RE: UL Approval in different States
Here is one possible market driven scenario: Power Tool - sold by Home Depot, etc. = Home Depot requires certification on everything electrical they sell = Tool mfg. gets certification for battery operated tool so they can sell via Home Depot. Cell Phone - sold by Cell phone carriers and small cell phone distributors - if they care, all they probably care about is the charger being certified. In some cases, it may be better to ask the buyer what they require. Regards, Bill Bisenius, N.C.E. E.D. D. bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com 919-469-9434 From: Barker, Neil [mailto:neil.bar...@e2v.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:35 AM To: 'Jim Bacher'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL Approval in different States I'm afraid that I don't have a definitive answer, and look forward to somebody else posting one. However, my one observation is that the power tool may be used in the workplace and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of OSHA, whereas your phone would not generally be classified as equipment for use in the workplace. I suspect that both adapters/chargers are NRTL'd because they are mains powered, which is probably covered by both OSHA and the NEC. I have to admit that we play safe and have a battery-powered thermal imaging camera for use by fire-fighters NRTL'd on the basis that it is used in the workplace, and is also frequently supplied to public authorities who are risk averse and inclined to want to be able to 'tick the box' when procuring equipment for use by public employees. Best regards, Neil R. Barker C.Eng. MIEE FSEE MIEEE Manager Compliance Engineering e2v technologies (uk) ltd 106 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2QU UK Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616 Fax: +44 (0)1245 453410 e-mail: neil.bar...@e2v.com Web: http://www.e2v.com From: Jim Bacher [mailto:jim.bac...@paxar.com] Sent: 18 May 2005 13:22 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL Approval in different States Does any one know the current status of how battery operated products are affected by the NRTL requirements? I did notice a power tool I bought lately has a NRTL mark on it, but my cell phone does not. In both cases the power adapters/chargers are NRTL'd. At one time I understood that at least one state required battery based products to be NRTL'd, but it must not be enforced. Jim Jim Bacher Senior Engineer Paxar Americas, Inc. 170 Monarch Lane Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 Voice: 937-865-2020 Fax: 937-865-2048 email: jim.bac...@paxar.com 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/listserv/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 Cantwellmcantw...@ieee.org 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.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/listserv/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 Cantwellmcantw...@ieee.org 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Blocked ventillation testing
Having worked at UL for many years in ITE, and having been the UL seminar leader for ITE for several years, blocking vents during on one side only was always the rule/what we taught = one fault at a time. Of course the years have been adding on since my days at UL so things may have changed. I believe UL still publishes their interpretations for ITE and most likely have one written on this topic = I think the last I heard they called them practical application guides or something like that. I believe they sell this on their web site and may allow access to those with subscriber service for UL60950. Having worked in many other standards/categories in addition to ITE, some standards (especially appliance standards) require normal temperature testing in the corner of an alcove which can result in vents on 2 sides being fully or partially blocked (alcove = black walled test corner). Regards, Bill Bisenius E.D. D. bi...@productsafet.com -Original Message- From: Robert Johnson [mailto:robe...@rcn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:56 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Blocked ventillation testing I have been requested by UL-HongKong to the blocked ventillation abnormal testing with all vents on all side blocked simultaneously. My previous experience has been that one side is blocked at a time. Blocking more than one side at a time was considered multiple faults. If it passes blocking all vents at once shortens test time, but is this method necessary? What is the experience of others? Bob Johnson ITE Safety This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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: emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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: emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Fault condition test UL 60950
Any single fault that could possibly result in a shock hazard and/or a fire hazard should be fault tested. Close analysis of the electrical schematic can help determine which faults could raise voltage levels in accessible circuits above the shock hazard level and/or are located such that they could result in fire (more specifically, fire outside the product enclosure). In general: Fault resistors open, Fault capacitors short, Fault diodes short Regards, Bill Bisenius bi...@productsafet.com E.D. D. www.productsafeT.com http://www.productsafet.com/ From: Van Compernolle, Eric [mailto:eric.vancomperno...@barco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:41 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: Fault condition test UL 60950 Dear all, For the fault condition test ( single fault) you have to consider the risk on an open or short of a component. My question is the following: do we have to consider both a short and an open of a (film) resistor? Normally I should think that the only way that a fault can occur on such a resistor is an open. Do we have to consider also a short? The same question for a capacitor ( normal fault condition: short?) and diode (normal fault condition: short?). best regards, Van Compernolle Eric Reliability Manager Barco Projection System Noordlaan 5 Industriezone B-8520 Kuurne Belgium Tel. +32(0)56 36 82 11 Fax.+32(0)56 36 83 55 E-mail: eric.vancomperno...@barco.com - - - - - - - DISCLAIMER - - - - - - - - Unless indicated otherwise, the information contained in this message is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachments is strictly prohibited. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. Furthermore, the company does not warrant a proper and complete transmission of this information, nor does it accept liability for any delays. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. Thank you.
RE: fan question
Dave, No, you don't need to defeat a certified fan during fault tests. The general rule of thumb in the product safety standards is one abnormal at a time. You also like to see reliable repeatable means for terminating a fault condition (i.e. certified protective device). As such, non-certified temperature controllers/circuits are generally defeated during testing. Same for traces on PCB's that fuse open unless they are certified links. So this may be applicable to your locked rotor test. Fans are typically certified and I have never seen or heard of fault tests being done with the fan defeated, at least for Certification purposes. Regards, Bill Bisenius E.D. D. bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com -Original Message- From: drcuthb...@micron.com [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:16 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:fan question Question: During a locked fan rotor test do other single-faults have to be invoked? Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Hi-Pot testing
Chris, I wasn't real clear on what was breaking during your hipot test. However, these comments might help: 1) Be sure you are hipot testing with a DC test voltage. AC testing can damage your Y capacitors. DC test voltage = peak of AC test voltage = 1.414 x AC test voltage. 2) If your product incorporates a surge protector (i.e. MOV), you are permitted to remove the device or lift one leg so that it is not in the circuit during the test. 3) Waiving the test is usually not an option with the Certification lab. However, adjusting the test to prevent damage (such as removing the MOV) is typically permitted. If these don't solve your problem, provide more details on the damage perhaps I/someone can provide additional input. Regards, Bill Bisenius E.D. D. bi...@productsafet.com -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:45 AM To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject:Hi-Pot testing All, We have a product that runs from AC power. During safety testing at the lab, the unit passes HiPot testing. However, the unit is broken by the testing. Rigorously, the unit passes its type testing because it doesn't become unsafe by the Hipot. However, it isn't functional after the test; and it requires repair. The unit does meet surge test requirements. (EN 61000-4-5, Class II). The unit has surge protection circuitry installed from line to earth (MOV in line with a gas tube). This surge protection is disabled before the hipot test. So, here are a few of my random thoughts on this process. 1. I can't break every unit by hipot testing it before I ship it. 2. When the unit is in the field, it will have the surge protection installed, which will essentially limit any real life hipot voltages to about 500V (230V gas tube, 275VAC MOV). In real life, the unit would experience a maximum 500V hipot. However, in the case of a single fault (surge protection disabled), the unit could experience higher hipot voltages, which would cause damage, but not an unsafe condition (as shown by type testing). 3. The surge protection is not easily removed for hipot and then reinstalled after hipot. So...are there any alternative test or inspection methods that can be used on this product? Thanks in advance, Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Instruments Group email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: IE C60601-1 table 16
Brian, Working voltage is determined in the same manner as 950, 1010, etc. A special consideration is that you may have to consider the possibility of any patient connection being earthed. Table 16: The first row titled “equivalent to Basic insulation between parts of opposite polarity” is what 950 refers to as Operational insulation in the mains circuit = insulation that may protect from a Risk of Fire but not does not provide Risk of Shock protection. The second row is for Basic Supplementary insulation. And the third row is for Double Reinforced insulation. Each row is split to provide the creepage the clearance requirement for each working voltage column. The weird letters in the second column (A-f, A-a1, etc.) relate to Appendix E in the back of the standard. Appendix E has diagrams showing what constitutes operational, basic, supplementary, reinforced, double insulation. So if you are unsure if a particular creepage/clearance distance is considered o/b/s/r/d, you can use Appendix E. Just remember that the “601” standards do not use the term “operational” insulation. Regards, Bill Bisenius E.D. D. bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com http://www.productsafet.com/ From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:00 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: IE C60601-1 table 16 Good People Would someone please provide relevant clause that explains how to use this table. Are the peak/dc and rms WV used seperately to determine clearance creepage, as in 60950? or is the greater of the dc or ac WV used to determine both crp clr ? Is the same measurement technique for determining WV as in 60950, 1010-1, etc ? thanks much Brian
RE: 94V-0 question
1. You have already received many good material suggestions from by others but do you really need 94V-0? I believe that most standards will allow 94V-2 for this purpose (assuming it provides the necessary creepage clearance distances and passes the dielectric strength test). 2. If the enclosure is grounded, the insulation will serve as basic insulation = creepage clearance distance + hipot test. If the enclosure isn't grounded, the insulation will serve as reinforced insulation = be careful, some safety standards have a minimum thickness requirement for reinforced insulation if only one layer of the material is used (other standards indicate that whatever thickness passes the hipot test is acceptable). 3. I suggest that you consider a method of mechanical securement so you don't have to worry about the reliability/certification of an adhesive. Punching holes in the insulation that fit over existing standoffs is one option. 4. Be careful if there is any pressure between the board and enclosure = this could create reliability questions if a sharp solder pad could put a hole through the insulation. Regards, Bill Bisenius E.D. D. bi...@productsafet.com -Original Message- From: drcuthb...@micron.com [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:94V-0 question I need a sheet of plastic that goes between a PCB and a metal enclosure. This is to make a creepage spec. What plastics are good for this? Will polycarbonate be suitable and have a 94V-0 rating? Thanks. Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Hipot question
Dave, Your questions combine two tests: 1) There are no leakage current limits during hipot testing. The hipot test seeks insulation breakdowns (insulating materials air), not excessive current through filter capacitors. The 3.5 mA leakage current limit refers to the separate Leakage Current Test aka Touch Current (line power test measuring the leakage current through a human body model). 2) Note that if you have filter capacitors, you should be hipot testing with DC. With AC testing, you are conducting excessive currents through your Y capacitors which could damage these caps. (Could you then be shipping a product that would fail conducted emissions?). DC hipot testing will result in very little current flow during testing. 3) DC hipot testing is done at the peak voltage of the AC specification = 1.414 x AC test voltage. 4) FYI - occasionally I hear requests from those new to hipot testing for more powerful hipot testers because they need more current capacity from their tester = they don't need a bigger hipot tester, they need to be testing with DC. Regards, Bill Bisenius E.D. D. bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com -Original Message- From: drcuthb...@micron.com [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:04 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Hipot question I am testing some in-house equipment that is covered under EN61010. Is the AC line touch current limit 3.5 mA at line + 10%? When I run a hipot test am I allowed to use 2121 VDC rather than 1500 VAC? Due to the 0.047 uF X caps the AC hipot current is somewhat high. Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: More Odd Standards (To me anyway)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Chris, I don't know anything about the G.692 but, the IP55 code is a product safety requirement and it can be a big deal, especially a 55. IP55 is the International Ingress Protection rating per IEC529 and is referred to as the IP code for the product. In general, relates to harsh conditions and outdoor use = tests the ability of your enclosure to provide ingress protection. Most products are IPX0 meaning no additional ingress protection = indoor use under normal conditions. IPX0 is the only IP code which is not required to be marked on a product. The IP code format is IPXX with the first X referring to the product protection from solid objects (probes dust). The higher the number, the higher the degree of protection = protection from smaller smaller objects. The second X refers to the products protection from various levels of water. Again, the higher the number, the higher the level of protection (beginning with small drops of water all the way up to submersion). There are no specific construction requirements, just tests. Each number translates to a test. IP55 means all tests up to 5 for both solid objects water. First numeral 5 = probes up to dust chamber test. Second number 5 = water tests up to Jet Nozzle. I have attached a summary sheet that will show you each required test by test equipment. Note that in some cases the same test equipment is used with different test criteria (i.e. with or without turntable). Unfortunately, UL standards and NEMA enclosure ratings are not harmonized with this system. Regards, Bill Bisenius EDD bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com IP Code Info.pdf -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 8:09 AM To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject:More Odd Standards (To me anyway) Hello all, It seems that I have been getting some odd requests from our customer support people. We recently have been asked about compliance to IP55 and an EMC standard numbered G.692. IP55 sounds like an ingress protection level to me. I'm drawing a complete blank on G.692. Is anybody familiar with these? Thanks, Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Title: RE: More Odd Standards (To me anyway) Chris, I don't know anything about the G.692 but, the IP55 code is a product safety requirement and it can be a big deal, especially a 55. IP55 is the International Ingress Protection rating per IEC529 and is referred to as the IP code for the product. In general, relates to harsh conditions and outdoor use = tests the ability of your enclosure to provide ingress protection. Most products are IPX0 meaning no additional ingress protection = indoor use under normal conditions. IPX0 is the only IP code which is not required to be marked on a product. The IP code format is IPXX with the first X referring to the product protection from solid objects (probes dust). The higher the number, the higher the degree of protection = protection from smaller smaller objects. The second X refers to the products protection from various levels of water. Again, the higher the number, the higher the level of protection (beginning with small drops of water all the way up to submersion). There are no specific construction requirements, just tests. Each number translates to a test. IP55 means all tests up to 5 for both solid objects water. First numeral 5 = probes up to dust chamber test. Second number 5 = water tests up to Jet Nozzle. I have attached a summary sheet that will show you each required test by test equipment. Note that in some cases the same test equipment is used with different test criteria (i.e. with or without turntable). Unfortunately, UL standards and NEMA enclosure ratings are not harmonized with this system. Regards, Bill Bisenius EDD bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com IP Code Info.pdf -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Tuesday, July
RE: FDA registration of laser
No registration is required if: 1) You put a Class I laser product into your product (in its entirety) and your product is Class I. 2) You include the documentation that came with the laser product with your product. 3) You leave all the labeling on the laser product as you received. There is an official variance published by the CDRH that outlines this - I will find dig this up and forward to. Regards, Bill Bisenius EDD, Inc. bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:55 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject:FDA registration of laser File: Kort for Kim Boll Jensen Hi all good people Just a simple question. When using a CD or DVD driver in a product (PC or audio product) and the driver is FDA registered, do I need to register the final product at FDA too. I can't find a paragraph in 21 CFR which tells me when not to register. (The drives are Class I but includes a higher laser internally as fare as I know) Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: New SBC NEBS Requirements Document
1) Are all RBOC’s currently requiring GR-1089-CORE issue 2? 2) Anybody know when issue 3 will be required by an RBOC? 3) Can anybody who has issue 3 please send me Section 7.3 Continuous Source Requirements and associated Fig. 7.4? Thanks for the help, Bill Bisenius EDD bi...@productsafet.com From: Dave Lorusso [mailto:d...@lorusso.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:59 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: New SBC NEBS Requirements Document SBC has a new issue of their NEBS document TP76200 on their web site: https://ebiznet.sbc.com/sbcnebs/ You can also find a link to it and other RBOC checklists at: http://nebs-faq.com/do_the_rbocs_have_requirements_over.htm Of note is SBC’s acceptance of ANSI/T1.319-2002 for Fire Resistance testing. Tests performed to the May 2002 issue will be accepted until the end of September. Best regards, Dave Lorusso Lorusso Technologies, LLC 1200 Mahogany Lane P. O. Box 3756 Cedar Park, TX 78630-3756 “Your NEBS, Product Safety and EMC Solution” www.lorusso.com http://www.lorusso.com/
RE: DERIVATION OF CREEPAGE AND CLEARANCES
Creepage Clearance distances in many IEC/EN standards including IEC61010-1 and thereby EN61010-1 are drawn from IEC60664-1: Insulation coordination for equipment within low-voltage systems - Part 1: Principles, requirements and tests. Bill Bisenius EDD bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com -Original Message- From: Gordon,Ian [mailto:ian.gor...@bocedwards.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:11 AM To: 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP' Subject:DERIVATION OF CREEPAGE AND CLEARANCES All Does anyone know from where the values for creepage and clearances given in EN61010-1 (safety requirements for electrical equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use - part 1 general requirements) are derived i.e. are there other standards below 61010 in this respect? Thanks Ian Gordon _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Thermocouple glue
We use and sell (conflict alert) the same thermocouple paste I used when I worked at UL (the brown stuff - doesn't seem to have another name except thermocouple paste) - see our web site www.productsafeT.com. Appears to have good thermal conductivity while having low electrical conductivity (when dry). Also, after the test you can usually break off the old paste from the thermocouple without damaging the thermocouple bead. No mixing - comes mixed - but for those of you who use this stuff know, it can dry/harden quickly if you leave the lid off the container. Bill Bisenius EDD bi...@productsafet.com From: Ned Devine [mailto:ndev...@entela.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:11 AM To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE, EMC/Product Safety) Subject:Thermocouple glue Hi, In the past I have used Henkel Sicomet 77 to adhere thermocouples. I just tried to reorder some and was told it has been discontinued. Does anyone have a recommendation on a replacement? Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Phone: 616 248 9671 Fax: 616 574 9752 e-mail: ndev...@entela.com www.entela.com Entela, Inc. A Certified Woman Owned Business 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
EN61010-1, Symbol 14
All symbols in Table 1 of EN61010-1:2001 are from the graphic symbol standard EN60417 except symbol 14 (exclamation point in an equilateral triangle). Symbol 14 references ISO7000, symbol #0434. I hate to get a standard for 1 symbol. Does anybody have the layout or artwork for this symbol that they can provide? Thanks, Bill Bisenius EDD bi...@productsafet.com mailto:bi...@productsafet.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Class 2 laser
IEC825-1 and CDRH requirements are focused on the laser product and incorporating provisions in the product for a safe installation. However, they do not include much on the actual installation and use/human interaction (other than for laser light shows). I recommend that you review NFPA115 - criteria for the safe design, manufacture, installation, and use of lasers and associated equipment. Bill Bisenius EDD bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafeT.com -Original Message- From: Ronald R. Wellman [mailto:rwell...@wellman.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:55 PM To: richwo...@tycoint.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Class 2 laser Hello Richard, Have you taken a look at 21 CFR 1040? The FDA/CDRH has certain compliance requirements for laser systems and laser products. Best regards, Ron Wellman At 03:16 PM 3/3/2003 -0500, richwo...@tycoint.com wrote: Are any national restrictions on the use of a Class 2 laser in areas where the general public would be exposed? A good example would be a beam across a doorway to detect entry and exit. Assume the product is fully compliant with IEC 60825-1. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Electrical Medical Product Production Testing
Does anybody know any Certification Agencies and/or Standards anywhere in the world requiring Production Line Leakage Current Testing on Electrical Medical Products? If so, does anybody have it in writing? Thanks for the help, Bill Bisenius EDD, Inc. bi...@productsafet.com mailto:bi...@productsafet.com www.productsafet.com http://www.productsafet.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
TNV Test Generator
Telecom - Product Safety Question: I am looking for a test generator per clause 2.3.5 of IEC60950 = a test generator is used that provides 120 V +/- 2 VAC at 50 or 60 Hz and has an internal impedance of 1200 ohms +/- 2%. Anybody have any input on a source to buy or a method to build such a device. It's the internal impedance aspect that's throwing me for a loop. Thanks for your time and input, Bill Bisenius EDD bi...@productsafet.com mailto:bi...@productsafet.com North Carolina - the natural disaster capital of the U.S. - last week's ice storm left us all without power, heat, or phones for several days (during 30 degree weather). Come to North Carolina and have your house smashed by falling ice covered trees (or hurricanes in the summer). --- 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
Test Equipment Developers Wanted
EDD is a world leader in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of Product Safety Test Equipment. We are in search of turn-key test equipment developers for both standard off-the-shelf and custom Product Safety Test Equipment = some products are all mechanical, some are primarily electrical, others are mechanical electrical. All work must be of high quality functionality/appearance and be fully compliant with the appropriate standards (and able to prove it through calibration/data). If you or the company you work for is interested in such development work, please let me know off-line. Likewise, if you know a reputable company that would be interested in such development work, we would greatly appreciate it if you could pass this information along. Sincerely, Bill Bisenius bi...@productsafet.com mailto:bi...@productsafet.com EDD www.productsafeT.com http://www.productsafeT.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: Layered Reinforced Insulation
I certainly agree that reinforced can be a solid insulation - hence the 0.4. mm thickness requirement. Sorry if my memo gave you a different impression. Bill Bisenius bi...@productsafet.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter L. Tarver Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 4:41 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Layered Reinforced Insulation Bill - This is not quite correct. Reinforced Insulation may also be a single piece of insulation (I do note you used may). There's no definition, per se, of multiple layers, except for the case of thin sheet material. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: Bill Bisenius A reinforced insulation system by definition may be multiple layers if it is all the same insulating material. --- 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 --- 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: Layered Reinforced Insulation
A reinforced insulation system by definition may be multiple layers if it is all the same insulating material. Two different insulating materials must be evaluated as double insulation = one of the materials must meet the requirements for basic insulation, the other material must meet the requirements for supplementary insulation. Regardless, both supplementary and reinforced insulation are required to be min. 0.4 mm thick (clause 2.10.5.1) There is an exception to the 0.4 mm thickness requirement if multiple layers - of the same insulating material (clause 2.10.5.2). The exception has additional dielectric testing requirements that depend on the number of layers used. You don't provide any details on the hazardous circuit in the interconnecting cable. If it can be defined as ELV, you will only need to evaluate one of the insulating materials as supplementary insulation. Still doesn't get you past the 0.4 mm requirement. Note - I have found many wire insulations that will meet the 0.4 mm requirement and comply with the reinforced insulation requirements. Best regards, Bill Bisenius bi...@productsafet.com EDD www.productsafeT.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of richwo...@tycoint.com Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:24 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Layered Reinforced Insulation Consider the insulation construction for an external interconecting cable connected to secondary hazardous circuits of ITE (EN60950). Is it permissible for the reinforced insulation to be constructed of two layers (e.g., conductor insulation plus external jacket) if the total thickness is at least 0.4 mm? Clause 2.2.1 appears to allow it; however, clause 2.9.4.2 appears to indicate that layered insulation can only be used internally. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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 --- 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: David Sproul...UL creepage limits ;~)
Creepage distance has nothing to do with current within the context of the product safety standards. Creepage distance is the distance across the surface of an insulating material. The specific Creepage distance for any product safety application is based on: 1) Working Voltage, 2) Installation Category - defines where on the power grid the product gets power = this defines the maximum anticipated overvoltage that the product will be subjected from upstream switching surges and other transients that may. 3) Pollution degree - the amount of potentially conductive contaminants that could reduce the creepage distance. 4) The insulation material's resistance to tracking - designated by the CTI rating of the insulating material. Creepage distances are specified such that, if there is a breakdown due to a short term transient, we want the breakdown to occur through the clearance distance (air) rather than across the creepage distance (insulating surface). The rationale being that once the transient that caused the breakdown subsides, the clearance is replaced by new air = no permanent damage. However, if a breakdown occurs across a Creepage distance, it leaves a permanent carbon path which thereby reduces the voltage required for the next breakdown. And so on and so on until a fire hazard (heat in the carbon path) or shock hazard occurs (complete breakdown). This helps to explain why clearance distances are also based on Air Pressure (altitude) since it directly related to the insulating properties of air. Again, if there is a breakdown, we want the air (clearance) to break down before the insulation (creepage). I hope this helps. Bill Bisenius bi...@productsafet.com Educated Design Development, Inc. (EDD) 2200 Gateway Centre Blvd. Suite 215 Morrisville, NC 27560 919-469-9434 www.productsafet.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of David Sproul Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 8:06 AM To: Ted Rook Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject:RE: David Sproul...UL creepage limits ;~) Ted, thank you for your response. I do not claim to be an expert, but I cannot accept that creepage has anything to to with the current flowing in a circuit. Surely it is the voltage across the material and the CTI of that material which determines the likelihood of tracking across the material to take place. As for your car battery melting story, cars must be wired differently in the US than in the UK, because I have connected negative to negative and positive to positive on many occaisions, and never had anything anymore exciting happen than the second car starts. Best regards, David Sproul. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ted Rook Sent: 09 October 2002 15:28 To: Subject: David Sproul...UL creepage limits ;~) This is because when you double the voltage the power is proportional to a quarter of the current squared. In America the 120V power is at lower voltage but the current is twice as much and so the creepage is twice as well. Very high voltage circuits hardly creep at all whereas low voltages creep the most. That is why you should never join the two negative terminals when you jump start a car, the car battery charging circuits have so much creepage they can melt the battery. I though everybody knew that... --- 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 --- 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
