Scope of Accreditation.

Ghery S. Pettit

From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Brick power supplies and test errors (two topics)

It would appear that the best efforts of lab accreditations are not living up 
to expectations?
Or am I expecting too much? 

Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042...@vtext.com
(e) charles.gra...@echostar.com
(e2) chasgra...@gmail.com

-

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] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

[Brian Oconnell]

At least two test labs have written papers about use of ITE component power 
supplies in equipment scoped for 61010. The Emperor's search engine should 
suffice.

Am very careful about recommending use of my employers ITE-certified stuff in 
customer's test equipment. The 61010 3d edition has some significant changes 
that could affect requirements not addressed in a 60960 CB report. So it 
depends on the end-use equipment construction, ratings, and power supply 
construction.

Brian

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

The final product will be tested according to IEC/EN61010-1 (measurement, 
control, and laboratory use).
To power this product, an open frame AC/DC power will be uses and it holds a CB 
certificate according to IEC/EN60950-1.

Will we run into trouble with this configuration? 
In the past, the final product was powered by a medical PSU (IEC/EN60601-1). I 
would like to switch to the 60950-1 PSU if possible ….

#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 
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] Certification of Unique Equipment

[Brian Oconnell]

There are several federal agencies that enforce safety regulations for specific 
types of workplaces in the U.S. (FAA, DOE, DOI,etc), but only the Dept of Labor 
has the general worker protection mandate by statutory law. Others have their 
authority through adjudication and administrative law, where enforcement is an 
'ancillary' process.

The respective agencies for Canada and Mexico were specified in my original 
reply, and have (somewhat) similar infrastructure and procedural systems as the 
U.S. DOL. The Canadian labor safety regulations are enforced by a governmental 
'corporation'. Their labor law says something similar to The design, 
construction, and install of all electrical equipment shall comply with CEC 
part I if reasonably practicable (do not remember exact phrase but see section 
8). NOMs, via the STPs are a bit more circuitous for electrical equipment 
certifications, but they exist as pro forma requirements.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:34 PM
To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Certification of Unique Equipment

In my research I have found only OSHA covers safety compliance regulations 
nationally in the US.  And OSHA enforces their regulations on the employer not 
the manufacturer.  Of course  FCC requires compliance for EMC in the US but 
that can be self-certified.  OSHA 29CFR1910 defines many things that must be 
approved and Subpart S-Electrical 1910.399 defines approved as

Acceptable. An installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant 
Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this Subpart S:

(1) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise 
determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory recognized 
pursuant to § 1910.7; or

(3) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations that are 
designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it 
is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis 
of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the 
Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives.

Approved. Acceptable to the authority enforcing this subpart. The authority 
enforcing this subpart is the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 
Safety and Health. The definition of acceptable indicates what is acceptable 
to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and therefore approved within the meaning 
of this subpart.

This directly addresses your question on one of a kind system to a unique 
customer .   I guess it's up to the manufacturer to determine what test data 
is relevant, I've not found further clarification on that from OSHA yet.  
Perhaps others can chime in on that.  

Beyond that you still need to satisfy the AHJ requirements.   For a specific 
customer at a specific location you'd have to  research what that may be and 
whether NRTL certification is required or not.  The US NEC is national but 
it's enforcement is by the AHJ which can choose to do what it want's with it.

I've not identified the specific requirements for Canada yet other than CEC CSA 
C22.1 which I think is similar to the US NEC which requires that all electrical 
utilization systems are listed, labeled, identified or approved as compliant to 
the requirements of relevant electrical safety standards.  This statement to me 
reads that a manufacturer could self-certify to the safety standards for US NEC 
or Canada CEC.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment

A simple generic answer would not be practical for most cases. Depends on 
intended end user and intended end use. For EMC, see 47CFR, Ch I,  Subch A,  
Pt2, Subpt K (specifically §2.1204)for import of stuff. For U.S. safety of 
products in the workplace, see 29CFR1910.

Many, perhaps most, design engineers are not aware of North American 
(OSHA/CCOHS/STPS) requirements for safety of equipment and buildings in the 
workplace, so not surprising that typical Joe Engineer is not aware of 
compliance stuff. Nobody cares about 'certification' until there is an 
accident, which is when your insurance company is legally allowed to abandon 
its client due to failure to conform. As for never seeing a safety auditor in 
the workplace, the federal safety agencies tend to focus on work sites having 
known problems. State and local agencies may focus on work sites where the 
probability for extraction of fees and fines are higher. 

For what point is certification required depends on the local building code 
enforcement for some stuff, and various state and federal laws for other stuff. 
For equipment not intended to be placed on the market, and clearly marked for 
evaluation, there are few

Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment

[Brian Oconnell]

A simple generic answer would not be practical for most cases. Depends on 
intended end user and intended end use. For EMC, see 47CFR, Ch I,  Subch A,  
Pt2, Subpt K (specifically §2.1204)for import of stuff. For U.S. safety of 
products in the workplace, see 29CFR1910.

Many, perhaps most, design engineers are not aware of North American 
(OSHA/CCOHS/STPS) requirements for safety of equipment and buildings in the 
workplace, so not surprising that typical Joe Engineer is not aware of 
compliance stuff. Nobody cares about 'certification' until there is an 
accident, which is when your insurance company is legally allowed to abandon 
its client due to failure to conform. As for never seeing a safety auditor in 
the workplace, the federal safety agencies tend to focus on work sites having 
known problems. State and local agencies may focus on work sites where the 
probability for extraction of fees and fines are higher. 

For what point is certification required depends on the local building code 
enforcement for some stuff, and various state and federal laws for other stuff. 
For equipment not intended to be placed on the market, and clearly marked for 
evaluation, there are few federal requirements for any registered body to have 
performed an assessment where the usage is controlled for access and exposure 
(assuming medical or hazmat is not scoped). 

This is more than a compliance engineering issue - there are legal risks, some 
of which cannot be reliably mitigated in North America. In any case, once the 
equipment is sold for industrial use, even if a singular unit, it is typically 
subject to the federal regulations scoped for EMC  and for the safety of 
equipment in the workplace.

Brian

From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment

It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and 
NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered 
for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can 
identify. I have discussed this concern with other engineers who worked in 
previous companies who indicated that they NEVER were required to have 
certification on their products. 

As I understand it I could deliver a one of a kind system to a unique customer 
without certification in North America. At what point is certification 
required? Is it based on the quantity of systems, the customer, the AHJ, OSHA 
or marketing?  Is it allowable to ship a unique, prototype system to a 
specialized customer, without NRTL?

Thanks

Rick

-

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] Hi pressure Gas safety regulations

[Brian Oconnell]

Depends on what the gas is and where used. Do not have access to my std 
database at this site, but off top of my pointy head, from a power converter 
project where my widget provided power to a pump monitor system:

1. ASME Pressure Vessel Code ???
2. ASME B31.x for piping and other stuff
3. EU PED/UK PER/EN13445-x (somewhat similar to ASME stuff)
3. DOT CFR 49, parts ??? for hazardous stuff - copied by several North and 
South American states
4. IEC62271 switchgear std has a pressure withstand test for gas-filled stuff
5. several China GB standards for hi-pressure materials for chemical industry
6. look at mfrs of hi-press check-ball pumps for stds info
7. numerous ISO stds for containers - strange and useless
8. Wile E Coyote, Supergenius - pressure venting techniques

Brian


From: W Richard Gartman [mailto:richard.gart...@agilent.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Hi pressure Gas safety regulations

To the Collective knowledge of this group,

I am looking for regulations that would impact lab or industrial equipment that 
uses high pressure gases. This would be gases at pressures up to 600 Bar/ 8000 
psi. This is not for petro-chem industry.

What countries have high pressure gas regulations and do these regulation 
reference international standards? 

Thank you for you guidance,
W. Richard Gartman, CSP

-

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] EMC test lab errors

[Brian Oconnell]

This is art; it shall be framed.

Brian

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 5:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC test lab errors

I'll dare to mention a few errors which I have seen first-hand; I would say 
that these are all in the we don't know what we don't know category.

* Having an abiding faith that mixers can handle any power you push down a coax.
* Thinking that coaxial directional couplers are as broadband as the coax.
* Assuming that components must blow smoke before death.
* That amplifiers only amplify.
* That signal sources are clean.
* Not realizing that coax cables are not water pipes, and that stacking several 
3-way Tees at a junction will have no effect on impedance.
* That anything performs as promised without cross-checking.
* That what was good last week is still good.
* That the little mistake you made earlier couldn't have any cascading effects.
* That the software knows what it's doing.
* That you know what the software is doing.
* That you have all the variables under control.
* That everyone wants to know the truth.

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

-

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] Noisy DC / DC converter

[Brian Oconnell]

Any modification done to an existing power unit that bears the label of another 
company and/or the mark of an accredited lab can result in one or more of 
following.

1. a fire hazard
2. a shock hazard
3. an unreliable power converter
4. litigation by the OEM for placing a modified unit on the market that bears 
their company name
5. a unit that no longer meets any 'special' requirements (LPS, LCC, Class 2/3, 
Class II/III, TNV-x, etc)
6. a unit that no longer meets EMC immunity and/or emissions.

It cannot be over-stated that power converters that are depended on for the 
system's galvanic isolation and/or for providing a  safe output voltage or 
power level should never be modified by anyone other than the original mfr.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Rob Oglesbee [mailto:rogles...@radianresearch.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 5:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter

Amund,

Here are a few more generic things you can look at...

- RC snubber across diodes (output rectifiers, primary-side snub diode)
- Change the gate drive of the switching FET, if discrete, by adding small 
resistance between the driver and the gate (sometimes a diode is added across 
the resistor to have different turn on/turn off time).  Be careful with this 
one, it can really nail your efficiency and cause your switch to fail thermally.
- RC snubber across the switch.
- If you can change the layout, take a look to make sure the main switching 
path and return are optimized.
- Sometimes adding in a little discrete inductance between the switch and the 
transformer can help (another way to slow the switching edges).
- Resonances in the transformer due to parasitics (leakage inductance 
interwinding capacitances) can be snubbed out with RC's, but that takes a bit 
more work.

Regards,
Rob Oglesbee
Radian Research
(765) 449-5505

This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is 
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified 
that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this 
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or call 765-449-5500 and 
delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:48 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter

Got a DC / DC converter in an ITE.
From a radiated emission plot, I can see lot of spikes with spacing 330kHz in 
the region 30-80MHz.
The DC / DC converter datasheet tells that the switching frequency is 330kHz.
No suppression components around the converter. I assume a common mode choke 
could block some on the noise, so it does not enter the power supply cable, 
which may act as an antenna in this case.

Any other tricks for EMI suppression of DC / DC converters?


#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 
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] Noisy DC / DC converter

[Brian Oconnell]

Have seen somewhat useable app notes  by Vicor, Calex, Interpoint for dealing 
with DC/DC switching noise.

For DC stuff, typically recommend caps, as there can be secondary affects (be 
careful if you must meet LPS/Class 2). If no spacing or thermal issues, a tight 
can or some level of close-in shielding referenced to secondary can be best 
solution if input not referenced to output.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 11:48 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter

Got a DC / DC converter in an ITE.
From a radiated emission plot, I can see lot of spikes with spacing 330kHz in 
the region 30-80MHz.
The DC / DC converter datasheet tells that the switching frequency is 330kHz.
No suppression components around the converter. I assume a common mode choke 
could block some on the noise, so it does not enter the power supply cable, 
which may act as an antenna in this case.

Any other tricks for EMI suppression of DC / DC converters?


#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 
emc-p...@ieee.org

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter

[Brian Oconnell]

Good point - should have been more explicit . Use of caps should be well tested 
and limited to the input. Changes to output capacitance could also affect 
control loop zeros and poles.

If nothing is transferred between C and L, there is no resonance, so a perfect 
power source is the theoretical answer for the lazy non-thoughtful engineer.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 1:41 PM
To: Brian Oconnell
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Noisy DC / DC converter

Hi Brian,

One needs to be a little careful with caps on the output. I have seen many 
cases where they form a resonant circuit with the inductance of wires connected 
to the supply and make the problem even worse.

How about a puzzle? How do you make a non-resonant capacitor using three 
components?

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 
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] RoHS directive

[Brian Oconnell]

The boys in our Tijuana factory were asking why so many suppliers' 
regulatory/compliance docs were hosed. Could only reply that el mundo esta 
mucho loco.

Brian

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 1:57 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS directive

And then I re-read it and see that you could interpret a DoC to mean that 
reference to 2002/95/EC means that the declaration is NOT a reference to 
2011/65/EU! Most confusing if you don’t know of Art 26 – in which case an 
Authority could reject it as out of date!! Thus I would strongly recommend that 
only 2011/65/EU be stated.

John Allen

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 21 November 2014 20:18
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS directive

Agreed- see Article 26 “Repeal” of 2011/65/EU, (RoHS 2) which states:
“Directive 2002/95/EC as amended by the acts listed in Annex VII, Part A is 
repealed with effect from 3 January 2013 without prejudice to the obligations 
of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into 
national law and application of the Directive set out in Annex VII, Part B. 
References to the repealed acts shall be construed as references to this 
Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex 
VIII.”

No argument there!

John Allen
Compliance with Experience.
West London
UK
From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: 21 November 2014 19:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS directive

Brian

2002 version is obsolete and should not be referenced
( it wasn't a CE marking directive either)

Regards
Charlie

Sent from my mobile

From: Brian Oconnell
Sent: ‎21/‎11/‎2014 19:43
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RoHS directive
The boss questioned the way declarations are written after looking at some 
other's documents where their D of C is worded thus:

Directive 2002/95/EC (and its amendments and 2011/65/EU)

Is not the RoHS directive now 2011/65 ? Is the 2002/95 stuff considered not 
obsolete? Any good reason to reference 2002/95?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:174:0088:0110:en:PDF
 

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

Re: [PSES] Gigabit Ethernet Magnetics configuartion question

[Brian Oconnell]

If rated for 1 or 2kV, this could be the ESD discharge cap that is typically 
between 'ground' and power that is located directly on the RJ45 port. If the 
cap is used with ferrite beads, then probably for noise decoupling. Later 
designs tend to not use caps on secondary side of xfmr because the commonly 
used TVSs can have significant capacitance, but many designers still like to 
put those little guys everywhere.

Remember an Intel MB design guide that had section on gigabit interface - 
recommended.

Brian

From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Gigabit Ethernet Magnetics configuartion question

Hello,

I have seen schematics of Gigabit Ethernet connectors that have the CTs on the 
input side
connected to VCC  and then to GND with a 0.1uF cap as a decoupler? across the 
connections.

I have no experience with sort of configuration other than to think it must be 
OK because
gigabit has been out for a while.  
I would appreciate someone sharing any gotchas that they have seen using this 
type of connector.

Is this design unique or is it specified by a standard ..or.???

Thanks in advance!

Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications

-

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] Y2 capacitor in DC circuit

[Brian Oconnell]

Non-sequitur.  Either the cap is rated for the working voltage, or should not 
be used where the component required to provide basic protection from shock. 
There are several mfrs that make 300Vac X and Y-caps that are also specified 
for 1kVdc. The problem is that the IEC60384-14 cert will not indicate that the 
1kVdc is a rating.

Brian

From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Y2 capacitor in DC circuit

Dear experts,

I have one question. One of our clients is generating high voltage DC bus out 
of primary circuit without the insulation. This 800VDC circuit is therefore 
considered as part of primary circuit. They are using Y2 capacitor between this 
DC voltage and PE (accross basic insulation). Measured working voltage accross 
the capacitor was 800VDC (worse case). Y2 capacitor has only rating for AC 
voltage (250V). They could not find any Y capacitor with DC voltage. Do you see 
any issue with such construction?

Best regards,
Bostjan
SIQ

-

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] reference designators per ANSI /ASME

[Brian Oconnell]

Am hesitant to provide this, as some of the ANSI and ASME standards do not 
reflect the 'common' use. But this wiki entry does provide some standards for 
ref designators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_designator

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