Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
Propose a sampling of configurations to the powers that may be. Don Gies Field Service Engineer GUTOR M: +1 346 313 6216 E: donald.g...@non.se.com 17 Capitol Reef Road Howell, NJ 07731 USA Sent by Android Phone General From: John Woodgate Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:59:57 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that you can produce your reasons for your decision if challenged. On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote: Tough one! The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While it would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is worst case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI related issues. In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL clocks and memory traffic, it is a tough thing to determine. My opinion would be to preform the simplest pre-scan on each configuration and base the final, rigorous certification based on that knowledge. Brent Dewitt Milford, MA On 4/5/2024 6:47 PM, Lfresearch wrote: Hi folks, I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the fox urging the chicken coop… So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case. So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, do we have to do every combination? Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and what can be claimed as similarity? Off list responses are welcome too. Thanks, Derek Walton LFResearch/SSCLabs. - This message 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 -- OOO - Own Opinions Only Best wishes John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK Keep trying [https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> Virus-free.www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> This message 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including ho
Re: [PSES] GFCI Receptacles
Hi Steve, Hope all is well with you. See the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Article 210.8 for the list of locations that require GFCI in the US. In Canada, see Canadian Electrical Code, Part I, CSA C22.1, Rule 26-704 and 26-710, as well as other locations for GFCI requirements. Best regards, DON GIES Field Service Engineer [cid:image001.png@01DA8763.4E110020] p +1 346 313 6216 e donald.g...@non.se.com w gutor.com 17 Capitol Reef Road Howell, NJ 07731 United States [cid:image002.png@01DA8763.4E110020] General From: sgbrody Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 21:18 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] GFCI Receptacles [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Esteemed experts: It has always been what I thought was the requirement for GFCI receptacles was only when the product or system was intended for a wet or damp location. A system a client is having an NRTL fo a Field Evaluation on had receptacles and they are being told they need to be GFCI. NFPA-79 15.1.1 requires this only for receptacles to be used for, e.g., handheld power tools, test equipment, and other accessories. The questions are: - What is the definition of accessories as used in NFPA-79, - And is it written in any other standard where and when GFCI outlets are required? Thank you. Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device This message 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
Re: [PSES] Fire codes related to batteries
Hi Gary, NFPA 1, Section 52 is very comprehensive. Also, see IEEE Std 1679.1, " IEEE Guide for the Characterization and Evaluation of Lithium-Based Batteries in Stationary Applications." Best regards, DON GIES Field Service Engineer [cid:image001.png@01DA875E.3DAC0450] p +1 346 313 6216 e donald.g...@non.se.com w gutor.com 17 Capitol Reef Road Howell, NJ 07731 United States [cid:image002.png@01DA875E.3DAC0450] General From: Gary Tornquist <05big...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:47 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Fire codes related to batteries [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Hello Experts, My client is using large capacity lithium-ion battery backup units in his facility The BBU's themselves are safety approved and also have UL9540A testing done at the rack level. We are looking for code consultation (NFPA and ICC/IFC) to gather requirements around the following: 1. Storage of batteries before installation in the facility. 2. Ventilation and fire suppression requirements 3. Spacing requirements 4. Any other code requirements that apply at the facility for use of these BBU's. If you are able to assist with the request and have a code expert that can provide the consultation, please let me know. Cheers, Gary Tornquist This message 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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
Re: [PSES] Power cords
Hi Steve, how have you been? It sounds like the ratings label should have both an input rating, with the voltage and maximum allowable total load that the system will see (in either amperes or watts), and output ratings for each outlet. If the outlets are some sort of dedicated connections, then you would only need the input rating. The LOTO breakers are just Listed molded-case circuit breakers that you can stick a lock on. Hope this helps. Don Gies Gutor Field Service Engineer Equipment & Transformers Energy Management Business Schneider Electric M +1 346 313 6216 E donald.g...@se.com<mailto:donald.g...@se.com> 17 Capitol Reef Road Howell, NJ 07731 United States Internal From: MIKE SHERMAN Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 18:07 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Power cords [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Steve -- Fun questions! (I am a person with documented tendencies to not take the trouble to go to a breaker panel to find and disconnect the correct breaker, so I may be taking a different approach here...) Nameplate I regard the nameplate as information for the installing electrician on how to size the facility breaker and the wiring to the equipment (ceiling panel). So I agree with your approach, from what I understand from your description. Labels and LOTO I would explore, with your client, any incentives for the user to simply disconnect the power cord for a single subsystem from the ceiling panel to work on that subsystem, so that the entire system would not have to be taken down and restarted. If that seems reasonably foreseeable, you may need additional risk mitigations beyond what you propose. Good to see you at ISPCE, too! Mike Sherman Sherman PSC LLC On 05/15/2023 6:25 PM CDT Steve Brody mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net>> wrote: Experts. First, it was good to see those who were at ISPCE in Dallas. Back to the question at hand, and a proposed solution. But I still request ay comments/inputs. I have a client who makes products to their customer's requirements. The end product includes several products, sub-systems, that work together in the end product to perform the intended task. Each of the subsystems has its own power cord that plugs into an outlet in a ceiling panel which has an outlet for each of the sub-systems. Power to the ceiling panel is derived from a single facility panel that has a LOTO breaker. It is my thought that the following should be done: * The system nameplate current rating should be inclusive of all sub-systems and system power * that there be a label adjacent to the nameplate indicating that there are 'x' number of power cords, and that the disconnect for the systems the facility panel number Thoughts? Thanks in advance, Steve Brody sgbr...@comcast.net<mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net> C - 603 617 9116 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To pos
Re: [PSES] Rated Mains Operating Voltage Regional Compatibility [General Use]
My go-to is "Electric Currents Abroad", published by the US Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. You should be able to download from this site, or use the site itself. https://legacy.trade.gov/mas/ian/ECW/index.html Don Gies Internal From: Doug Nix Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 06:14 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Rated Mains Operating Voltage Regional Compatibility [General Use] [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Hi Phil, IEC 60038 defines the standard nominal voltages, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality on the ground. IEC operates the "World plugs" web page that gives the national standard voltages and plugs used by country: https://iectest.iec.ch/world-plugs, however, they only list single-phase voltages. There is a similar reference at https://www.worldstandards.eu/electricity/plug-voltage-by-country/. I have not found an online reference for three-phase voltages, Doug Nix d...@ieee.org<mailto:d...@ieee.org> +1 (519) 729-5704 On May 6, 2023, at 05:09, Agar, Philip (Leonardo, UK) <220ac8787b71-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:220ac8787b71-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> wrote: Please could someone advise me on what standard, if any, might compel a manufacturer to rate the operating voltage of their equipment to at least cover the utility supply tolerance of the region in which it is being sold? For example, a DoC for an IT item sold in the UK claims conformance with the requirements of LVD Directive 2014/35/EU and EN62368-1:2014+A11:2017 but it is not clear to me that the specified voltage rating of 100 - 240 Vac necessarily covers UK utility supply tolerance of up to 253 Vac, or even in much of the EU at 243.8 Vac. Thanks, Phil Agar EMC Compliance - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald: mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C853d253915ce46ec279808db4fc63885%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638191484999308194%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=WMEHmng8RrrDetElZAMFEFOphaYWgriaXOzvYled2G0%3D=0> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C853d253915ce46ec279808db4fc63885%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638191484999308194%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=%2Fk8YFfMMt3t45uA0QruliNuVwArKxmPwpwl5Dt%2FPYQQ%3D=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C853d253915ce46ec279808db4fc63885%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638191484999308194%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=zC0xTylm2idA6DpdlOELWh3rdlTSOSPFMecxeQMIfuc%3D=0> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C853d253915ce46ec279808db4fc63885%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638191484999308194%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=SpudlrCqhq8yVtRi2xNQ94lLJ7Z56i4sISLWYCVCfZk%3D=0> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy
Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC
Since you are seeking compliance with a US-based electrical code, the IEC 61000-4-5 documents may not be applicable. Under UL 508 (17th Ed.), "Industrial Control Equipment", I found the following under " Isolated power supply circuit requirements": b) The construction or circuitry shall suppress internally and externally generated surges in the secondary circuit to at least 300 volts peak. See Transient Voltage Surge Suppression Test, ... And: 36.2 The spacing in industrial control equipment in which transient voltages are known and controlled by a transient suppressive device shall not be less than those specified in Table 36.2 except that spacings at a field-wiring terminal shall be in accordance with Table 36.1. 36.3 The transient suppressive device specified in 36.2 shall prevent peak transient voltages from exceeding 300 percent of the instantaneous peak working voltage or 300 volts, whichever is greater. See Transient-Voltage-Surge Suppression Test, Section 55. Not an industrial control equipment expert, but it seems that there is an expectation of voltage transients being generated internally as well as externally, and more likely from magnetic switching than from atmospheric disturbances. Don Gies Internal From: Brian Kunde Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 4:17 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Exactly!!! The IEC 62326-1 calls out Immunity Test Requirements for Industrial Electromagnetic Environment on the AC Mains, such as ±2kV Fast Transients/Burst, Surges, and Voltage dips and interruptions. If an Industrial Machine is tested and passes these tests, then is additional SPDs required? Or does the NFPA 70 & 79 make SPDs required regardless? Thanks, Brian On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:28 PM MIKE SHERMAN mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>> wrote: If you are declaring conformance with the EU's EMC Directive, there are standard surge tests to run. There are generic "light industrial" and "heavy industrial" levels of surge immunity. As shorthand, "heavy" can be interpreted as a facility with its own pad transformer, and "light" as one that shares a utility transformer with others (think strip mall). There's also a "fast transient" test, as I recall. That might be related to lighting strikes, but there are others on this forum who know this better than I. Mike Sherman Sherman PSC LLC On 11/02/2022 1:59 PM Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com>> wrote: Very good information, all. So how do I know if my product is "effectively protected from voltage surges on the incoming supply circuit"?? Can I test my product to the Surge Immunity Test IEC 61000-4-5 at some voltage??? 2kV?, 3kV? 4kV? higher? to make that determination? How is a Field Inspector going to determine if a product is efficiently protected or not? The manufacturers of Surge Protection Devices are saying their "listed" devices are now "Required", and there's no way around it. The hair on the back of my head sticks up when I hear such things. Manufacturers of Industrial Machines will not know if their customer already has Surge Protection, so why should the both parties be burdened with the cost of double protection. Can the machine manufacturer specify that the facility must provide the SPD? Instead of just requiring a SPD, why not require the Machine Manufacturer to insure their products pass a Surge Immunity Test of some kind? Isn't Surge Immunity already a requirement in the electrical safety standards that Machines have to meet anyway? You got me thinking, now. Thanks again. Brian On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 5:26 PM Don Gies <0e5e843b011c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:0e5e843b011c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> wrote: Group, The requirement for surge protection in NFPA 70 (2023): 670.6 goes back to NFPA 79, "Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery." The scope NEC 70 (2023): 670 refers to NFPA 79, as follows: Article 670 Industrial Machinery 670.1 Scope. This article covers the nameplate data for, overvoltage protection for, and the size and overcurrent protection of supply conductors to industrial machinery. Informational Note No. 1: See NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery, for further information. Informational Note No. 2: See 110.26<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flink.nfpa.org%2Fpublications%2F70%2F2023%2Fchapters%2F1%2Farticles%2F110%23ID00070283=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Ced21397842ba4987634b08dabd0f4d5a%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638030172121289566%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=t7qZL5BR5173v2xeujAHL1st%2B8je
Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC
Group, The requirement for surge protection in NFPA 70 (2023): 670.6 goes back to NFPA 79, “Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery.” The scope NEC 70 (2023): 670 refers to NFPA 79, as follows: Article 670 Industrial Machinery 670.1 Scope. This article covers the nameplate data for, overvoltage protection for, and the size and overcurrent protection of supply conductors to industrial machinery. Informational Note No. 1: See NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery, for further information. Informational Note No. 2: See 110.26<https://link.nfpa.org/publications/70/2023/chapters/1/articles/110#ID00070283> for information on the workspace requirements for equipment containing supply conductor terminals. Informational Note No. 3: See NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery, for information on the workspace requirements for machine power and control equipment. 670.6 reads as follows (2023 NEC): 670.6 Overvoltage Protection. Industrial machinery with safety circuits shall have overvoltage protection. Under NFPA 79: 7.8.1, the requirement for surge protection is as follows: 7.8.1*<https://link.nfpa.org/publications/79/2021/annexes/A/groups/7#ID000790001728> Surge-Protective Devices (SPDs). Industrial machinery with safety circuits not effectively protected from the effects of overvoltages due to lightning or switching surges shall have surge protection installed. Exception: SPDs shall not be required where the risks associated with the effects of overvoltages are mitigated such that the safety performance determined by a risk assessment is met. Enhanced Content The term surge-protective devices (SPDs) has replaced the previously used terms overvoltage protection device, lightning overvoltage suppression, and surge switching overvoltage suppression in 7.8.1, 7.8.2<https://link.nfpa.org/publications/79/2021/chapters/7#ID00079458>, and 7.8.3<https://link.nfpa.org/publications/79/2021/chapters/7#ID000790001613>. See the definition of surge-protective device (SPD) in 3.3.104<https://link.nfpa.org/publications/79/2021/chapters/3#ID000790001610>. The 2018 edition revised the existing requirement in 7.8.1 to require an appropriate SPD for protection of industrial machinery with safety interlock circuits to correlate with Section 670.6 of NFPA 70<https://link.nfpa.org/publications/70/2020>. Best regards, Don Gies Internal From: Richard Nute Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 4:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] The NEC 670.6 quote triggers some questions: I wonder why industrial machinery with a safety interlock is required to have surge protection as opposed to machinery that does not have an interlock? Is an “on-off” or “run-stop” control considered a “safety interlock”? Is the “surge” a higher-than-normal power-line voltage or is it an impulse from switching or lightning? Does “effectively protected” mean passing the dielectric (hi-pot) test? Richard Nute Bend, Oregon, USA (Several inches accumulation of snow this morning, but above freezing.) From: Doug Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 11:28 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Surge Protection Device required by NEC From the 2020 Edition, emphasis is mine. "670.6 Surge Protection. Industrial machinery with safety interlock control devices not effectively protected from voltage surges on the incoming supply circuit shall have surge protection installed." It does not say where this protection needs to be applied, so I assume it can be within the machine or somewhere in machine supply. Also, does the product you are inquiring about fall under the definition of Industrial Machinery, NFPA 79? -Doug Douglas E Powell Laporte, Colorado USA doug...@gmail.com<mailto:doug...@gmail.com> LinkedIn<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fcoloradocomplianceguy%2F=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C2941b6fae766483a408508dabc4414aa%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638029297833795988%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=aTsjPeQTYkClbU2fXAmeM4UidLwnyb9v3wEYHCSB7WI%3D=0> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT) On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 11:55 AM Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com>> wrote: It just came to my attention that section 670.6 of the US National Electric Code 2017 requires a listed Surge Protection Device (SPD) to be on any Industrial Machine that has an Interlock, or I assume any kind of safety function. Is this true? The only information I can find on the internet is from the companies that make and se
Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1 ES3/PS3 cold impact test
Christopher, Per Annex Y.6, you have to consider performing the cold impact tests on polymeric outdoor enclosures housing class 3 energy sources. Best regards, Don Gies Internal From: Chris <0133def26cf0-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 5:43 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1 ES3/PS3 cold impact test [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Folks, When do we need to do IEC 62368-1 ES3/PS3 cold impact test as per IEC 62368-1 Third edition. I was told if EUT is powered by ES3/PS3 then it is required. any insight will be helpful Thanks in advance Christopher - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C91fb203f016b4a7b14d808dab2e41970%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638018989994406040%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=3fR86FvR9FnFrydfJuBOHT5UaZmIJqXaO36RWYT2TmY%3D=0> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C91fb203f016b4a7b14d808dab2e41970%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638018989994406040%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=XZQ9lyNiEjqPUOw9Ozv7bvxzsGrc6vHtIrIBubfYro0%3D=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C91fb203f016b4a7b14d808dab2e41970%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638018989994406040%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=4t2biSBxpuD4Y1aVZUtUhfO4cRlFRG20aIGUTQ0Eov0%3D=0> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C91fb203f016b4a7b14d808dab2e41970%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C638018989994406040%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=rwlwUMrfqCmun1L3fefsBkOLZFbdTFs9tG886n90fFE%3D=0> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: _ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs
If your equipment exceeds touch current limits by summation, and if you think your equipment is going to be located in areas where the National Electrical Code or Canadian Electrical Code, Part I mandate the installation of GFCI-protected branch circuits, then you would certainly need to accommodate for this in your design and installation instructions. I don’t believe using an isolated transformer to create an internal separately-derived power system would work because you would still be connecting all of your pluggable equipment (Type A) to ground. If the equipment is industrial, then the best solution would be to use an industrial plug (Pluggable Equipment Type B) or permanent connection and comply with the rules that permit equipment to exceed touch current limits. This is typical of many IEC standards, including IEC 62368-1. For equipment such as AC-powered outdoor mobile telephone network equipment, this tends to be more of the norm than the exception, as you tend to get quite a bit of touch current when the system is ungrounded for test, but never close to the 5% of the input current allowed for protective conductor current. Best regards, Don Gies Internal From: Brian Kunde Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 8:45 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] If I have EE or a rake of equipment or several pieces of equipment plugged into a power strip that has a combined touch current that trips a GFCI, what can be done about that? Will an isolation transformer solve the problem? Thanks, The Other Brian On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 6:38 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org>> wrote: I wouldn’t describe the phenomenon as “cancellation.” The touch current is always present and must have a path to earth/ground. The equivalent equipment circuit: Y1 capacitor L-(line)-to-PE. Y2 capacitor N-(neutral)-to-PE. Capacitor value is 25x Y1 capacitor value. 4.6 volts N-to-(grounded)-PE. In the USA, N is connected to a ground rod at the building service entrance. PE is connected to N at the breaker box. In the building, PE is parallel to N, but is a non-current-carrying conductor except in the case of a fault. The Y1 and Y2 capacitors are in series and comprise a voltage divider to an open PE. Because the Y2 capacitor is 25x the Y1 capacitor, the open-circuit voltage at the PE connection is very low compared the line voltage (instead of the usual half the line voltage). Normal condition touch current path is from L to Y1 to PE (open) to a 2,000-ohm resistor to ground, Touch current is calculated using Ohm’s Law from the measured voltage across the 2,000-ohm resistor. The 2,000-ohm resistor is (in essence) parallel to the Y2 capacitor. Some of the L-to-Y1 current (not touch current!) returns to ground through the Y2-N-ground circuit, depending on the parallel network of capacitance reactance and the 2,000-ohm resistor. Reverse polarity (L and N reversed in the supply to the equipment) current path is N to Y2 to PE (open) to the 2,000-ohm resistor to ground. Because Y2 is 25x Y1, the touch current is much higher than normal polarity. As in the normal polarity condition, some of the current (very small) returns to ground through the Y1 capacitor. If the Y1 and Y2 capacitors are of equal value, the supply voltage is 120 volts, and the touch current limit is 0.5 mA, the Y1 and Y2 capacitance reactance is 238,000 ohms each. The Y2 capacitance is shunted by the 2,000-ohm resistor and can be ignored as the voltage across the Y2 and 2,000-ohm resistor is 1 volt. (The current through the 238,000-ohm reactance is 4.2 microamps.) We have a parallel circuit to ground from the junction of Y1 and Y2 when the PE is open and when touch current is being measured. One circuit to ground is through the touch current measuring circuit. The other circuit to ground (via the N) is through the Y2 capacitor. If the Y2 reactance is small, a significant N current can be in that path to ground thereby reducing the touch current, not a partial cancel of the touch current. Best regards, Rich From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 12:32 PM To: ri...@ieee.org<mailto:ri...@ieee.org>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs There is also a question in my mind as to whether there can be partial cancellation of touch current. I suspect this is highly improbable in the US, due to the distribution system ensuring that the neutral has a very low voltage difference from the PEC. But in Europe, it's not inconceivable that the neutral could be, say, 4.6 V relative to PEC and the neutral-to-PEC capacitance 25 times that of L to PEC, so that half the L-to-PEC leakage current is cancelled
Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs
The cancellation that Mr. Woodgate points out could occur with industrial equipment that was powered from North American 120/240 V ac, 3-wire single phase or 240 Vac, single phase circuits (where there are two line conductors separated in phase by 180 degrees on a center-tapped, single-phase distribution transformer) or from 208 Vac, single-phase equipment (where the two line conductors are separated in phase by 120 degrees on a 3-phase distribution transformer). If your market was strictly North America, you might use this to your advantage. It is likely, though, that such equipment is sold on the global market, so you might test for touch current with a 230 V, single phase input (that is, 230V to earthed neutral). Then, no such cancellation of touch current. Best regards, Don Gies Internal From: John Woodgate Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 3:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] There is also a question in my mind as to whether there can be partial cancellation of touch current. I suspect this is highly improbable in the US, due to the distribution system ensuring that the neutral has a very low voltage difference from the PEC. But in Europe, it's not inconceivable that the neutral could be, say, 4.6 V relative to PEC and the neutral-to-PEC capacitance 25 times that of L to PEC, so that half the L-to-PEC leakage current is cancelled by the N to PEC current. == Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk%2F=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C7046b051e9cd42fd084908da86d07966%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637970527292966147%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=YTPpuf0fmAT3zFhO2daPXwkAknmm000tpUrSpv941i8%3D=0> Rayleigh, Essex UK It all depends On 2022-08-25 19:12, Richard Nute wrote: I wish to make two points: 1. Kirchoff’s Current Law states that the sum of currents entering a node equals the sum of currents leaving the node. The Law applies to summation of leakage (touch) currents (e.g., through a 2,000-ohm resistor) and to summation of protective conductor currents (through 0 ohms). In a power strip protective grounding conductor, I’m assuming 0 ohms to ground, so the current is slightly higher (1 to 10 % depending on the leakage current limit and the voltage you are using) in the protective grounding conductor than leakage (touch) current. See IEC 60990 for touch (leakage) current and protective conductor current measurement procedures. 1. A GFCI measures the current difference between line and neutral conductors, not current in the protective conductor. It nominally operates at 5 mA. We assume (with a reasonable degree of accuracy) that leakage (touch) current is 100% of the differential current measured by the GFCI. It is possible, although unlikely, for some of the GFCI differential current to find another return path than the protective grounding conductor. Best regards, Rich From: Lfresearch Jose <00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org><mailto:00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 1:44 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs I have wondered about something similar. If I use a 6 way power strip, I’m assuming all the leakage currents for anything plugged in sum. Is that correct? I recall getting a few trips when I used a power strip and It’s only just twigged that might be why. Cheers, Derek. Sent from my iPad On Aug 24, 2022, at 3:27 PM, Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com>> wrote: If I have a rake of electrical equipment with a single power cord and a combined touch current exceeding 6mA, and I plug the rake into a circuit with a GFCI, will it trip? Thanks. The Other Brian - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C7046b051e9cd42fd084908da86d07966%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637970527292966147%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=iOWJbGDVA2VIgouaMohdShgvwFzojuN1gl1ubfZXDkU%3D=0> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://eur
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] who regulates road trains?
Action Park was called "Traction Park". Don Gies Internal From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 11:16 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] who regulates road trains? [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] By a strange coincidence, a coworker forwarded this article to me this morning covering the same subject. It has more information on the amusement park ride registration system. Standard Issue Fun - The Prepared<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheprepared.org%2Ffeatures-feed%2Fastm%3Futm_source%3Dnewsletter%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3D2022-07-28%26mc_cid%3D24769ac393%26mc_eid%3D9a28cbc6c6=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C8de5134ffe1b4e28554108da70c54374%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637946289803355786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=J6TBexX3TxA5vnEsN9WmT%2Fu2wvlJHfJGkDJ%2Fmjnh7Ww%3D=0> Best regards, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 6:22 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] who regulates road trains? Hi Gary, I can only speak of requirements in the United States. I believe these fall under the requirements for amusement park rides. ASTM F24 has the standards, with subcommittee F24.60 possibly handling these types of rides. F24.60 Jurisdiction Page (astm.org)<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.astm.org%2Fget-involved%2Ftechnical-committees%2Fcommittee-f24%2Fsubcommittee-f24%2Fjurisdiction-f2460=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C8de5134ffe1b4e28554108da70c54374%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637946289803355786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=Nmg%2Bl8UjxMf0DLaH60%2B3ZTpbagEdCBen4JetZqIHhqU%3D=0> Inspections and requirements for rides at amusement parks and fairs is usually governed at the state level in the United States. Inspection regimes can vary significantly from location to location. There was an infamous amusement park in New Jersey named Action Park that was involved in so much litigation that it got the nickname "Class Action Park". Action Park - Wikipedia<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAction_Park=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C8de5134ffe1b4e28554108da70c54374%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637946289803355786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=KCYb%2FWkuXrc2w%2FfhPD5qJU89y9DIJyk83LPraIcB4vg%3D=0> Best regards, Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Gary Tornquist <05big...@gmail.com<mailto:05big...@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 9:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] who regulates road trains? Hi All, Kind of off-the wall question, but would you know who regulates road trains? These are wheeled vehicles with one typically battery powered engine in the front pulling several passenger coaches behind. These slow vehicles typically operate in controlled environments such as zoos, amusement parks and resorts to get people short distances. Not for public roads as far as I can tell. See an example here: https://www.tdiproductionsolutions.com/portfolio/delga/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tdiproductionsolutions.com%2Fportfolio%2Fdelga%2F=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C8de5134ffe1b4e28554108da70c54374%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637946289803355786%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=mpeB%2BjfHm7id7TiVKU357wxK5SZi3cKVqZyH0QFBpDA%3D=0> So would they fall under the Department of Transportation? OSHA? Or something else? Cheers, Gary Tornquist Product Safety Consultants - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C8de5134ffe1
Re: [PSES] IP Code Question
I have seen large industrial UPSs or battery chargers that have IP22 roofs. The roofs cover over fan grilles on the top, leaving approx. 50 mm of air for ventilation. Though they may be used to stop water drips or condensation coming off pipes, they are mostly intended to keep cut stranded wires, small objects, screws, dust, etc. out of the fan ducts. They very unofficially serve as a place for electricians to sit while they are populating overhead cable trays or installing conduit. Don Gies Internal From: Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:55 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] IP Code Question [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Hi Brian, The IP ratings apply to continuous situations unless stated otherwise. So IPX2 means that water drops can be continuously falling at 3mm/min when the EUT is tilted up to 15°. The test lasts for 2.5 minutes per side, but the environment is considered continuous. For our machinery with IP32, we typically make sure that any water that enters the enclosure will be directly away from any components therein and toward drain holes at the bottom of the enclosure. Best regards, Mark Stultz From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com>> Sent: Monday, 14 February, 2022 9:23 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] IP Code Question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. An IP code of IPx2 implies the enclosure protects against the ingress of water drops at 15° tilt. Now, most PC enclosures protect the electronics from occasional exposure to water drops, but it is not designed to be exposed to water drops continuously. So can you rate an electronic device IP22, for instance, but not intend it to be used outside or in an environment where it is exposed to water on a regular basis? Thanks for your input. 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cc2f2723bc6ad45e0655e08d9efc9f8f8%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637804473022354000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=5TZb4LxkD9TtNi6KNbdH7wHbFs2woP6kh08I%2FXwQQxA%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cc2f2723bc6ad45e0655e08d9efc9f8f8%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637804473022354000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=sNgL%2FHB2NG0Mh%2FliopD5fkEqGVNjwMhYftGZ63StMUQ%3D=0> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cc2f2723bc6ad45e0655e08d9efc9f8f8%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637804473022354000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=Ri6mNBv82AmsSTHY26Ms0AT3bdTIOluczale7ZCLvvU%3D=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cc2f2723bc6ad45e0655e08d9efc9f8f8%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637804473022354000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=Uq8KUHjfdCluPoh1HwIfkB62x8sKpcTPI5ZhwhS2CbA%3D=0> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cc2f2723bc6ad45e0655e08d9efc9f8f8%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637804473022354000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=eI16qZ7NVzgjjNE9UZkG2p7PVb9dNdOF5MQJPki5USo%3D=0> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bac
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Magnets as reliable fasteners
Hi Gary, >From your post, I zoomed in on the words "electrical panel", thinking you had >a product or a sub-component that is more circuit-breaker panel than A/V/ICT. If so, I would have doubts that the North American standards would allow magnetic securement, but obviously compliance is checked by consulting the standard and the certifying engineer. Don Gies Internal From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:33 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Magnets as reliable fasteners [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Hi Gary, I have a consideration a bit different from what Doug and Mark have discussed. My concern is that magnets inside of an electrical panel could attract foreign objects. Loose screws, bolts or other hardware could be attracted to the magnets resulting in reduced clearances, or in the worst case, a short circuit. They could create a challenge for maintenance on the panels as extra care would be needed. I can even foresee service personnel shutting off the panel for maintenance and using the magnets as an impromptu tool holder. If they forget that a tool is held in place, there could be an electrical incident when the panel is reenergized. Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Gary Tornquist <05big...@gmail.com<mailto:05big...@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 6:52 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Magnets as reliable fasteners Hello experts, Can magnets be used to fasten line voltage assemblies to the inside of an electrical panel? To restate my concerns, if strong enough could they be considered to reliably maintain creepage and clearance distances, as well as not overstressing wires terminating at the assembly? And how strong is strong enough? Test T2 calls for pushing on parts in the most unfavorable direction with 10 newtons of force for 5 seconds - is this an appropriate test? The application is in stationary equipment that does not include motors, so vibration should not be a concern. I welcome advice - this is the first time I've seen such proposed construction and I don't know a standard such as 62368 to mention it. Cheers, Gary Tornquist Product Safety Consultants Opinions expressed are my own, not of my employer or client - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cbf47be48de7446e0ab8308d9ebd92586%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637800140135541580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=CjysNfJlDf636CbTbmPwVbNK4syXDUznofIicp43cjI%3D=0> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cbf47be48de7446e0ab8308d9ebd92586%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637800140135541580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=auUUK8soDMWEjDFu60M29HnIsPtYfQ6FF4Md3D4%2BMgk%3D=0> can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cbf47be48de7446e0ab8308d9ebd92586%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637800140135541580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=n2D095hQVCMSFcWN%2FtoWPMgaUugDOf5h38pEi6%2FX12o%3D=0> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cbf47be48de7446e0ab8308d9ebd92586%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637800140135541580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=oOK3%2FjAlFDyTgMuUrMsOZxt63H3HN6UbtfRmambZYnw%3D=0> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=04%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7Cbf47be48de7446e0ab8308d9ebd92586%
Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Electrical safety testing US and Canada ... Mandatory ?
Armund, Many think that Listing, whether in the USA or Canada, is not government-mandated. This is not completely accurate in most cases. The reason: wrong government! In the USA, OSHA does mandate electrical safety in the workplace, but it is the local and state governments that mandate Listing (or approval) for all other installations, not the Federal government. Typically, the state governments or the city government of major cities adopt the NEC as their own code. If you go for an electrical construction permit, you will not get your certificate of occupancy (CO) until you get inspected by the local inspector. As far as the plug-in appliances go, it may be like speeding-you may not get caught, but speeding is against the law nonetheless, and so is approval of all electrical equipment. Similar in Canada, except that the provincial governments mandate approval of all electrical equipment in accordance with the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I. Best regards, Don Gies From: Pete Perkins <0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 10:04 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Electrical safety testing US and Canada ... Mandatory ? [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Amund,Ted does a nice job of summarizing the US situation with regard to the legality of the NRTL certification for products installed during construction, including remodeling, which is inspected in the US. There is also the issue for retail products here in the US as most large retailers have contractual clauses in their POs which require a NRTL listing on any electrical product which they will sell for you. This will cover the coffee pot purchased to use at work as discussed. So, you see that legally required means several things; it is required by the US NEC which is invoked for the workplace by OSHA and for all installations including industrial, commercial and residential construction by AHJ inspection plus contractually thru the distribution chain. Finally, I'll repeat my own experience when I worked for a large electronics company. During the period in which talk TV shows exploded we received a frantic call from our local field rep. Because this studio construction was on a fast track they ordered all the equipment which was to be installed to be delivered before the final AHJ electrical inspection of the building. Upon that inspection the AHJ inspector saw the boxes on the floor he went to inspect them for their NRTL mark. Almost none of the commercial equipment was NRTL marked and the AHJ inspector 'red tagged' all of it - meaning that it could not be installed until it was acceptably certified. Our solution was to send an experienced Safety Engineer onsite and taking the products, one type at a time, for a NRTL review, getting all of them updated at our local repair facility per the deficiencies and then having the NRTL lab provide a 'Field Label' on each individual updated product. The entire exercise took a couple of weeks (& more U$ bucks than marketing had expected to spend) but the equipment was then acceptable to be installed in the studio. Our products did not delay the installation schedule. To avoid that dilemma again, the VP for that equipment group reluctantly agreed to get NRTL Listing on all of their products moving ahead, a win for the overall safety program at the company. Hopefully, for your equipment there will be harmonized technical safety requirements between the US NRTL requirements and the Euro CE requirements which can simplify your work by getting a CB Report which includes showing compliance with all the Country deviations. :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 1067 Albany, ORe 97321-0413 503/452-1201 IEEE Life Fellow IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer p.perk...@ieee.org<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> Entropy ain't what it used to be From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 7:57 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Electrical safety testing US and Canada ... Mandatory ? Hello Amund, This is an oversimplification, but here is how I understand the laws and regulations of the United States. I'll leave the discussion of Canadian regulations to somebody who better knows those rules. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor. OSHA has legal authority over the workplace. OSHA runs the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.osha.gov%2Fdts%
Re: [PSES] human skin resistance
I had written a paper, “Human Body Impedance Model at Radio Frequencies” for the 2016 IEEE Symposium for Product Compliance Engineering. This paper is on IEEE Xplore. Abstract— This paper examines the frequency response of human body-simulating impedance networks found in information and communication technology safety standards, then explores their reactions at radio frequencies used for wireless telephony. It explores the possible existence of human-body inductance, resonance and skin effect. Finally, it postulates a working model for evaluating the safety of high-power circuits operating at radio frequencies. Don Gies <mailto:ddg...@verizon.net> ddg...@verizon.net Mobile: 1.732.207.7828 From: Pete Perkins <0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 11:53 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] human skin resistance The standard body models used in the safety standards to provide electric shock protection provide for a ‘ combo in-and out RC skin impedance’ and a ‘body resistance’. The modeled circuit used in 60990 for large area of contact is skin impedance of 1500 ohms and 0.22uf and the internal body resistance ‘bag of saltwater’ of 500 ohms; this has been the traditional European body circuit, in NA UL has used slightly different values; there is only a small difference in measured touch current between these circuits. The large area of contact is considered the worst case. The component values in the model vary with contact area – as the contact area gets smaller the skin impedance resistance get higher and the capacitance changes because of the smaller area. There are several other more complex body models in the literature which seek to auto compensate for some of the variables encountered in electric shock work. Altho they seem to provide some of advantages claimed they have not come into general use. :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 IEEE Life Fellow p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> Entropy ain’t what it used to be From: Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 12:07 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] human skin resistance John referenced “skin resistance.” To my knowledge, there is no research that shows skin resistance and body resistance as separate parameters. We only know total body resistance, and that it is a variable that changes – lowers -- with applied voltage and time. Having said that, a good guess that skin resistance is the predominant parameter at low voltages. The “body” is comprised of water-predominate organs, so is likely to be a lower resistance than skin resistance and relatively constant with voltage. We also know that capacitance parallels the total body resistance. But, as with resistance, we don’t know how to apportion the capacitance to the skin and to the body. If you know of any such research, please let me know. Best regards, Rich From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 1:30 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] classification of the output We found very great differences in human 'skin resistance' at effectively zero voltage when designing TV tuners with touch-contact channel selection. We had to make the sensitivity so high that there was a risk that houseflies would change the channel. Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2019-03-13 05:22, Pete Perkins wrote: - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > - ---
Re: [PSES] power strip details
Pete, Before last year's TC108 meeting in Frankfurt, I purchased a German Schucko European Power Strip from Amazon. It had 3 AC receptacles and 2 USB outputs. Its ratings are: "Maximum Charge: 3680W,16A/250V~" Don Gies <mailto:ddg...@verizon.net> ddg...@verizon.net (732) 207-7828 From: John Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:32 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details Unlike the US/Canada (etc), there is no derating factor for UK mains wall outlets. A 13A wall outlet can be loaded at 13A, and a twin/duplex 13A outlet can be loaded at 13A per outlet because the "diversity factor" principle is applied, i.e. it is highly unlikely in practice that both 13A outlets will be actually be fully loaded at the same time! Murphy's Law may however apply at times in that both outlets could simultaneously be loaded at 13A - and so it is to be hoped that the wall outlet in question is on a UK "ring main" circuit protected by a 32A breaker, and not a spur/radial/branch circuit protected by a 16A breaker! For a power strip plugged into one of those outlets, there is a (generally, as John W said) a 13A fuse in the plug, and so the max cumulative continuous load for the sockets in the strip is also 13A - unless, of course, the mfr has decided to give it an overall lower current rating, fitted a lower-rated fuse AND marked the plug with that rating. BTW: I have also occasionally seen 7A fuses (the fuse standard is BS1362, but, AFAIK, that only shows a few "standard" ratings, and not some of those which are actually sold - such as those listed here http://cpc.farnell.com/search?st=plug%20top%20fuse) I believe that the standard for such UK power strips is probably BS 5733:2010+A1:2014 "General requirements for electrical accessories. Specification" - but don't have a copy and so can't comment in detail on what it requires. John Allen W.London, UK From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] Sent: 15 September 2017 07:36 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details UK household power strips are rated at 13 A and include a 13 A fuse. Other fuses, normally used in plugs, are 3 A, 5 A and 10 A. I have seen a 1 A fuse, but they are very rare. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 5:55 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] power strip details Esteemed colleagues, Here in North America a domestic or commercial multi-outlet power strip would be cord connected thru a duplex outlet protected by a 15A (or sometimes 20A) circuit breaker. The max load allowed in the circuit by the US NEC would be (80% of 15A) 12A for the total load (or 80% of 20A) 16A on the 20A breaker. Note that the US NEC requires that any device plugged into a duplex outlet must not use the full load capacity of the circuit - 20% must be left for the other outlet's load. Trying to understand the loading basis for a Euro power strip. Is the usual protection a 10A breaker? And would the power strip be rated and evaluated at that load level? What other considerations come into play here? How about a UK power strip. The usual protection is the 13A fuse in the power plug (altho smaller values seemed to be used also). Would the power strip be rated and evaluated at that load level? What other considerations come into play here. For a Japanese power strip what is the normal breaker protection for the installed circuit? What would be the max rated load for the power strip? What other considerations come into play here also? Looking forward to your replies on this issue. :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Re: [PSES] Separation of Circuits
John, This may or may not be helpful to you, but you did say “UL”60065, so this is what the National Electrical Code says about running cables in the same raceway as power (communication cable is the example here). The same basic rules apply to other types of signal wire (Class 2,3, optical, CATV, etc.). Basically, when we had telecom wires come into the same box that had the power for the communication equipment, we maintained 6 mm (1/4 inch) separation per (c ) exception no. 2 below. 800.133 Installation of Communications Wires, Cables, and Equipment. Communications wires and cables from the protector to the equipment or, where no protector is required, communications wires and cables attached to the outside or inside of the building shall comply with 800.133(A) and 800.133(B) (A) Separation from Other Conductors. (1) In Raceways, Cable Trays, Boxes, Cables, Enclosures, and Cable Routing Assemblies. (a) Other Circuits. Communications cables shall be permitted in the same raceway, cable tray, box, enclosure, or cable routing assembly with cables of any of the following: (1) Class 2 and Class 3 remote-control, signaling, and powerlimited circuits in compliance with Article 645 or Parts I and III of Article 725 (2) Power-limited fire alarm systems in compliance with Parts I and III of Article 760 (3) Nonconductive and conductive optical fiber cables in compliance with Parts I and V of Article 770 (4) Community antenna television and radio distribution systems in compliance with Parts I and V of Article 820 (5) Low-power network-powered broadband communications circuits in compliance with Parts I and V of Article 830 (b) Class 2 and Class 3 Circuits. Class 1 circuits shall not be run in the same cable with communications circuits. Class 2 and Class 3 circuit conductors shall be permitted in the same cable with communications circuits, in which case the Class 2 and Class 3 circuits shall be classified as communications circuits and shall meet the requirements of this article. The cables shall be listed as communications cables. Exception: Cables constructed of individually listed Class 2, Class 3, and communications cables under a common jacket shall not be required to be classified as communications cable. The fire-resistance rating of the composite cable shall be determined by the performance of the composite cable. (c) Electric Light, Power, Class 1, Non–Power-Limited Fire Alarm, and Medium-Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications Circuits in Raceways, Compartments, and Boxes. Communications conductors shall not be placed in any raceway, compartment, outlet box, junction box, or similar fitting with conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm, or medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits. Exception No. 1: Section 800.133(A)(1)(c) shall not apply if all of the conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm, and medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits are separated from all of the conductors of communications circuits by a permanent barrier or listed divider. Exception No. 2: Power conductors in outlet boxes, junction boxes, or similar fittings or compartments where such conductors are introduced solely for power supply to communications equipment. The power circuit conductors shall be routed within the enclosure to maintain a minimum of 6 mm ( 1∕4 in.) separation from the communications circuit conductors. Exception No. 3: As permitted by 620.36. Don Gies ddg...@verizon.net <mailto:ddg...@verizon.net> (732) 207-7828 From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 7:47 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Separation of Circuits Hi, I'm struggling with a separation of circuits issue. The Standard I'm using is UL60065. Many other Standards allow wires of different voltages to be in contact with each other as long as they're both rated for the higher voltage. UL60065 doesn't have a separation of circuits section and I cannot find anything that allows wires of different voltages to touch each other. Paragraph 8.5 allows for short circuiting. Section 13 is creepage and clearances but I cannot find a requirement that will allow a low voltage wire to touch a line voltage wire even if the low voltage wire is rated for the higher voltage. I noticed 60950 and 61010 don't seem to have this allowance either. For 60065, can anyone point me in the right direction? If 60065, 60950 and 61010 don't allow it, can anyone explain why these standards don't but others do?? For reference, some that allow it - UL508A (Control Panels), UL73 (Motor Operated Appliances), UL499 (Heating Appliances). Any feedback is appreciated. Best Regards, John - This message is from th
Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC
Ed, I conducted TEMPEST tests and mitigation on SINCGARS radios too. Amund, the TEMPEST test procedures are classified. Don Gies ddg...@verizon.net <mailto:ddg...@verizon.net> (732) 207-7828 From: Edward Price [mailto:e...@jwjelp.com] Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 5:20 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC Amund: In TEMPEST testing, both the limits and the data were considered classified information. Don: The conflation of TEMPEST and 461 probably arose from the fact that most all equipment requiring TEMPEST compliance was being bought by DoD agencies, and they also required 461 compliance. As an example, back in the late 80’s, I did the 461 compliance testing for the SINCGARS radio system, while a TEMPEST certified engineer worked in my lab doing a parallel TEMPEST compliance test. The customer was the same, but the two efforts were on separate contracts. OTOH, I recall another job, this one commercial, where the customer only asked us to do TEMPEST on a high-speed computer line-printer; there was no requirement for 461. The customer’s plan was to sell TEMPEST ready printers to non-governmental custoers. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC I was looking for the document NSTISSAM TEMPEST/1-92 «Compromising Emanations Laboratory Test Requirements, Electromagnetics», but I only found a file with all emission plots covered by a black spot. Classified information? BR Amund Fra: Don Gies [mailto:ddg...@verizon.net] Sendt: 6. september 2017 23:35 Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Emne: Re: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC Years ago, if you tested under a TEMPEST contract, you tested for MIL-STD-461 as well. They were not considered overlapping requirements, and the TEMPEST engineer is looking for other things that the MIL-STD-461 engineer is not. Don Gies mailto:ddg...@verizon.net (732) 207-7828 From: rbtuk [mailto:0a0e51f5c059-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:53 PM To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC In my experience of both type of testing experience - if it is tempest compliant it is likely to be compliant with commercial emission requirements Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: Ken Javor <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> Date: 9/5/17 16:35 (GMT-05:00) To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC TEMPEST is completely decoupled from EMC. The EMC requirements are driven by how the item will be used. A TEMPEST qualified PC to be used around some secure data center in a plant or office building will have those sports of CISPR EMC qualifications. If the device is going to be used on a military vehicle of some sort, then MIL-STD-461 is required. But these statements stand on their own – they are independent of the TEMPEST qualification. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: Amund Westin <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> Reply-To: Amund Westin <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 21:22:33 +0200 To: <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC Any special EMC requirements for TEMPEST approved equipment? Is MIL-STD-461 mandatory? … 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 <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <m
Re: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC
Years ago, if you tested under a TEMPEST contract, you tested for MIL-STD-461 as well. They were not considered overlapping requirements, and the TEMPEST engineer is looking for other things that the MIL-STD-461 engineer is not. Don Gies ddg...@verizon.net <mailto:ddg...@verizon.net> (732) 207-7828 From: rbtuk [mailto:0a0e51f5c059-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC In my experience of both type of testing experience - if it is tempest compliant it is likely to be compliant with commercial emission requirements Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> > Date: 9/5/17 16:35 (GMT-05:00) To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC TEMPEST is completely decoupled from EMC. The EMC requirements are driven by how the item will be used. A TEMPEST qualified PC to be used around some secure data center in a plant or office building will have those sports of CISPR EMC qualifications. If the device is going to be used on a military vehicle of some sort, then MIL-STD-461 is required. But these statements stand on their own – they are independent of the TEMPEST qualification. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 _ From: Amund Westin <am...@westin-emission.no <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> > Reply-To: Amund Westin <am...@westin-emission.no <mailto:am...@westin-emission.no> > Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 21:22:33 +0200 To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: [PSES] TEMPEST and EMC Any special EMC requirements for TEMPEST approved equipment? Is MIL-STD-461 mandatory? … 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 <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <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.o
Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?
Peter, It doesnt sound right. Somebody may be describing a 120/240 V, 3-Wire system, and mixing it up with a 120/208 V, Y-connected power. Hope all is well. DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Mobile: +1 732 207 7828 <mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com> don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com -Original Message- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:22 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] 208 split-phase? Good morning. There are oftensmall, legacy grids that you come across or hear about. I was recently told that some areas of the Northeast US have a 208 V, split-phase power system to some residences and small businesses. Still 180° phase-to-phase and presumably 104 V phase-to-Neutral. A specific area cited was "around Boston." Has anyone heard of or directly experienced this voltage system? Is it split-phase or was I misinformed and it's from a WYE connected transformer? Peter Tarver <mailto:ptar...@ieee.org> ptar...@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 < <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at <http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/> http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html> http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas < <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> 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] Is NRTL listing mandatory for consumer-grade telephone terminal equipment?
Joe, With regard to this line, The NEC code 800-4 additionally requires all equipment connected to a telecommunications network to be listed I am still at my temporary job 25 ½ years later, for which I was hired to help get the legacy ATT/Western Electric telephones that were still going to be manufactured Listed under the enforcement of the 1990 National Electrical Code. The Listing requirement is still in the 2014 NEC, but it is now 800.17, and reads as follows: VI. Listing Requirements 800.170 Equipment. Communications equipment shall be listed as being suitable for electrical connection to a communications network. Informational Note: One way to determine applicable requirements is to refer to UL 60950-1-2007, Standard for Safety of Information Technology Equipment; UL 1459-1999, Standard for Safety Telephone Equipment; or UL 1863-2004, Standard for Safety Communications Circuit Accessories. For information on listing requirements for cable routing assemblies and communications raceways, see UL 2024-2011, Standard for Signaling, Optical Fiber and Communications Cable Raceways and Cable Routing Assemblies. With regard to consumer phones, a non-Listed phone would be the exception at this point, but I have suspected that stores would not sell them if they are not Listed for insurance/liability reasons. Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com From: Joe Randolph [mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:15 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Is NRTL listing mandatory for consumer-grade telephone terminal equipment? Hello All: I know this topic has been discussed before, so I apologize in advance. For several years I have told my clients that *IN PRINCIPLE*, an NRTL listing for consumer-grade wireline telecom equipment (telephones, fax machines, answering machines, etc.) is not mandatory in the USA. In theory, it is a voluntary choice on the part of the manufacturer. Then I go on to explain that there are exceptions. OSHA requires an NRTL listing on such products when used in the workplace. And, certain local jurisdictions such as the city of Los Angeles require it on all telephone equipment, including consumer products. This is my current understanding. Recently I was looking on the web for a list of local jurisdictions that, like Los Angeles, require an NRTL listing on pretty much every electronic product. I ran across this statement that I would like to better understand, The NEC code 800-4 additionally requires all equipment connected to a telecommunications network to be listed. Is this statement incorrect or have things changed? I dont have a current copy of the NEC, and even if I did, I do not have sufficient experience with the NEC to be confident that I am interpreting it correctly. I have attended many presentations where NEC experts explained that certain statements in the NEC do not mean what they first appear to mean, especially with respect to telecommunications equipment, where telecom network facilities are generally outside the scope of the NEC. My question here is not about network equipment, though. Im asking specifically about common consumer-grade wireline telephone terminal equipment (telephones, fax machines, answering machines, etc.) that consumers use in their own homes. For these types of devices, is an NRTL listing now required throughout the USA by the NEC? Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.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) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post
Re: [PSES] UL 1740 - Wet Locations vs Outdoor
Doug, Often, in addition to waterproofing, “outdoor” includes UV or sunlight resistance on plastics, corrosion resistance of metals, and possibly degrees of protection against dust, or ice. In the US and Canada, UL50E/CSA C22.2 No. 94.2-07 is usually referenced, and outside North America, the IP codes of IEC 60529 are referenced, as well as IEC 60950-22 for outdoor-use equipment. DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:51 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] UL 1740 - Wet Locations vs Outdoor All, I am in review of construction and testing requirements for a product suing UL 1740 - Robotics and Robotic Equipment. I am using this standard in conjunction with ANSI RIA R15.06. The device is not stationary; it is tethered and self-propelled. It is powered by a universal input of 90-254 VAC, 50-60 Hz and it does produce secondary voltages as high as ± 600 V DC. I hope someone here can clarify my concerns about the requirements for wet locations vs outdoor. I anticipate that this product could be used in any type of weather although this has not been discussed with the client. In UL 1740 the definition of a Wet Location is Portions of an indoor installation where occasional or continuous exposure to water or other liquids is anticipated. UL 1740 has considerations such as reduced wet contact voltage limits and a brief mention of enclosure tests for spraying water, but no modification for safety spacings or any other concern. Outdoor use is only mentioned a few times, twice as footnotes in sheet metal minimum thickness tables and once in the section for outdoor-use tests where it refers to solely to requirements of UL 50. RIA R15.06 does mention specification of intended use limits including outdoor in terms of risk assessment. I suppose it bugs me a little that there is so little attention paid to the possibility of water in the environment (I am aware of submersible robotic vehicles being approved to this standard, although this is not the case in this instance). Is it possible that the committee did not cover this matter in detail because they thought the Risk Assessment would take up the slack? The client is especially concerned about safety and has actually suggested multiple levels of redundancy with regard to isolation and insulation. My feeling is that I should at least apply some of the wet location provisions. Any insights or experiences that can be offered are much appreciated. Thank you, ~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) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Question on power cord length
Charles, With regard to UL 60950-1 compliance, when we have had equipment, such as small outdoor telecom equipment that is not intended to be used in an ITE room per Article 645 of the NEC, we have been able to disregard the flexible cord length restrictions (mostly the 1.5 meter minimum rather than the 4.5 meter maximum), after negotiation with the NRTL. As Ted mentioned, we based our argument on the fact that Article 400, applying to flexible cords, does not have a length restriction, but only Article 645 does. Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 9:57 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Question on power cord length Hi Charles, UL 60950-1 Annex NAE 3.2.5 states that the power cord length must be between 1.5 and 4.5 meters. The 4.5 meter maximum is from NFPA 70 Article 645.5(B). Although Annex NAE states that the 1.5 meter minimum also comes from the NEC, I can't find it. I may just be missing it. I realize that I'm not answering your question well, or at all. I've only pushed the question back from UL to the NEC. The historic reason for having a minimum cord length is to reduce the risk of the end user connecting products through extension cords. The intention is that the cord should be long enough to reach an outlet on its own. Generally, NRTLs will not allow a shorter cord. However, there are some exceptions. If your product has an external power supply, UL will consider the length of the AC cord and DC cord together. Most laptop computers now ship with an AC cord far shorter than 1.5 meters for this reason. If the specific use of a product is such that a shorter cord would improve safety, you can try to argue your point. However, this will be a tough process. You may have to work with a senior engineer at your NRTL to find a rationale that they will accept. NRTLs will accept shorter cords for specialized equipment that is intended to be mounted near a receptacle. Regards, 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: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2014 6:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Question on power cord length Hello all, UL6950 and UL60065 both restrict the power cord length to 1.5m.Does anyone know the reason for this length restriction and (more importantly) does anyone know of exceptions that will allow for a shorter cord? Thanks in advance Carles Grasso - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message
Re: [PSES] Question on power cord length
We did have a thread, but people drew their own conclusions! The key is to follow Uses permitted (NEC 400.7) and Uses not permitted (NEC 400.8) for allowance of flexible cord usage. As seen below, if your equipment is easily interchangeable, you can use flexible cord. The small telecom equipment that would use a flexible cord would be assumed to be easily removable (and these days, it might be removed from service rather quickly for repair or because of obsolescence). However, it is not permitted to be used in place of the building wiring. So, the flexible cord used for permanently connected equipment is not allowed in the US, Canada (Canadian Electrical Code, Part I has same rules), or Mexico (NOM-001-SEDE)has same rules. Typically, Items (3), (6), and (8) of Uses Permitted allow equipment, even small fixed equipment and including automatic teller machines to be pluggable. However, Item (1) of Uses Not Permitted eliminates permanently-connected flexible cords from use, though this is most common in Europe and the rest of the world. 400.7 Uses Permitted. (A) Uses. Flexible cords and cables shall be used only for the following: (1) Pendants. (2) Wiring of luminaires. (3) Connection of portable luminaires, portable and mobile signs, or appliances. (4) Elevator cables. (5) Wiring of cranes and hoists. (6) Connection of utilization equipment to facilitate frequent interchange. (7) Prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration. (8) Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are specifically designed to permit ready removal for maintenance and repair, and the appliance is intended or identified for flexible cord connection. (9) Connection of moving parts. (10) Where specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code. (11) Between an existing receptacle outlet and an inlet, where the inlet provides power to an additional single receptacle outlet. The wiring interconnecting the inlet to the single receptacle outlet shall be a Chapter 3 wiring method. The inlet, receptacle outlet, and Chapter 3 wiring method, including the flexible cord and fittings, shall be a listed assembly specific for this application. (B) Attachment Plugs. Where used as permitted in 400.7(A)(3), (A)(6), and (A)(8), each flexible cord shall be equipped with an attachment plug and shall be energized from a receptacle outlet or cord connector body. Exception: As permitted in 368.56. 400.8 Uses Not Permitted. Unless specifically permitted in 400.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used for the following: (1) As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure (2) Where run through holes in walls, structural ceilings, suspended ceilings, dropped ceilings, or floors (3) Where run through doorways, windows, or similar openings (4) Where attached to building surfaces Exception to (4): Flexible cord and cable shall be permitted to be attached to building surfaces in accordance with the provisions of 368.56(B) (5) Where concealed by walls, floors, or ceilings or located above suspended or dropped ceilings (6) Where installed in raceways, except as otherwise permitted in this Code (7) Where subject to physical damage DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 8:45 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Question on power cord length In message 005101cfb170$018d6190$04a824b0$@alcatel-lucent.com, dated Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Don Gies don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com writes: With regard to UL 60950-1 compliance, when we have had equipment, such as small outdoor telecom equipment that is not intended to be used in an ITE room per Article 645 of the NEC, we have been able to disregard the flexible cord length restrictions (mostly the 1.5 meter minimum rather than the 4.5 meter maximum), after negotiation with the NRTL. As Ted mentioned, we based our argument on the fact that Article 400, applying to flexible cords, does not have a length restriction, but only Article 645 does. Haven't we just had a thread, 'NRTL / OSHA interpretation of UL60950 clause 3.2.3' that is about small outdoor telephone equipment not being allowed to have an attached flexible cord? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? 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
Re: [PSES] NRTL / OSHA interpretation of UL60950 clause 3.2.3
Expanding on Ted Eckert's citation of NEC 400.7 (Flexible Cords - Uses Permitted), it is useful to cite NEC 400.8 (Flexible Cords- Uses Not Permitted). Most articles of the NEC state uses twice, as uses permitted and uses not permitted: 400.8 Uses Not Permitted. Unless specifically permitted in 400.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used for the following: (1) As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure (2) Where run through holes in walls, structural ceilings, suspended ceilings, dropped ceilings, or floors (3) Where run through doorways, windows, or similar openings (4) Where attached to building surfaces Exception to (4): Flexible cord and cable shall be permitted to be attached to building surfaces in accordance with the provisions of 368.56(B) (5) Where concealed by walls, floors, or ceilings or located above suspended or dropped ceilings (6) Where installed in raceways, except as otherwise permitted in this Code (7) Where subject to physical damage 400.9 Splices. Flexible cord shall be used In the above, Items (1) and (4) are the reason you are not using a flexible cord for permanent connection to the mains. 368.56(B) would not apply to pico-cells (it is in the Busways article). I have had clients and end customers (wireless service providers) insist on connectorization for bringing power to outdoor remote radio heads, because they do not want to send an electrician up a cell tower to interchange the equipment. Besides using a NRTL-Listed, outdoor rated AC or DC appliance inlet (very difficult to find), we have used the pendant philosophy somewhat liberally. Pendant is not defined anywhere in the NEC, but it is generally assumed to be a flexible cord fixed on one end with a receptacle on the other end. For the pendant powering, we assume the cord-side mate for the appliance inlet to be the receptacle. Also, to reinforce our intent, we mention in our installation documentation that it is our intent that the equipment use a pendant in accordance with Article 400 of the NEC and Rule 4-012 of the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I. We would supply the mating connector, but expect the service provider to use their own cord to run power from their distribution box over to the radio head. Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com -Original Message- From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:43 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] NRTL / OSHA interpretation of UL60950 clause 3.2.3 Can anyone explain or speculate as to WHY the NEC does not appear to allow cord connection of stationary/fixed equipment because it's a perfectly legal way of connection in the UK (and probably other countries), and is regularly done with items like central heating boilers, instantaneous water heaters and so on (provided that the cord outlet is fitted with a manually-operable d/p isolating switch, generally incorporating a fuse, to enable it to be completely isolated )? John Allen W. London, UK -Original Message- From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: 29 July 2014 14:13 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] NRTL / OSHA interpretation of UL60950 clause 3.2.3 The United States national differences are based off of NFPA 70, also known as the National Electrical Code or NEC. In theory, all NRTLs are obligated to ensure that the products they approve to UL 60950-1 or UL 60950-22 comply with NEC. Not all NRTLs are as strict about it, but it is possible that the NRTL in question is properly reading the NEC. NFPA 70 Section 400 covers flexible cords and cables. Section 400.7 covers permitted uses and 400.8 lists prohibited uses. You may be able to use 400.7(6) or 400.7(8) to argue for a flexible cord on your product. If not, 400.7(10) may be a possibility, but you would need to review section 645, Information Technology Equipment and chapter 8, Communication Systems, to see if there is something that would allow flexible cord on your product. 400.7 Uses Permitted. (A) Uses. Flexible cords and cables shall be used only for the following: (1) Pendants (2) Wiring of luminaires (3) Connection of portable luminaires, portable and mobile signs, or appliances (4) Elevator cables (5) Wiring of cranes and hoists (6) Connection of utilization equipment to facilitate frequent interchange (7) Prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration (8) Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are specifically designed to permit ready removal for maintenance and repair, and the appliance is intended or identified for flexible cord connection (9) Connection of moving parts (10) Where specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code I have run into a few cases where an NRTL has allowed
Re: [PSES] OV cat
Brian, Probably OV Cat. IV. I think they have you dead to rights in IEC 60950-1, Annex Z, where they give as an example of Overvoltage Category IV communications information technology equipment for remote electricity metering. Also, the British Wiring Regulations BS 7671, Table 44.4 describes OV Category IV as equipment to be used at or in the proximity of the origin of the electrical installation upstream of the main distribution board, e.g., electricity meter, primary overcurrent device, ripple control unit. So, you probably have to accept a 6 kV surge, or knock it down! Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 7:49 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: OV cat OV category III or IV for stuff intended to be used with utility interactive equipment ? If on opposite side of meter, and behind an inverter, hear myself say III. What say you? r/s, 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: mailto:dhe...@gmail.com dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] What's the deal with Wire Nuts?
Doug, From my archives (I took a deductive-reasoning approach back in 2008) The use of wire nuts on short wire pigtails in a wiring box for connection to the building wiring is primarily a North American wiring method. You can deduce this by looking at the marks on the box that they came in. They most likely have listing marks for the US, Canada, and/or Mexico, and wire sizes are in AWG. If, on the other hand, you saw the CE Mark or wire sizes posted in mm2, or some other international certification markings, you would have evidence that the use of those wire nuts is an acceptable wiring method elsewhere. More evidence of this can be seen in national deviations found in Annex NAE of UL 60950-1/CSA C22.2 No. 60950-1 vs.the group deviations of EN 60950-1. UL/CSA 69050-1, Annex NAE 3.2.3 describes leads for field wiring connections to be not smaller than 150 mm (6 inches) in length, making reference to sections of the National Electrical Code and Canadian Electrical Code, Part I. Annex NAE 3.2.9 further describes box volume calculations required by the NEC and Canadian Electrical Code for the number of conductors being connected in a wiring box, normally by wire nuts.On the other hand, EN 60950-1 has no such deviations or notations. However, written into the body of the IEC 60950-1 and EN 60950-1 (and other national derivative standards) is a wiring method for permanent connection to the mains not acceptable in the US and Canada - the use of a non-detachable power supply cord for permanent connection. The most universally accepted means for permanent connection to the mains is to use a field wiring terminal block with a current rating 125 % of the current rating of the product it is installed in, certified for the country of deployment. In conjunction, holes should be supplied nearby for accommodation of a conduit system or cable-securing glands. Best Regards, Don Gies, N.C.E Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA -Original Message- From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:45 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: What's the deal with Wire Nuts? At the risk of redundancy, I would like to re-open a question from 2008 What's the deal with Wire Nuts? http://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/msg56599.html http://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/msg56599.html The original discussion seems to track well with my own opinion on the use of these wiring devices, but this is based my opinion. I am aware of many American appliance manufacturers who use these devices and still obtain their safety certifications. It is my *opinion* that any equipment destined for the European market should not use these devices but I cannot find any direct prohibition on their use. The IPC 620 standard may have limits but this is more like a workmanship standard. Several reasons might be used to prohibit their use: 1) Temperature ratings 2) Secondary securement of conductors 3) Insufficient coverage of bare metal parts and resulting electrical tape used (creepage problem) 4) No limit to the number of conductors 5) Over/Under twisting of the connector 6) Metallic insert or non-metallic This time around my context is equipment that falls under the scope of IEC 61010-1 and its derivatives. Has anyone seen a definitive answer to this question? -- Thanks, -doug Douglas E Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com doug...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: mailto:dhe...@gmail.com dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety
Re: [PSES] Circuit breakers in Europe (Continuous vs. Non-Continuous Loads)
Brian, In order to get 100% continuous current through a circuit breaker in North America, the breaker has to be rated for 100% use. I have heard and suspected that these are rare, somewhat of a special-order item, and naturally, more expensive than the common circuit breaker that cannot handle 100% current continuously. Actually, when selecting the components of branch circuits, you have to consider more than the ampacity of the conductor and the circuit breaker. Temperature, particularly at the terminations, is the first item that has to be checked in sizing conductors in a wiring system. Per the National Electrical Code, you size the conductors based on NEC 110.14(C)(1). This means that unless both terminations of a conductor are Listed and marked otherwise, the ampacity of a conductor under 100 A is based on the 60°C column of Table 310.15(B)(16) (formerly Table 310.16), and for over 100 A or over 1 AWG, the ampacity of the conductor is based on the 75°C column of Table 310.15(B)(16). Afterwards, you can use higher temperature conductors for temperature adjustments. Working in telecommunication infrastructure, I have caught lots of people over the years choosing wire sizes for tray-cable systems using the free-air tables (former Table 310.17), or using the 90°C column because they were using THHN wire. So, given the above, you either size a standard branch circuit with receptacles and luminaires as prescribed in Article 210. But, if you have dedicated loads, you need to consider whether your loads are continuous or not, size the branch circuit for the sum of the non-continuous loads plus 125% of the continuous loads, then consider the temperature ratings of the terminations, because they are the weak link. Finally, as Pete mentioned, and following the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do rule in the lab, circuit breakers can get very hot to touch at 100% rating, and they sometimes trip early because of the heat. Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:17 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Circuit breakers in Europe (Continuous vs. Non-Continuous Loads) Question, in North America are common branch circuit overcurrent protection devices (circuit breakers) listed for operation at 100 percent of its rating? If not, I assume you can purchase circuit breakers that are rated for 100% operation. Like you said, NEC 210-19 specifies the current rating of the conductor, or wire. Isnt the wire used in building wiring normally sized to handle 100% the continuous current rating of the branch circuit? For instance, wont 14AWG handle 15 amps continuously? 12AWG = 20 amps, 10AWG = 30 amps, and so on? NEC 210.23 Permissible Loads, states An individual branch circuit shall be permitted to supply any load for which it is rated. The rest of that section refers to branch circuits supplying more than one outlet, receptacle or load. So I assume for individual branch circuits or a dedicated circuit seeing a load from a single device, the device can draw 100% continuous current of the branch circuit rating as long as the conductors and overcurrent device is so rated. I think this is what Pete was referring to in his email. Every time this topic comes up I learn something new. Thanks to all. The Other Brian From: Don Gies [mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:11 PM To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Circuit breakers in Europe (Continuous vs. Non-Continuous Loads) Other Brian, In the US and Canada, branch circuits and other circuits (e.g. services) are rated for the sum of the continuous loads plus 125 percent of the non-continuous loads. This is stated, for instance, in NEC 210.19 for minimum ampacity of branch circuit conductor. Continuous Load is in the definitions (Art. 100) as: Continuous Load. A load where the maximum current is expected to continue for 3 hours or more. Likewise, in the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I, Rule 8-104, maximum circuit loading is 80% of the rating of the circuit where a fused switch or circuit breaker is marked for continuous operation at 80% of the ampere rating of its overcurrent devices (or is unmarked per Appendix B). A continuous load is defined in that same rule as: (3) The calculated load in a consumers service, feeder, or branch circuit shall be considered a continuous load unless it can be shown that in normal operation it will not persist for (a) a total of more than 1 h in any two-hour period if the load does not exceed 225 A; or (b) a total of more than 3 h in any six-hour
Re: [PSES] Circuit breakers in Europe (Continuous vs. Non-Continuous Loads)
Other Brian, In the US and Canada, branch circuits and other circuits (e.g. services) are rated for the sum of the continuous loads plus 125 percent of the non-continuous loads. This is stated, for instance, in NEC 210.19 for minimum ampacity of branch circuit conductor. Continuous Load is in the definitions (Art. 100) as: Continuous Load. A load where the maximum current is expected to continue for 3 hours or more. Likewise, in the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I, Rule 8-104, maximum circuit loading is 80% of the rating of the circuit where a fused switch or circuit breaker is marked for continuous operation at 80% of the ampere rating of its overcurrent devices (or is unmarked per Appendix B). A continuous load is defined in that same rule as: (3) The calculated load in a consumer's service, feeder, or branch circuit shall be considered a continuous load unless it can be shown that in normal operation it will not persist for (a) a total of more than 1 h in any two-hour period if the load does not exceed 225 A; or (b) a total of more than 3 h in any six-hour period if the load exceeds 225 A. Except for the definitions of continuous loads, the requirements are essentially the same in the US and Canada (though they are stated as reciprocals in one country versus the other). An easy example to demonstrate continuous and non-continuous loads would be to compare a standard electric heater to a blow dryer. The standard electrical heater plugs into a 120V ac, 15 A receptacle, and is considered a continuous load. It is never rated more than 1500W. Roughly this equates to 12 A current at 120 V ac, or 80% of the 15 A nominal circuit rating (12.5 actually, but you are normally allowed to exceed the current rating by no more than 10%). Blow dryers that plug into 120 V ac, 15 A outlets, on the other hand, are often rated for up to 1800 W. which equates to a current of 15 A. Why is this possible? Because a blow dryer's use is short-duty or non-continuous, and will not be used for more than 3 hours in the US or for more than 1 hour in a 2 hour period in Canada. Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY -Original Message- From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:45 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Circuit breakers in Europe Since this topic has been brought up, I'm hoping you experts could clarify the 80% rule for me for North America (don't forget Canada). I was given the impression that the 80% rule (as we call it) applies to the maximum continuous current of the plug rating regardless of whether there is one receptacle or multiple receptacles on that circuit. A product can draw 100% the current rating of the plug for periods of time but not more than 80% average current or continuous current. The reason for the rule is to avoid overheating in the plug/receptacle connection. Is this right or wrong? So say I have a 30 amp plug on my product and it is wired into a dedicated receptacle and circuit. My product can be rated and draw up to 30 amps but it cannot draw more than 24 amps continuous. Correct? If the product is wired direct without the plug/receptacle it can draw up to 100% of the circuit rating continuously. Correct? Please confirm or clarify. We gathered this information from CSA who inspects our products in Canada and if we rate a product over 80% of the plug rating they require we also provide an average current and/or continuous current rating for that product. Thank you. The Other Brian -Original Message- From: mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pete Perkins Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:07 PM To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Circuit breakers in Europe PSNet, One issue that I'm not sure has been reflected in this thread is that the NA 80% restriction for utilization circuits is that it is assumed that there will be a number of duplex plugs wired into each circuit, as allowed by the NA code. Therefore, any single product may not use the entire rated current from the circuit (20A, for instance) but is limited (80% = 16A) so that other products may be plugged into the same circuit with out overloading that circuit. If a product uses the full, rated current from a circuit breaker then that product must be wired to a 'dedicated ccircuit' meaning that an electrician must be called to wire in a circuit with only one outlet (not a duplex outlet) on that breaker. (After getting
Re: [PSES] Circuit breakers in Europe (Continuous vs. Non-Continuous Loads)
Peter, Unless someone speaks otherwise, for a Europe-only product, the answer is no, the branch circuit should not be rated at anything other than 16 A, based on the following: 1. Nothing is mentioned in IEC 60364 or BS 7671 about loading circuits at 80% capacity or at any other ratio; and 2. If there was such a requirement, it would likely be stated in EN 60950-1 or another harmonized standard applicable for your product, as a group deviation, or for the particular countries as a special national condition or as an A-deviation. Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:31 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Circuit breakers in Europe (Continuous vs. Non-Continuous Loads) Thank you all for your responses. I'll clarify: The current being carried is close to 16 A. Wiring is appropriately sized for this current and the length of the circuit conductors. Should the branch circuit overcurrent protection be rated anything other than 16A and why? Some have suggested 20 A is correct. Regards, Peter L. Tarver This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Circuit breakers in Europe
Peter, Per IEC 60364 and BS 7671, you select wire and circuit breakers in accordance with Chapter 43 (IEC 60364-4-43), Protection Against Overcurrent, and Chapter 52 (IEC 60364-5-52), Selection and Erection of Wiring Systems. I have used these references enough to notice no reference to sizing branch circuits to the noncontinuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load. Moreover, back when times were good, I was able to get approval to take the IEE Design Course for BS 7671, Requirements for Electrical Installation in London. I still have the course material, and looking through the sections on wire systems, fuses, and circuit breakers, there is no analogy to sizing the overcurrent protection to 125% of the continuous load like there is in the US and Canadian electrical codes. The analysis of the circuit breaker and fuses and situations are quite a bit different at times from analysis in North America. In general, you look at the time/current curves of the types of circuit breakers and fuses more closely, and do more math. Also, in Europe, you can use breakers and fuses as a means of protection against shock with 411 - Protective Measure: Automatic Disconnection of Supply. Here, you have a measurement of the earth fault loop impedance (Zs) co-ordinated with time/current characteristics of fuses and breakers, with the fuse/breaker opening quickly enough to protect against shock. This is generally not possible in North America. Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY -Original Message- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:12 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Circuit breakers in Europe From: Brian Oconnell mailto:[mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 08:36 Not certain what OP is attempting, as wire gage is dependent on the fault calc found in electric code, and breaker rating is related to the distribution. In North America, barring circumstances requiring deeper engineering calculations and supervision, a circuit sized for and protected by a 20 A breaker cannot carry long continuous currents larger than 16 A. My preexisting notion (for lack of better understanding) for Europe has been that a 16 A breaker is used to protect a 16 A circuit. (The 80% Rule or a similar rule does not apply in Europe and overcurrent protection is generally matched to the circuit size.) I'm looking for either confirmation of or contradiction of that notion. So far, one vote received confirming. Regards, Peter L. Tarver This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: mailto:dhe...@gmail.com 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
Re: [PSES] e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world
I notice pirates don’t use good grammar (Are documents are protected ..) and they don’t take American Express! Seriously folks, however you feel about the standards, what is really at risk from places like this is your credit card numbers. The standards may not even be real, and the only thing that gets ripped could be your ID. A booty of corporate card numbers may be the real pirate’s treasure. If you use your personal Visa, Mastercard, or PayPal account, you might be calling the bank to say that your card needs to be shut down, or that you did not get the goods that you were promised. If you use a corporate card (assuming you use some other card than Amex – guessing American Express wouldn’t do business with these folks) you might have to go to your bosses to shut down your card, and get another one issued, and you might not have it processed in time to go to that symposium in Las Vegas you really wanted to go to! DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY From: Don Gies [mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:02 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG' Subject: RE: e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world Check out the site’s only FAQ, concerning digital rights management: FAQ for document 1.Are documents are protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM)? Nope,all the file you'll be receiving will be free of DRM,you could copy,past,do anything you want. Aargh! DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:41 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world I'd counter with the price of one of the best EMC standards, mil std 461.. I like the price of that even better Copying .pdfs does not cost in excess of a few dollars. Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2012, at 12:08 PM, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com wrote: Reasonable is a subjective word. If I’m comparing standard prices from one source or the other the legitimate site is reasonable compared to other legitimate sites, but when I compare them to other printed matter including my daughter medical texts, math texts, or worse e-books the costs are huge. I can even get an actor to read me the book and still magnitudes of order difference. So I always suffer sticker shock when I hunting for standards. As I understand the price supports the standards activities – which is the reason I buy from legitimate sources. Gary From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:38 AM To: McInturff, Gary Cc: don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world Always one to buck the trend, I think these are reasonable prices We are ripped off by standards bodies left right and centre MHO Derek Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2012, at 10:05 AM, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com wrote: Would appear the real pirates are at UL and BSI Gary From: Don Gies [mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 6:25 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world Ahoy, me hearties! My view is that there are too many standards that are too cheap at this site, and if ANSI were really powering it, they would be doing so from their own site. This site might as well hoist high the Jolly Roger, because it’s occupied by pirates. Ex.: UL 60950-1 for $20 instead of $422? BS EN 60950-1 for $20 instead of £161 to BSI Members, £322 to non-members? DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world Does anyone have experience with the subject standards vendor. Their prices are so low (NFPA 70-2011 for $25!?) it has activated all my “if it’s too good to be true” warning systems. Regards, Lauren Crane KLA-Tencor
Re: [PSES] e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world
Ahoy, me hearties! My view is that there are too many standards that are too cheap at this site, and if ANSI were really powering it, they would be doing so from their own site. This site might as well hoist high the Jolly Roger, because its occupied by pirates. Ex.: UL 60950-1 for $20 instead of $422? BS EN 60950-1 for $20 instead of £161 to BSI Members, £322 to non-members? DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world Does anyone have experience with the subject standards vendor. Their prices are so low (NFPA 70-2011 for $25!?) it has activated all my if its too good to be true warning systems. 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world
Check out the site’s only FAQ, concerning digital rights management: FAQ for document 1.Are documents are protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM)? Nope,all the file you'll be receiving will be free of DRM,you could copy,past,do anything you want. Aargh! DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:41 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world I'd counter with the price of one of the best EMC standards, mil std 461.. I like the price of that even better Copying .pdfs does not cost in excess of a few dollars. Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2012, at 12:08 PM, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com wrote: Reasonable is a subjective word. If I’m comparing standard prices from one source or the other the legitimate site is reasonable compared to other legitimate sites, but when I compare them to other printed matter including my daughter medical texts, math texts, or worse e-books the costs are huge. I can even get an actor to read me the book and still magnitudes of order difference. So I always suffer sticker shock when I hunting for standards. As I understand the price supports the standards activities – which is the reason I buy from legitimate sources. Gary From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:38 AM To: McInturff, Gary Cc: don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world Always one to buck the trend, I think these are reasonable prices We are ripped off by standards bodies left right and centre MHO Derek Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2012, at 10:05 AM, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com wrote: Would appear the real pirates are at UL and BSI Gary From: Don Gies [mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 6:25 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world Ahoy, me hearties! My view is that there are too many standards that are too cheap at this site, and if ANSI were really powering it, they would be doing so from their own site. This site might as well hoist high the Jolly Roger, because it’s occupied by pirates. Ex.: UL 60950-1 for $20 instead of $422? BS EN 60950-1 for $20 instead of £161 to BSI Members, £322 to non-members? DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: e-standard.org The cheapest standards in the world Does anyone have experience with the subject standards vendor. Their prices are so low (NFPA 70-2011 for $25!?) it has activated all my “if it’s too good to be true” warning systems. 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org
Re: [PSES] Color of Mains Wiring (OT- Green/Yellow Earth)
Group, Years ago, I learned why the protective earth conductor needs to be green/yellow. It is because many color-blind people cannot tell the difference between brown (the color of the unearthed live conductor in Europe) and green (the standard color for a protective earth conductor). How did I learn? My son, when he was young, picked up a brown crayon and said that it was green, like the grass. OK, this might have been an insult towards my lawn in the summertime, but then one day, he came home from school and for St. Patrick's Day, he drew brown shamrocks (for those outside the US and Ireland who might not know, they should be green). We had his eyes checked, with those pictures of the numbers inside the colored background, and yes, he has one of the most common forms of color-blindness. More research at the time lead me to understand that approx. 7.5 % of males and 0.5 % of females suffer from what is called green-blindness. Therefore, approx.. 7.5% of male and 0.5 % of female European electricians may have this condition of not being able to distinguish between the unearthed live conductor and the protective earth. That, you can understand, can be a problem! Also, I recall being referred to other standards from IEC 60950, namely IEC 60073, which concern color. That one for instance notes, Where persons with defective colour vision can be employed as operators, it is recommended that colour shall not be the sole means of coding. Best regards, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 mailto:don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY -Original Message- From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 2:27 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Color of Mains Wiring I believe that Switzerland used to use yellow for protective earth/ground, but that was long ago. Off hand, I am unaware of any other country in Europe that used yellow. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate mailto:[mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 8:00 AM To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Color of Mains Wiring In message B0B504B7ED1344D88A86CFCB49076283@Pete97219Compaq, dated Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Pete Perkins mailto:peperkin...@cs.com peperkin...@cs.com writes: in Europe the ground was yellow. In which country? I have never heard of yellow being used in Europe. Black, brown, green and even red, but not yellow. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and http://www.isce.org.uk www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If 'QWERTY' is an English keyboard, what language is 'WYSIWYG' for? - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: mailto:dhe...@gmail.com dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http
Re: [PSES] Is this common knowledge - Electrical Ratings
Kevin, Note also that here in the US, in Canada, and other countries with power systems similar to that of the United States, nominally 120 V to ground, 60 Hz, residential single phase, 3-wire power is identified as a 120/240 V ac, single phase, 3-wire system. This consists of the two live ungrounded conductors located at the ends of the service transformer secondary (i.e., L1 and L2), and the grounded neutral (N), which is the center-tap of the transformer. This does not mean that you necessarily use either 120 V or 240 V, but often use both in the same appliance. Examples include electric clothes dryers that use 240 V for the heating element and 120 V to spin the barrel, and industrial service equipment such as telephone wireless base stations that may use 240 V for the main electrical loading, but have a 120 V convenience receptacle for powering service personnel's tools. Appliances that simultaneously utilize both 240 V ac single-phase loads and 120 V ac loads have electrical ratings like 120/240V ac, 3 wire, XX A, 60Hz. For these types of products, it is important to use 3 wire in the electrical rating to distinguish it from a product that uses either 120 V or 240 V at the same input terminal. Best regards, DON GIES, NCE ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY -Original Message- From: Kevin Robinson [mailto:kevinrobinso...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:57 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Is this common knowledge - Electrical Ratings Thanks everyone for your response. Everyone who responded to me on the forum and privately was correct that 120-240V indicates a range, and the product can operate at any voltage over that range. 120/240V indicates that the product can only operate at those specific voltages (plus tolerances). As for the general public, I was actually quite surprised. I asked several people that I know, many of whom freely admit they don't know how electricity works. Every person I asked knew that 120-240 was different from 120/240 and they were able to guess a range vs either/or. The general public was pretty clear on 120-240V saying they would just plug it in and it would work, however they were confused when faced with 120/240, some said they should look for a voltage selector switch, others indicated they would need some sort of adapter, and a few people said just plug it in and it will work. Thanks again for your responses, Kevin - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: mailto:dhe...@gmail.com dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Industrial Panel Shop for UL
John, You can start with EN 61439-1:2011 - Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies - Part 1: General rules. Years ago, we VDE-Certified a non-North American circuit-breaker panel using EN 60439-1, the above standard's predecessor. Hope this helps, DON GIES ALCATEL-LUCENT SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER BELL LABS - GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY 600-700 Mountain Avenue Room 5B-104 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA Phone: +1 908 582 5978 Fax: +1 908 582 0582 don.g...@alcatel-lucent.com MEMBER, ALCATEL-LUCENT TECHNICAL ACADEMY _ From: jral...@productsafetyinc.com [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 6:40 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Industrial Panel Shop for UL Hi, Has anyone worked with Industrial Panel shops for CE? UL508A is for Panel Shops in the USA. Is EN60204 the equivalent for the EU? Thanks, John Allen Product Safety Consulting, Inc. 605 Country Club Drive, Suites I J Bensenville, IL 60106 P - 630 238-0188 / F - 630 238-0269 1-877-804-3066 mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com jral...@productsafetyinc.com http://www.productsafetyinc.com http://www.productsafetyinc.com/ Although PSC maintains the highest level of virus protection, this e-mail and any attachments should be scanned by your virus protection software. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check that it is virus free. PSC does not accept any responsibility for data loss or systems damage arising in any way from its use. This message is confidential and intended only for the individual to whom or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this message is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have been sent this message in error, please do not read it. Please immediately reply to sender that you have received this message in error. Then permanently delete all copies of the message. 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: References for Three Phase Power Around the World
Nick, Try “Electric Current Abroad,” published by the US Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. The link for a free pdf copy is below. Click on “pdf format” next to “Online” http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/blurbs/current2002blurb.html Also, if you click on the link “Updates to this volume are available” at the bottom of the page, you will be lead to a pull-down menu of each country, as well as world voltage, frequency, plug-use, and frequency stability maps under “characteristics of electric currents.” Best Regards, Don Gies, N.C.E Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA From: Momcilovic, Nick (GE Healthcare) [mailto:nick.momcilo...@ge.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:43 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: References for Three Phase Power Around the World Anyone have any good references for standard 3 phase power (voltage/frequency) around the world. I have seen several references (i.e., Interpower) that have nice reference charts for single phase, but not 3 phase. Right now I am particularly interested in Korea. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Nick Momcilovic GE Healthcare Standards Compliance/Certification Lead Engineer, MR T 262.521.6426 D *320-6426 C 262.527.1965 F 262.521.6549 E nick.momcilo...@ge.com www.gehealthcare.com 3200 N Grandview Blvd, W-827 Waukesha, WI 53188-1693 - This message 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?(Non-Detachable Power Supply Cords)
Tim, Sure. In clause 3.2.3, “Permanently connected equipment”, it says: “PERMANENTLY CONNECTED EQUIPMENT shall be provided with either (strikethrough): * a set of terminals as specified in 3.3; or (strikethrough) * a NON-DETACHABLE POWER SUPPLY CORD (strikethrough) PERMANENTLY CONNECTED EQUIPMENT having a set of terminals shall:” This has been there since UL 1950 and CSA C22.2 No. 950 of old times. The source of this omission is in the following US National Electrical Code and Canadian Electrical Code, Part I sections: NEC (2008), Article 400 – FLEXIBLE CORDS AND CABLES “400.7 Uses Permitted.” “(B) Attachment Plugs. Where used as permitted in 400.7(A)(3), (A)(6), and (A)(8), each flexible cord shall be equipped with an attachment plug and shall be energized from a receptacle outlet.” “400.8 Uses Not Permitted. Unless specifically permitted in 400.7, flexible cords shall not be used for the following:” (1) As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure (4) Where attached to building surfaces (6) Where installed in raceways, except as otherwise permitted in this Code. CSA C22.1, Canadian Electrical Code, Part I (2006), 4-010, Uses of flexible cords (3) Flexible cords shall not be used (a) as a substitute for the fixed wiring of structures and shall not be (i) permanently secured to any structural member; Best Regards, Don Gies, N.C.E Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA From: Haynes, Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK) [mailto:tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:03 AM To: Don Gies; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts? Don, Hi. In your response to Brian you said... However, written into the body of the IEC 60950-1 and EN 60950-1 (and other national derivative standards) is a wiring method for permanent connection to the mains not acceptable in the US and Canada – the use of a non-detachable power supply cord for permanent connection. Can you please supply to me the reference that prohibits that wiring method in US and Canada? Regards Tim Tim Haynes A1N10 Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems 300 Capability Green Luton LU1 3PG * Tel : +44 (0)1582 886239 * Fax : +44 (0)1582 795863 * Mob: +44 (0)7703 559 310 * E-mail : tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com P Please consider the environment before printing this email. There are 10 types of people in the world-those who understand binary and those who don't. J. Paxman SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company registered in England Wales. Company no. 02426132 This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. - This message 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts?
Brian, The use of wire nuts on short wire pigtails in a wiring box for connection to the building wiring is primarily a North American wiring method. You can deduce this by looking at the marks on the box that they came in. They most likely have listing marks for the US, Canada, and/or Mexico, and wire sizes are in “AWG”. If, on the other hand, you saw the CE Mark or wire sizes posted in “mm2”, or some other international certification markings, you would have evidence that the use of those wire nuts is an acceptable wiring method elsewhere. More evidence of this can be seen in national deviations found in Annex NAE of UL 60950-1/CSA C22.2 No. 60950-1 vs.the group deviations of EN 60950-1. UL/CSA 69050-1, Annex NAE 3.2.3 describes leads for field wiring connections to be not smaller than 150 mm (6 inches) in length, making reference to sections of the National Electrical Code and Canadian Electrical Code, Part I. Annex NAE 3.2.9 further describes box volume calculations required by the NEC and Canadian Electrical Code for the number of conductors being connected in a wiring box, normally by wire nuts.On the other hand, EN 60950-1 has no such deviations or notations. However, written into the body of the IEC 60950-1 and EN 60950-1 (and other national derivative standards) is a wiring method for permanent connection to the mains not acceptable in the US and Canada – the use of a non-detachable power supply cord for permanent connection. The most universally accepted means for permanent connection to the mains is to use a field wiring terminal block with a current rating 125 % of the current rating of the product it is installed in, certified for the country of deployment. In conjunction, holes should be supplied nearby for accommodation of a conduit system or cable-securing glands. Best Regards, Don Gies, N.C.E Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 3:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: What's the deal with Wire Nuts? Scott, Does the 60950 standard give examples of what would satisfy the “two independent fixings” requirement? How would a terminal block satisfy this? I have heard that a wire nut can be used for the electrical connection, but you have to also mechanically hold the wires together which can be done with a cable tie. No where have I found this documented, though. The Other Brian From: scott barrows [mailto:sbarro...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:50 PM To: sbarro...@yahoo.com; Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Aldous, Scott; Kunde, Brian Subject: RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts? Hello Other Brian, That is a term I have heard from years gone by. A standard does not specifically prohibit them however if you look at IEC 60950 para 3.1.9 it would be difficult to use wire nut that met the requirements of two independent fixings. Most EU standards have a similar discription as well. Best Regards, Scott --- On Mon, 11/17/08, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com wrote: From: Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com Subject: RE: What's the deal with Wire Nuts? To: sbarro...@yahoo.com, Ted Eckert ted.eck...@microsoft.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, Aldous, Scott scott.ald...@aei.com Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 2:31 PM Where does the term, “Redundant Captive Device” come from? The device which has the wire nuts (twist-on wire connectors) is a water chiller used as a peripheral for a piece of laboratory equipment to be sold internationally. The manufacturer is not used to making laboratory equipment, but industrial cooling devices in the US where it maybe acceptable to use wire nuts. Looking at the IEC/EN 61010-1 standard I cannot see any specific requirement for redundant captive device or redundant connection. I do see a statement in 10.5.3b regarding “insulation which supports the TERMINALS shall be made of material that will not soften” due to dissipated heat from current through the connection. I assume that if the plastic cap of a wire nut gets hot from current passing through the connection and softens then the connection will become loose. Some wire nuts are all plastic and the larger ones have a copper spring inside. In either case, it is the plastic that secures the connection. On a crimp type connection (such as a spade lug or crimp splice), even though they have a plastic case, the electrical connection is made from a metal part which is not likely to soften. It would be nice if there was a clear statement (chapter and verse) documenting if wire nuts can be used in Europe or not or some kind of interpretation letter. The Other Brian From: scott barrows
RE: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase?
Jim, You can order Korean standards from the following website, but the standards are in Korean. http://www.kssn.net/English/WebStore/C_WebStore_list.asp Many of the standards (e.g., KS C CISPR 22) are IEC standards translated into Korean. Regards, Don Gies, N.C.E Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA From: Knighten, Jim L [mailto:jim.knigh...@teradata.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Korean EMC Standards - where can I purchase? Will someone kindly point me to a source where I can obtain the EMC standards (KN ) for South Korea? English is preferable, although I understand that some standards may not have an official English translation. Thanks, Jim __ James L. Knighten, Ph.D. EMC Engineer Teradata Corporation 17095 Via Del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 858-485-2537 – phone 213-337-5432 – fax - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: CCC processes
Hi Rich, The US government has been very concerned with products exporting to China, so they put together a very concise web page summarizing the CCC process: http://www.mac.doc.gov/China/Docs/BusinessGuides/cccguide2.htm It is in English, and it is a good launching pad to pertinent CCC sites. Regards, Don Gies, N.C.E Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA From: Rich Nute [mailto:rn...@san.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:29 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: CCC processes Is there a good document (in English) on CCC processes? How to do it? Are there any agents in England who can assist or get CCC? Thanks for your help, Richard Nute San Diego - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA
Chris, IEEE Members, An earlier thread suggested purchasing a BSI Publication, BIP 2074:2007, “Electrical plugs and wiring and world electricity supplies. 2nd edition.” I did purchase a hardcopy for my work (no software copy was available). The cost was £170 plus £9.95 shipping. If you can get you boss to OK this purchase, do so—there is a lot of good information in this. The last paragraph of each countries profile is “Building Wiring Code:” The entry under Building Wiring Code is different for each of the 27 EU members, though many cite the IEC/HD 60364 series. Cyprus cites the British IEE Wiring Regulations, BS 7671, as does the UK, of course. Malta’s is also based the IEE Wiring Regulations BS 7671, and the following document and websites are provided with useful information: http://www.mra.org.mt/Downloads/Legisla ions/Electricity_supply_regulations2003.pdf http://www.mra.org.mt/# http://www.mra.org.mt/ Germany and Luxembourg cite VDE 0100. Poland calls out EN 60446 in addition to IEC 60364. Best Regards, Don Gies, N.C.E Senior Product Compliance Engineer Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA From: Christine Rodham [mailto:chrisrod...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:06 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: European Equivalent for: National Fire Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Building Code, and OSHA Dear List Members, Are there European equivalent codes/directives for the: National Fire Code: National Electric Code: Uniform Building Code: OSHA: Thank you! Christine Rodham - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
