Re: UL and multiple brand names
On November 14, Dave Grant wrote: We will be shipping identical products to the USA under two brand names. Can we obtain UL certification for one brand name only and use the same UL certification for the other brand name? If the products are truly identical, only one evaluation is needed. Both models would be included in the report. Both models would have the same UL File Number. The UL Project Enginneer you will be dealing with will probably want to see a sample of each version. A differnt type of paint on a plastic enclosure, for example, may require a fire analysis. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Networked digital video equipment
Chet, A couple of key questions: 1. How will your equipment be used? Is it to be used within a telephone central office ( CCTV) or is it to be used at a broadcast station? 2. Who will be the customer of your equipment? 3. Who will be performing servicing? If you can say your company, or qualified service personnel that will help you considerably. FCC Part 68 is geared for non-central office use. It is designed to protect the telephone network and personnel from harm. If your customer is a Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC), yes, they will most likely ask for NEBS. If your equipment is co-located at the CO, then some of the NEBS requirements may not apply. If your equipment runs off commercial ac, uses an inverter, or is to be used as Customer Premise Equipment (CPE), you will most likely have to get a product safety evaluation through a Nationally Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL) such as , but not limited to UL, ETL, MET, CSA, TUV. It can be a steep learning curve.. Some of the work you can do yourself, but if speed is the essence, you may want to contact a reputable test lab convenient to you. Good luck! Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon,VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: ITE standard
On November 5 Sylvia Toma writes; GR-65 (Network Equipment Building System Requirements: Physical Protection) has a section (4.1.4) on Heat Dissipation.Table 4-6 outlines the equipment area heat release for individual frame, multi-frame and shelf equipment for both natural convection and forced-air fans. Typo here, I suspect. Could you be referring to Telcordia standard GR-63? Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Power Input Redundancy for ITE Equipment
Peter, What if you were to use relays and two bill of materials? One for the US, one for Europe. Footprint may even be compatible, if not, you could still use a dual footprint. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: NEC Question
A couple of exceptions to what has been posted before by George and John. Referring to OSHA section 1910.399: With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind which no nationally recognized testing laboratory accepts, certifies, lists, labels, or determines to be safe, if it is inspected or tested by another federal agency, or by a state, municipal, or other local authority responsible for enforcing occupational safety provisions of the National Electrical Code as applied in this Subpart, or: With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations which are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for the inspection to the Assistant Secretary or his authorized representatives. The first part will probably boil down to the same thing, get an NRTL to accept the product. The second part is much more flexible, but limits it to a particular customer. An excercise in Risk Management if you pursue that approach. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: internal modem
Dan, Title 47 of The Code of Federal Regulations, Part 68 is what you are looking for. http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html will get you started. A lot of procedures have changed in recent years,but the objectives are still the same ( protection for the network/network personnel) On a modem, you will want to make sure there is adequate isolation ( HV steady-state and impluse), in- band signal power levels within limits, out of band level limits, tariff protection, longitudinal balance, ac and dc impedance characteristics. May initially seem overwhelming but it really isn't. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon,VA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: CFR requirements for the workplace
Patty 29CFR1910 Subpart S- Electrical is what you are looking for. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Emitters Within a CO
Dave Heald Wrote: Regardless, every piece of CO equipment (at least owned by the RBOC) should be immune to 9.8 or so V/m signals and any exceptions should be known by the CO administrators as such information is included in a NEBS report (Immunity to 10V/m is a conditional requirement only - I believe 1.7 V/m is the Requirement but any malfunctions from 1.7 level 10 V/m must be noted in the report with frequencies, symptoms, and minimum susceptibility levels). My copy of GR-1089 ( Issue 2, dated December 1997 says 8.5 V.m for the Conditional Requirement, not 10 V/m as you stated. SR-3580 dated November 1995 does mention 10 V/m, but then if you look at what it refernces, namely GR-1089, Criteria 16,18, it is 8.5 V/m. A typo or miscalculation? Who knows? If 10 V/m immunity is required, it is above and beyond what GR-1089 currently requires. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: Emitters Within a CO
Ed, I don't know of any approved cell phones that can be used within a cental office. It seems like it would be up to each central office/telco to make that decision. As far as field strength from cell phones, 5 to 10 V/m is what I have also heard As you may know, GR-1089 has an RF immunity requirement of 1.7 V/m from 120 kHz to 10 GHz. It is 8.5 V/m for the Conditional Requirement. A couple of possibilities: 1. The switching engineer was able to confirm the cell phone was operating in a reduced power mode. May be the case if the transmission distance to the cell station was not large. 2. The frequencies involved were far enough away from the critical ones used in telecom, such as 772 kHz, 1.544 MHz, 155 MHz etc.. 3. All of the equipment in the central office met 10 V/m immunity. Not likely, since 8.5 V/m is the GR-1089 limit. Also , much of the older equipment was not designed for immunity. I have heard about cell phones taking down equipment. Would be even more likely when the equipment doors are open or off. A remark I heard, correlated by personal observation, is that if a door is removable, it stays off. We need to gain access to the equipment quickly if there is a problem is the reply to that one. So, I think the cell phone operators are taking a chance.. Would be interested in what others have to say.. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA Opinions personal, not corporate. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re[2]: Battery Safety
On 9/25/00 Barry Ma asks: The charging stand for a battery-driven toothbrush (Sonicare) has no contact wit h the toothbrush. What is the charging mechanism? Is it safer than other battery ? Magnetics. Is it safer? I don't know. Regards, Eric Petitpierre --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: PTCs
You may want to look at Raychem as well. http://www.raychem.com/ Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: PTCs Author: dwil...@alidian.com (Dave Wilson) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:8/3/00 1:52 PM We supply -48V to each card in our shelf, each having their own DC-DC converter. Each card also has an on-board fuse, we are thinking about going to PTCs instead. The values range from 0.75A to 5A. I've seen devices from Bourns Inc. and Littelfuse. Anyone have any recommendations/suggestions? Thanks, Dave Wilson Alidian Networks Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Radiated Immunity
John, Maybe an ESD generator could help you find the problem. Playing with the risetimes may get you an E-field in the 300-320 Mhz range.. Good luck! Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon,VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Radiated Immunity Author: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com (John Juhasz) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:7/12/00 11:23 AM Having a Radiated Immunity problem (300-320MHz - 3V/M ) that I need to troubleshoot . . . I don't have a screen room to work in . . . I want to troubleshoot down to the circuit or component level . . . is there any type of 'probe' that can be used instead of creating a full-field in a chamber? Any ideas . . . ? Haven't had a problem like this yet . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY 631-419-2324 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Smoke Alarms
Ralph, I've seen flashing lights used as analternative for commercial applications. Perhaps a version could be used for residential applications as well? Eric Petitpierre eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Smoke Alarms Author: ral...@igs.net (Ralph Cameron) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/31/00 3:41 PM Not sure if this is apprpriate for this group. Can anyone tell me what the audible requirements are for standard approved smoke alarms? Is there a spec for them ? Mny seniors have difficulty hearing a high pitched tone and I am attempting to d etermine alternatives. Thanks Ralph Cameron EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronics (After sale) --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Safety: Hi-Pot Suppression for TNV lines
Chris, Usually the hi-pot tests done during the safety evaluation are meant to verify spacings and insulation. The hi-pot tests I have seen usually allow intentional paths to ground to be disconnected. It is the trace separation,etc, you are interested in, not how well the MOV conducts. Both MOV's are considered intentional paths to ground. Both should to be disconnected at the ground side during the test. If only one is disconnected, you may still have a path, whether it is direct, or through the contacts (open or closed) of the hookswitch. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Safety: Hi-Pot Suppression for TNV lines Author: chr...@gnlp.com (Maxwell; Chris) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/22/00 10:33 AM Group, Is there an in-line adapter that we can install on a TNV line (in our case, a typical RJ12 phone line) to our product that will provide a second layer of hi-pot protection? The whole explanation follows for those who think they can help. Others can press delete right now and get on with their day. We produce a piece of fiber optic test equipment that is rack mounted and operates from 48VDC. Most of our typical equipment does not have TNV connections, however this does. We have designed a remote reset option. The remote reset consists of an RJ12 jack on the back of the unit. The user can plug a phone line into this jack. Once installed, the user can perform a 5 second power down on the unit by dialing the unit's phone number and letting the line ring 5 times. This has proved valuable to customers because the units are designed for remote installation. If the unit hangs up, they don't have to drive, fly, hike or swim out to where the unit is installed to perform a hard re-boot. This remote reset line only takes in the TIP and RING signals (the RJ12 only has pins 3 and 4 populated). Both TIP and RING have MOV's going to chassis ground. We have had the unit safety tested. During safety testing, the MOV's were cut (creating a single fault condition). When the MOV's were cut, the hipot test caused an arc to ground on a circuitboard within the unit. This arc was considered a failure. My guess is that the arc is caused by the fact that the tip and ring signals run close to a piece of the ground plane on the top layer of the board. My first stab at fixing this would be to clear out the ground plane so that it is furthur away from tip and ring. Now, even minor changes to circuitboards can cost thousands. It can also mean scrap. This unit is a very low volume product (hundreds annually). It may be more cost effective for us to add some sort of in-line suppressor external to the unit as opposed to revising the circuitboard. Given that the unit is rack mounted, I am assuming that there would be room in the rack to mount such a device, if it existed. Hence my question. Anybody have any ideas? Thank you for your time. Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 109 N. Genesee St. Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment
Kurt, As for US and Canada UL1950/CSA950 should do it. Would be best to get both standards done at the same time due to similarity. Would also have to make sure lab is accredited for both standards, ie by a MOU. As for Europe, I have heard a rumor that the 75 V dc minimum level may be reduced to zero. ( All equipment that uses dc is liable). This may apply only to the RTTE Directive. Perhaps others can comment.. Regards, Eric Petitpierre __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment Author: kandr...@tracewell.com (Andrews; Kurt) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/19/00 1:03 PM I'm looking for information as to what is required as far as safety testing for a piece of 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment. All outputs will be 12 VDC or less. This is a commercial unit and will not be sold to consumers. In Europe it would fall outside the scope of the LVD as it starts at 75V for DC powered equipment and this will be powered by 48 VDC. Does anyone know if there any other safety standards required in Europe for this type of equipment? It does appear that safety testing and listing is required by OSHA for use in a U.S. workplace. According to OSHA Standard 1910 Subpart S all electric utilization equipment is required to be approved which in most cases means Listing by a NRTL. In 1920.399 OSHA defines electric utilization equipment as equipment which uses electrical energy for mechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purpose. My interpretation of this is that any equipment which uses electricity, AC or DC, would need to be tested and Listed. Is my interpretation of the OSHA requirements correct? What about requirements for Canada? Any insights into these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re[2]: EMC, NEBS NRTL's
Jeffey and Jay, Bell Atlantic Specification RNSA-NEB-95-0003, Rev, 10 Issued January 26,2000 has removed the NRTL requirement,( see sections 1.6.1 and 3.1.2) Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon,VA eric.petitpierre __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Author: jay_johansme...@mw.3com.com (Jay Johansmeier) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/17/00 7:49 AM Jeffrey, DLS, here in Illinois, claims to have a letter from Bell Atlantic stating that their EMC data will be accepted. You can email Steve Grimes at DLS and ask him if they will give you a copy. ( sgri...@dlsemc.com ) Regards, Jay Johansmeier Regulatory Engineer 3Com Corporation jay_johansme...@3com.com Collins, Jeffrey jcoll...@ciena.com on 03/17/2000 03:56:40 AM Please respond to Collins, Jeffrey jcoll...@ciena.com Sent by: Collins, Jeffrey jcoll...@ciena.com To: 'emc-pstc @ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(Jay Johansmeier/MW/US/3Com) Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Group, Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has agreed to accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's? If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know a customer is going to want to see it) Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: EMC and product safety split?
Robert, Not sure that partioning would reduce traffic. Might actually increase it, since many compliance engineers deal with both EMC and safety. In several cases, issues arise where both EMC and safety need to be addressed. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon,VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: EMC and product safety split? Author: rl...@tectrol.com (Robert Legg) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/10/00 1:33 PM Is there any possibility of getting the EMC and product safety postings partitioned ~ to assist in cutting surplus mail traffic? Rob Legg rl...@tectrol.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: EMC Test Conditions
Derek, Someone once said, Customer is always right. You are the customer. I would find another lab. As long as your customers (people who buy your equipment and the people who enforce thr rules) are happy... From the logic you presented, I don't see how you would have a problem presenting your case. As far as making a change in the rules, good luck. My opinion only (maybe that of others out there too). Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: EMC Test Conditions Author: lfresea...@aol.com at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/7/00 10:27 AM Folks, the testing of a product at a MAJOR Compliance lab has me concerned. I have two main concerns, they are: 1) The test item is designed to be bolted to a large metallic structure which cannot be part of my set-up, it costs way to much ( $2,000,000 each ). So I have a fixture, which mounts all the components as they would be mounted, using wiring as it would be wired etc. etc. etc. Because this fixture is only about a cubic metre, the lab is telling me I should test as table top equipment. I don't think this is correct. IMHP, table top equipment is meant to be EUTs like PC, printers, coffee makers, TVs etc. In most cases, the location in which they reside has very little metal in the proximity. OTOH, control systems like ours, are almost always fastened to metal objects. It is important to have this metal, or a simulation of it present, because I've found that otherwise, there is little correlation to the final installation. I also feel strongly that lifting this metal structure 80 cm off the ground plane is a stupid thing to do. So, my opinion is that there needs to be a third testing consideration added to table top and floor mounted equipment, that of simulated installation testing. OK, so this would require additional work. But if this is not considered, then results from all these system will vary dramatically. We worry at great length about the setup for table top equipment, and floor equipment. But if systems don't fit in this category, it's open season! 2) Since my device can be installed almost anywhere, it is supplied with a 3 foot length of flying lead. The intent is for final customers to extend this cable as needed. Here the lab tells me I'm OK testing with just 3 feet of lead My product standard is EN 61326, which allows me if my cables are under 10' in length, to blow away FTB and CI testing. This is ludicrous! I know now how some of my competitors can claim EMC compliance when they fail in my lab. I feel very strongly about issue 1, enough that I would offer to draft guidelines to present to whoever makes the rules. On issue 2, there has to be some education, at the moment the playing field is not level. I do not want to play the same games as others, because I feel the EMC protection we incorporate is really needed. Anyone got any constructive comments? Derek Walton --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re[2]: Open Letter re ITE Flammability (Source is NAFM)
Fire enclosure does not necessarily have to be the outside shell. It could be contained in an inner V-1 rated box. Or the product may have been tested to single faults and passed. The outside shell could then be rated at a lower flammability. As the people in the thread have said, I wouldn't advise it though. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Open Letter re ITE Flammability (Source is NAFM) Author: kandr...@tracewell.com (Andrews; Kurt) at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:1/20/00 3:12 PM According to 4.4.4 of both UL 1950 and EN 60950 monitors should be at least V-1. 4.4.4 says that fire enclosures of less than 18 kg (about 40 lb.) have to be at least V-1. For fire enclosures over 18 kg it needs to be 5V. So if a monitor has a UL mark it should be at least V-1. A monitor case should definitely be a fire enclosure as 4.4.5.1 says the following items need a fire enclosure and I'm sure that all monitors have at least some of these: components having unenclosed arcing parts, such as open switch and relay contacts, and commutators; components having windings, such as transformers, solenoids and relays; wiring; semiconductor devices, such as transistors, diodes and integrated circuits; resistors, capacitors and inductors. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com -Original Message- From: Colgan, Chris [SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:40 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Open Letter re ITE Flammability (Source is NAFM) Interesting and worrying. Does EN60950 call up flammability requirements for polymeric enclosures? If not, I guess I had better look for a PC with a NRTL mark as well as a CE mark - and then check it is V-0 rated. You may be amazed to know that while UL6500 (safety of audio visual products) calls up flammability requirements for all product enclosures, the current edition EN60065 only requires the back and ventilated parts of television receiver enclosures to made of slow burning material or better a fire retardant material. There is no requirement for other products such as amplifiers, CD players etc. The next edition of EN60065 addresses the problems of enclosure flammability but there must an awful lot of highly flammable hi-fi equipment out there. Think twice before placing that yuletide candle on top of your hi-fi stack. Regards Chris Colgan EMC Safety TAG McLaren Audio Ltd mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com -Original Message- From: Art Michael [SMTP:amich...@connix.com] Sent: 20 January 2000 14:48 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Open Letter re ITE Flammability (Source is NAFM) Hello all, Recently my attention was drawn to an open letter from the National Association of Fire Marshals, detailing their concerns with 94-HB enclosures, which - according to tests they initiated - can be readily ignited by external sources. A quote from their letter: In November and December of 1999, SP (the Swedish National Research and Testing Institute) tested five computer monitors - all of which had been or are available to consumers. Three of the five were made with fire-resistant plastic housings. Repeated attempts to ignite these monitors failed. Two of the five monitors were made with HB rated plastic housings. A SINGLE MATCH IGNITED EACH OF THESE QUICKLY. [The emphasis in the last sentence is mine] The NAFM letter can be viewed at: www.firemarshals.org/openletter.html My interests were piqued and the subject-matter served as the basis for an article in the current issue of Int'l Product Safety News. To further this discussion, I ask you to read the open letter and then ask yourself; A) What is your company's business practice ? Do they, 1: Just meet the requirements (per a given standard) ? or, 2: Strive to provide equipment that is safe beyond the requirements of the standards ? B) Should ITE (and other) product safety standards be concerned with external sources of ignition. C) Do you agree that ITE should be singled out for scrutiny, given that children's bedrooms (the impetus behind this open-letter), and in fact, whole households, are replete with easily ignited materials. Regards, Art Michael Int'l Product Safety News
Re[2]: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol
the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. Never, from what I've ever heard. Ground connection should be the first one on, last one to come off. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Author: rbus...@es.com at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:1/18/00 11:00 AM I agree with Kurt's summary of the ground marking and stack-up requirements, but there is a point of clarification I would like to have. Years past, it was explained to me that an appliance inlet ground must be first on the stack-up against the chassis. The point was to ensure that any maintenance action did not compromise the grounding of the enclosure. In the case of a power cord, the opposite was true however. Since a power cord is by definition frequently replaceable (hence the specific requirements for strain relief's and terminal blocks) the ground wire must now be on top of the stack-up. This facilitates easy replacement without jeopardizing the ground. What is the consensus on this? Rick Busche Evans Sutherland rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:26 AM To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com; Jackson; William; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Proper Protective Earth Ground Symbol Jim, For the Protective Earth Terminal, that is the ground from the power cord or IEC Inlet that should be located just inside the equipment needs to be IEC 417, No. 5019, the circle upside down tree. Also the incoming ground MUST be the first on a stud and secured by its own lockwasher and nut. You may then stack other grounds to other parts of the equipment on top of this ground. You may use a separate lockwasher and nut for each additional ground or one for all of the additional grounds. There may also be other ground studs in the unit if you don't want to run wires to the Protective Earth Terminal. This assumes an all metal construction, which is what we use. We have used both the upside down tree symbol, IEC 417 No. 5017, and the Equipotentiality symbol, IEC 417 No. 5021 for these additional grounds with no problems. For an additional ground on the outside of the equipment we have used the same symbol as for the Protective Earth Terminal. When we sent a unit in once for safety testing to UL we had the upside down tree without the circle next to an outside ground terminal and they told us it has to be the one with the circle around it. I would think that the frame ground symbol, IEC 417 No. 5020 (pitchfork) would also be acceptable although we haven't used it. Hope this helps, Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Dr. Westerville, OH 43081 Ph. 614-846-6175 Fax 614-846-7791 Email: kandr...@tracewell.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: current on the phone line ?
George, Normally, the maximum current a central office would source is 100 mA. And that's if the central office to customer modem distance was short. (short loop, less resistance). As for FCC Part 68, there are no performance requirements relating to loop current. All Part 68 is intended for is to prevent harm to the network and network personnel. As a side note, if this modem was to be designed for France, it would have to internally limit the current to 60 mA. I would be concerned about how many lines had to be modified. What value attenuation was used by the technician? When is the problem taking place? (ie dialling, handshaking, data transfer?) Are the signals strong enough after the attenuator to be reliable? If the modem passed Part 68, the signals should not be too strong. Normal inband strength is 0 dBm (1 milliwatt/600 Ohms) 3 second averaging for dialling and -9 dBm for data. These measurements should be made at 20 to 100 mA of loop current. If the signal dies at high loop currents, it is not a Part 68 issue. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: current on the phone line ? Author: sparaci...@andovercontrols.com at smtp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:11/22/99 8:43 AM Hello All, We manufacture a modem product which has been tested and found to comply with FCC part 68 ( CS03). At a customer site, (a CO in Pittsburg) an installer was setting up our modems on a phone system and the modem would not communicate on the lines. It was dete rmined ( by the site tech) that there was more line current on the phone line t han our modem could handle and a resistor (attenuator) had to be put on the lines so it could function normally. Since Part 68 deals only with signal / levels that our equipment imposes onto the network, my question is: Is there a standard out there that: 1) defines what the acceptable line levels are or should be ? 2) defines such requirements for Modems ? 3) prescribes appropriate testing to ensure proper operation at higher than le vels ? Am I making sense ?? I would appreciate any help from you. Thanks, George - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Central Office Equip. tested to UL 1950
Dear Listmembers, I'm having a product tested to UL 1950/CSA 950 for the US and Canadian market. This product is central office equipment powered by -48 vdc. It sources -48 vdc to outside plant leads. The -48 is referenced to ground, as needed for proper operation of signalling. The test lab claims I need separation between TNV-3 and other parts of the equipment, according to clause 6.4.1 dated March 1, 1998. Clause 6.4.1 says separation from TNV-3 must be provided to: a.. unearthed conductive parts...etc., not applicable to our equipment. b. parts that can be touched ...etc., not applicable c. circuitry which is provided for connection of other equipment and telecommunication circuitry (other than earth) intentionally isolated from telecommunication conductors My equipment is not intentionally isolated, it is ground referenced. The test lab decides to perform fault testing. This involves injecting a ring signal from the outside through the tip/ring leads and measuring the current through a 500 Ohm resistor. It fails to no surprise, because there is an intemtional path to ground. Their claim is, even though my equipment passes the overvoltage/power cross tests, it could retransmit the external fault. Am I missing something here? Or do I need to find another lab? Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: overvoltage protectors to ground
On 5/18/99 Dwight Hunnicutt writes: Question regarding two-legged vs. three-legged overvoltage protection circuitry: What are the pro cons of the two? Background: Typically, to protect against overvoltages on a telco interface protection circuit (analog or digital, such as POTS, T1, HDSL, etc.), one sees either: 1) an MOV/varistor type device across TIP/RING, or 2) two MOV/varistor/gas-tube type devices tied in series across TIP/RING, with the center connection tied to earth ground. Of course, there are also typically PTC's or fuses in line for overcurrent protection. However, my interest is the pros/cons of the overvoltage protection topology. If the interface circuit has no path to earth (typically through overvoltage protectors), then UL1950/UL1459 allows waiving of the longitudinal(common) mode overvoltage tests, which makes sense, because there is no return path for the fault energy. Since this waiver eliminates about half of the overvoltage testing, why does one see the three-legged topology being used? Are there some advantages to shunting energy to earth, rather than just back out the TIP/RING pair? Certainly, one has to provide overcurrent protection to prevent building telco wiring from burning (tested via the MDQ 1-6/10A fuse), but are there other reasons for preferring a three-legged approach? What are you missing out on if you elect to use the simpler topology of just an MOV across TIP/RING? (To further stir things up, how about if we take into consideration Bellcore GR-1089-CORE? Does that change things? I don't believe GR-1089 specifically contains the same waiver as UL1950/UL1459, but certainly the results are the same, and a test lab should consider waiving for the same rationale.) I'm sure many of you have seen both topologies described in application notes for various interface components, and have had to deal with both. Any light shed will be appreciated by all. There are steady-state overvoltage conditions (power cross/induction) and impulse conditions (lightning/ESD). Protection for one does not necessarily do both. If the T/R pair is truly floating, then yes, longitudinal protection is questionable. Many circuits, especially those in a telephone central office, do not float. There are ground start (not as many now) and battery feed circuits. The feed could could be either across T/R or simplexed across the T/R and T1/R1 pairs. These cicuits, despite secondary protection on the equipment side of the transformer, still need clamping to 230 Vac, 300 Vac, or whatever. Some circuits don't even have transformers; they come right off the SLIC. Makes OV protection and longitudinal balance design real interesting. So, How well does the circuit float? (for impulse AND steady-state) is the big question Eric Petitpierre Pulse Communications Herndon, VA eric.petitpie...@pulse.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: ESD Testing in the Production Line
Darrell, Maybe one of their competitors suggested it to them? Opinions are my own, not those of my employer.. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: ESD Testing in the Production Line Author: dlo...@advanced-input.com at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/14/97 6:43 PM One of our customers routinely does system ESD testing (to the IEC 1000 test level) on their production line. I have always considered ESD testing to be semi-destructive and would rather see type testing followed by strict control of the design. Production line ESD testing seems like it could lead to latent failures. Has anyone else had experience with this? Is this a common practice? Thanks in advance. Darrell Locke Advanced Input Devices
Re: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic.
Michael, Just as I received your e-mail, I received a direct mail from Acheson Colloids Company. (1-800-255-1908). They can set you up with what they have for conductive coatings. I don't know how enviromentally friendly they are, though. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Author: ,SITARSKI,MICHAEL sitar...@kodak.com at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/21/97 4:42 PM To: OAS --MAILSERV Open Addressing cc: 250105 --LOCKOVM1 SITARSKI MICHAEL J From: Michael J. Sitarski, PMI - DMI, 35905, 1/3/EP, (72)6-3717 Internet: sitar...@kodak.com Fax: (716) 726-9453 KNET: 236-3717 Subject: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Greetings to all viewers. I have been monitoring this forum for some time and would like to take this opportunity to ask a question concerning coatings or platings for steel, aluminum and plastic. Does anyone know of any studies that may have been performed comparing various coatings on the three mentioned substrates that considers cost, conductivity and/or shielding effectiveness. Apparently some of the tried and true materials are coming under attack for environmental friendliness and suitable alternatives must be identified. I am aware of the use of zinc chromates, electroless nickel and copper as well as various paints. Any experiences out there with practicality, durability, cost and environmental friendliness. Thanks in advance for your comments. -Regards, | M.J. Sitarski, Environmental Regulatory Compliance | |*| - Knowledge is Power
Re[2]: OSHA-29 CFR 1910 Subpart S
Doug, Please elaborate regarding your statement I eventually won in the end, but it was not easy. I've run across this OSHA loophole as well and I am curious to find out what made it go your way. Was the telco equipment Customer Premise as well as CO? Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: OSHA-29 CFR 1910 Subpart S Author: dmck...@paragon-networks.com (Doug McKean) at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:2/5/97 12:13 PM Appreciate this point being raised. When doing Safety testing for telco equipment, I ran into this little gem from a VP when having read the following, didn't want to hear anything else ... 1910.302(a)(2) Not covered. The provisions of 1910.302 through 1910.308 of this subpart do not cover: (iv) Installations of communication equipment under the exclusive control of communication utilities, located outdoors or in building spaces used exclusively for such installations. Since CO offices usually run on 48vdc, completely seperate from the public mains, I was told to NOT test the equipment. I eventually won in the end, but it was not easy. The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone, and do not reflect those of my employer.
Re: DC Power entry
On January 6, 1997 Bob Johnson wrote: Does anyone know any reason why the IEC 320 C-14 connector style cannot be used for DC power? Specifically, we have an application for primary power entry in the 48-70 Vdc range, typical of telecom applications, and I see no clear reason for redesign to implement a different connector. It is commonly used for 100-250 Vac and 50-60 Hz. However, does common usage exclude it from other similar applications? Are ther code restrictions somewhere which would interfere with it? The connectors are typically marked with an ac rating, but I would expect approval in the application would be achievable, at least for the electrical characteristics. I suppose someone would gripe about its conventionality. Regarding alternatives, is there a typical appliance connector used in the telecom industry for this DC power distribution? Bob Johnson Bob, The potential (no pun intended) problem with using the IEC 320 connector for dc is that someday someone is going to try to hook it up to 100-250 Vac. The way around that is to do exactly just that to see if there is indeed a risk of fire or electrical shock. As to an industry standard dc connector, I do not know of one. We use a listed crimp connector that is afterwards coated with an insulation. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com
Re: Insulation
rated voltage of 30V. Did you by chance mean 300 V? What is the cable to be used for? power? communications? The National Electrical Code is a good source . If you were looking for communications applications , Article 800 of the NEC is what you want. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Insulation Author: moses.naji...@ccmailsmtp.ast.com at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:8/20/96 10:16 AM Hello everyone, We are using a cable with one of our product which is UL approved and passes UL VW-1 vertical flame test for rated temp. of 80C and rated voltage of 30V. Jacket material is PVC. We are wondering if a customer wants to route this cable through an air plenum of a building, is above approval sufficient? or there are some other OSHA standard which we need to meet? Any suggestions or comments is appreciated. moses.n...@ast.com
Re: power supply fusing
On 7/3/96, Jonathon Malton writes: I wonder if I need to provide user-accessible fuses on the unit at the IEC power entry module. I would rather use a module incorporating only IEC connector and DPST switch (voltage selection isn't needed with this supply), and I understand that the EC is moving away from traditional fusing anyway. I suspect that it would be unnecessary.. I agree.. I don't see why a user accessible fuse is necessary The difficult choice would be to find a fuse rated low enough to fail gracefully during the product safety abnormal tests and yet withstand nuisance tripping, ie,inrush current, voltage fluctuations. The abnormals mentioned above include shorting critical components such as transformer secondaries, bridge rectifiers, oscillator drivers, etc., one at a time to develop maximum heating. Temperature rises are measured to see if insulation breakdown is probable. My opinions only, and not necessarily those of my employer. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com
Re: Industrial Plug and Socket-outlet
Tom, The definition I've heard for this is big twisty. The current rating is usually 30 A or more, the plug is twisted into the socket, hence the name. Usually applies to equipment that stays in place. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Industrial Plug and Socket-outlet Author: t...@superlink.net at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/28/96 11:35 AM Hello everyone, I'm reading 1.2.5.1, 1.2.5.2 IEC-950. One thing which is not very clear to me is the industrial plug and socket-outlet. Anyone has a definition for them, or which standard specifies it? TIA Tom Bao t...@superlink.net Courtesy of RCIC http://uc.com/compliance_engineering/
Re[2]: OSHA Laser Safety Requirements
Ken, The place I would look is 21 CFR Parts 1000 to 1040. For further information, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health might be of help. They can be reached at : Light Products Branch (HFZ-312) Office of Compliance and Surveillance Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration 1390 Piccard Dr. Rockville, MD 20850, (301)-427-1172 Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: OSHA Laser Safety Requirements Author: Kenneth A. Shadoff kshad...@cusa.canon.com at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/96 5:19 PM I have been researching OSHA Laser Safety Requirements as they pertain to servicing of laser products. I reviewed OSHA PUB 8.1-7: Guidelines for Laser Safety and Hazard Assessment, but I have not been able to find specific references in the CFR. I also have a copy of ANSI Z136.1. Where, if at all, is the OSHA PUB 8.1-7 referenced in the CFR? I am looking for the regulations (not guidelines) that mandate the following: 1) Laser Safety Training 2) Assignment of a LSO 3) Medical Surveillance (optometrist / ophthalmologist) I would greatly appreciate any information regarding this issue. Thanks in advance. Ken Shadoff Product Safety Engineer Canon USA, Inc. kshad...@cusa.canon.com
