RE: Odd CE Marking Question
I hope not;-- please don't give these (B)(E)urocrats any ideas! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: Louis Fischer[SMTP:lofis...@cisco.com] Reply To: Louis Fischer Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:02 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Odd CE Marking Question Is there a Directive for decorative items, or perhaps for props or stage equipment, which might be more appropriate? LEF --- Louis E. Fischer Compliance Engineer Cisco Systems, Inc. 12515 Research Blvd, Bldg 4 Austin, TX 78759 (512) 378-1723 FAX: (512) 378-1251 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grant, Tania (Tania) Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:24 AM To: Kevin Harris; 'Steve Brody' Cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Odd CE Marking Question I don't know, Steve. That might be jumping from the frying pan into the fire;-- has the dummy been evaluated to be a safe toy??? ;) Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: Steve Brody[SMTP:sbr...@prodigy.net] Reply To: Steve Brody Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:21 PM To: Kevin Harris Cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Odd CE Marking Question Having read through most of the responses as of this writing, and finding, as expected, very valid and well positioned recommendations and suggestions, I submit that if this is intended to be a dummy intended to make people believe that it is what it is supposed to be, even if it is not, then a CE Marking and other labels may be required to complete the ruse. If, as some of our colleagues believe that CE Marking and claiming compliance to LVD or EMC is not valid and should not be done, then treat the dummy as it is and claim compliance to the Toys Directive and mark the product with a CE Marking. Steve Brody Sr. Compliance Engineer Thermo NESLAB steve.br...@neslab.com or sbr...@prodigy.net . Kevin Harris wrote: Hello Group, I just had a question posed to me that made me think a little bit. So I will pose it to all of you. First some preamble. A device is going to be made for the European market. It is in fact a dummy device in that it looks like the real thing but it is not. The only electronics inside is a bridge rectifier and a RC circuit to blink a LED. The device can be powered by either an AC or DC source up to 30 V. The power source is not supplied. For this industry (security) there is a product family standard for EMC. The device is not a mock up for store display purposes but is in fact used in the industry to give the impression that there are more of these devices around than there really are. So the moment has arrived, do you CE mark the device? If you say yes, what directive did you apply? If you say no, what is your reasoning? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.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: 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, --- 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, application/ms-tnef
RE: Odd CE Marking Question
I don't know, Steve. That might be jumping from the frying pan into the fire;-- has the dummy been evaluated to be a safe toy??? ;) Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: Steve Brody[SMTP:sbr...@prodigy.net] Reply To: Steve Brody Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:21 PM To: Kevin Harris Cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Odd CE Marking Question Having read through most of the responses as of this writing, and finding, as expected, very valid and well positioned recommendations and suggestions, I submit that if this is intended to be a dummy intended to make people believe that it is what it is supposed to be, even if it is not, then a CE Marking and other labels may be required to complete the ruse. If, as some of our colleagues believe that CE Marking and claiming compliance to LVD or EMC is not valid and should not be done, then treat the dummy as it is and claim compliance to the Toys Directive and mark the product with a CE Marking. Steve Brody Sr. Compliance Engineer Thermo NESLAB steve.br...@neslab.com or sbr...@prodigy.net . Kevin Harris wrote: Hello Group, I just had a question posed to me that made me think a little bit. So I will pose it to all of you. First some preamble. A device is going to be made for the European market. It is in fact a dummy device in that it looks like the real thing but it is not. The only electronics inside is a bridge rectifier and a RC circuit to blink a LED. The device can be powered by either an AC or DC source up to 30 V. The power source is not supplied. For this industry (security) there is a product family standard for EMC. The device is not a mock up for store display purposes but is in fact used in the industry to give the impression that there are more of these devices around than there really are. So the moment has arrived, do you CE mark the device? If you say yes, what directive did you apply? If you say no, what is your reasoning? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.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: 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, --- 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, application/ms-tnef
RE: Israeli Compliance Requirements?
Paul, Here is the information I have for Israel, courtesy of the ITL: How to obtain Type Approval for Telecoms Terminal Equipment in Israel All equipment connected to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) in Israel requires a Type Approval from the Certification Department of the Ministry of Communications. Requirements for obtaining Type Approval Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (Analog) in Israel are as follows: 1. Approvals will only be issued to local importers/distributors or manufacturers. 2. Terminal Equipment must comply with Israel Ministry of Comunications Specification 023/96. Compliance may be by testing at an approved laboratory or presentation of acceptable foreign approvals. According to Ministry regulations, equipment which fails compliance testing to Spec 023/96 must be resubmitted for full testing; partial retesting is not acceptable. 3. The Ministry accepts approvals to FCC Part 68 (USA), and to TBR21 from BABT (UK), BZT (Germany) and CNET (France). Note that only originals of any of these approvals and full test report, or copies authenticated by a Notary Public in the country of issue, are acceptable. An approval and test report will be reviewed. If authentic and if it covers the performance requires of Spec 023/96 then the product will be deemed compliant. If any requirements of the Israel Spec have not been covered then additional testing must be performed. Foreign approvals that do not meet the Ministry's criteria will not be accepted. In such a case full testing to Spec 023/96 must be performed. 4. Safety. All AC mains equipment must comply with the requirements of IS 1121 (the national version of IEC 950). Foreign approvals are not acceptable, but approvals and test reports from reputable international bodies may expedite the testing and approval process. 5. EMC. All equipment must comply with the requirements of IS 961 Part 6 (1991), the national version of CISPR22, or with FCC Part 15. A test report from a suitably accredited EMC laboratory will be acceptable. 6. The following are the only accredited Test Laboratories: ITL Product Testing Ltd : Telephony, Safety and EMC Ministry of Communications Lab : Telephony only Standards Institution of Israel : Safety and EMC 7. The Type Approval fee is currently NIS 350.- (approx US $100.-), payable to the Ministry of Communications by the applicant (importer or local manufacturer). The fee may change from time to time. This does not include charges for testing and/or reviewing of documentation submitted, which are charged by accredited test laboratories. 8. A Type Approval for a particular product may be used by more than one Distributor or Importer. However, each Distributor/Importer requires an Import Permit from the Ministry. The Ministry will not usually supply information on what Import Permits have been issued. 9. The Type Approval and Import Permit rules are rigourously enforced by Customs. 10. A Note about ISDN Products: At time of writing procedures for approving ISDN products in Israel are not yet finalised. Currently the Ministry will review and generally accept Euro-ISDN Approvals from European Notified Bodies. No testing (at least for BRi) is presently required. Requirements for Safety and EMC are as set out above for Analog Equipment. It is understood that Bezek, the Telephone Company, requires to test PRi equipment before permitting connection to tne network. Enquiries about ISDN should be directed to the Ministry. It should be noted that the procedures are likely to change. Return to ITL Home Page Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com[SMTP:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com] Reply To: paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:19 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Israeli Compliance Requirements? Good Morning, Does anyone know if there are any Israeli regulatory requirements or certifications marks for safety and EMC for products to Israel? Thanks in advance for any replies. Best Regards, Paul J Smith Teradyne, Inc., Boston, MA 02111 paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com Voice 617-422-2997 Fax 603-843-7526 --- 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
RE: Odd CE Marking Question
Kevin, I would CE mark the dummy. My justification is as follows: it is low voltage and safe, and therefore meets the LVD. I do think that the LVD applies even if the dummy itself does not have a power source. Consider that with the wrong power source applied, there COULD be a hazard (unlikely, but possible). There could be other components inside that could ignite, etc., once power is applied. By marking it you are telling everyone in Europe that this dummy has been evaluated to safety and meets the requirements.As for the EMC Directive, I don't think that this one applies since the dummy neither receives nor generates signals at any frequency. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: wo...@sensormatic.com[SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Reply To: wo...@sensormatic.com Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:29 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Odd CE Marking Question If the product does not include the power source, the LVD does not apply since the source voltage is not within the range covered by the directive. If the power source is included with the product, the LVD applies to the complete product, and I would say that EN 60950 applies. The EMC directive applies to all electrical equipment. I would not classify this product as a security device since it's primary function is not to protect persons or property; rather, the primary function is to blink an LED. You have no control over what people will infer from that light. Therefore, the generic emissions and immunity standards apply as do the power line harmonics and flicker standards. I believe that it can be safely said that, based upon inspection of the product and its schematic, there is no need to perform tests, just declare compliance with the standards and place your justifications in the technical file. Perhaps, the cleanest method would be to ask a Notified Body for an opinion and place it in the technical file. -- From: Kevin Harris Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:04 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Odd CE Marking Question Hello Group, I just had a question posed to me that made me think a little bit. So I will pose it to all of you. First some preamble. A device is going to be made for the European market. It is in fact a dummy device in that it looks like the real thing but it is not. The only electronics inside is a bridge rectifier and a RC circuit to blink a LED. The device can be powered by either an AC or DC source up to 30 V. The power source is not supplied. For this industry (security) there is a product family standard for EMC. The device is not a mock up for store display purposes but is in fact used in the industry to give the impression that there are more of these devices around than there really are. So the moment has arrived, do you CE mark the device? If you say yes, what directive did you apply? If you say no, what is your reasoning? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.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: 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, --- 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, application/ms-tnef
RE: FLAME RATING OF STANDOFFS
Terry, I believe that the emphasis is on traceability of what the part actually is. We have noticed that UL field inspectors are lately no longer accepting good faith explanations, but require actual proof. The UL field office actually issued some letters regarding this intention some time back. If on this particular UL Procedure you have a certain standoff that requires to be insulated with a known flammability rating, you may have 2 avenues to explore: 1. Have the UL inspection done at the manufacturing location where this standoff is assembled onto your PC card. In that location should also be present immediate packaging containers that would identify what this non Recognized standoff is.Then the standoff manufacturer's specifications should identify the flammability information of this part. If that flammability information is not available, then you are left to challenge the original UL engineering decision that this particular standoff needs to be insulated.This topic has been covered adequately by Rich Nute and others earlier.(I've been horribly busy the last two days and am only now reading my e-mail.) 2. What if you fitted the standoff with a UL Recognized sleeving where the information is printed on this tubing or sleeving?Obviously, this change you would have to submit to UL. I think it would be worth while exploring. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Terry Meck [mailto:tjm...@accusort.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:44 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: FLAME RATING OF STANDOFFS Hi group! I need a sanity check on a `new approach' our safety agency has recently taken. We have an open frame power supply ( has all the certs through the CB report etc. for EN 60950 UL 1950 ) On of the conditions of acceptability is one mounting standoff shall be insulated. We have this supply in no less then 4 listed products without any reference to the flame rating of the standoff having to be checked when the inspector comes in. I consider that to be reasonable. section 4.4.3.3 UL 1950 has exception: gears, cams, belts, bearings and other small parts which would contribute negligible fuel to a fire; Recently new products have been reviewed and the new procedures require `traceable 94V-2' standoffs!?!? Which manufacturing engineering says is difficult to procure a traceable recognized plastic standoff. Questions: Has my fever and pneumonia the past weeks clouded my reasoning? What am I missing? You place a .5 inch #6 standoff between a V-0 board and a medal chassis what requires a recognized part except maybe `straining out the gnats so we can swallow the camel' somewhere else. Sick and Tired Terry J. Meck Senior Compliance / Test Engineer Accu-Sort Systems --- 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: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Thank you, Penny. I appreciate being updated. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Penny D. Robbins [mailto:probb...@telcordia.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:56 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Tania- That is not true- Telcordia can do all of the tests in house including the airborne contaminants that you speak of and has been doing them for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but I beleive the original question here was whether there were any labs in Europe or Asia that could do the tests, not who in the US can do them. Penny Grant, Tania (Tania) tgr...@lucent.com on 01/18/2001 03:53:53 PM Please respond to Grant, Tania (Tania) tgr...@lucent.com To: 'Naftali Shani' nsh...@catena.com, 'Chris Collin' globalass...@altavista.com cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Penny D. Robbins/Telcordia) Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, Just be careful. Many labs say they will do it, but end up sub-contracting the various tests to other labs. Depending upon the nature of your equipment, not all labs will have the facilities to perform the fire tests, earthquake, vibration, etc.. Thus, you may find out that your equipment still will be shipped to various places to have these tests done. I don't know if things have changed, but very recently, for example, the air contaminants tests could only be performed at the Battelle Institute in the U.S. In my estimation, Underwriters Laboratories in Norhbrook, Illinois (U.S.) have the best facilities for fire tests.My position would be, if I have to ship product somewhere, I would like to ship to a lab that could perform most of the tests at their premises and reliably sub-contract out the rest. The key word here, is reliably. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:56 AM To: 'Chris Collin' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more). Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin or Gonen Usishkin. Feel free to post your findings. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.altavista.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 --- 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
RE: OEM Issues (EU context)
Oh boy! I do think you have a potential can of worms here. I'll try and take this one by one, my responses preceded by TG: * ...then re-label it with our own label, make only minor physical changes, document the product and sell it in the EU. TG: I don't think that you can legally re-brand someone else's product without their permission. Are you also attaching their existing regulatory approval labels that are now associated with your name? That is misrepresentation, or worse. Regarding ...minor physical changes..., you may be sabotaging the power supply's existing safety approvals. * In the event that the unit's conformance to the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive (89/336/EEC) or to the Low Voltage Directive (73/23/EEC) is challenged, who is liable to represent the product? TG: You are, since you are placing it on the market. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: wmf...@aol.com [ mailto:wmf...@aol.com mailto:wmf...@aol.com ] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 7:03 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: OEM Issues (EU context) Similar to the 'SAFETY LISTING' thread this week: As a manufacturer of electrical equipment, we purchase another manuf's power supply, CE-marked by them with a copy of their Declaration of Conformance. We then re-label it with our own label, make only minor physical changes, document the product and sell it in the EU. In the event that the unit's conformance to the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive (89/336/EEC) or to the Low Voltage Directive (73/23/EEC) is challenged, who is liable to represent the product? My guess is that we are ast least as responsible as the 'manufacturer', above, but mine is not a legal opinion. Anyone out there (especially on the continent)in a position to offer advice on how I should proceed? Many thanks. WmFlanigan --- 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: OSHA
Ken, Regarding frequency of inspection, my sarcastic response (with a spritz of reality) is that this depends on the budget that our Congress gives them, which will vary year to year. In the past CAL-OSHA (the California arm of OSHA) was very aggressive in workplace inspections. Nowadays, you don't even hear of CAL-OSHA, and I am not even sure that it exists as an entity. The federal OSHA recently (last 10 years or so) has become more visible on paper as to its requirements, but I don't have a feel as to its enforcement. What I read in the papers, it seems to be only in a reactive and not proactive mode. Try their web site. http://www.osha.gov http://www.osha.gov Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Matsuda, Ken [ mailto:matsu...@curtisinst.com mailto:matsu...@curtisinst.com ] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 10:08 AM To: EMC Posting (E-mail) Subject: OSHA Greetings !! As you are well aware of, especially in the U.S., regulatory compliance is becoming more of a liability matter than anything else, and often times our disciplines cross over into other areas, such as OSHA and CFR compliance. Does anyone know of any good information in regards to OSHA requirements? For instance, does OSHA audit every company, or just those that workplace injuries are reported? What kind of inspection do they perform? Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ken Matsuda --- 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: Calibration labs
Many calibration labs will do only specific test instruments. One general lab for standard electrical/electronic instrumentation is SE Laboratories in San Jose, California 408-727-3286 www.selabs.com Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 11:50 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Calibration labs Our EMC equipment is calibrated by Liberty Labs (not in California) and we have been very happy with their pricing and service. Richard Woods -- From: Brian Tan [SMTP:briant20002...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:12 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Calibration labs Hello; I am looking for a good calibration laboratory to perform the yearly calibration for our instruments. Can anyone tell me which one has good reputation in the California? Right now, we use a lab called Precision Measurement in Northern California and that lab doesn't do a good job. Thanks in advance. Brian __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.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: FCC Part 15 Class B
While it is true that all personal computers destined for the home user must be Class B and therefore, Certified, it is not true that any device that meets Class B limits must, as a consequence, also be Certified. Thus, if the device falls into the product category under FCC Verification (professional and other equipment not destined for the home user and not available for general distribution in retail stores) such devices (as FCC is wont to call them!) can be verified as meeting Class B limits. We have seen in the past Intel and IBM high-end industrial PCs that have been verified as meeting Class B limits, at a time when you still had to mention the Class in the mandatory verification markings on the product. However, you never saw these PCs available in your local computer/electronic store. Those of us in the industry that use such PCs are very pleased that they meet Class B limits even if legally (per FCC) they don't have to. Thus, such PCs could still be marked as verified to Class A limits; however, if they meet Class B, why not state so. If you've got it, flaunt it! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Dan Kinney (A) [mailto:dan.kin...@heapg.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:56 AM To: Courtland Thomas; emcpost Subject: RE: FCC Part 15 Class B 47CFR Part 15 Subpart B, paragraph 15.101(a) would lead you believe so. Within the table, under Type of device, it says Other Class B digital devices and peripherals. - Verification. Dan Kinney -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [SMTP:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 1:20 PM To: emcpost Subject: FCC Part 15 Class B Hello Group, I would like to know if it is permissible to self verify to Class B for ITE. I know it can be done for Class A, but I am not sure about Class B. The interesting thing is that I posed the question to a contact at the FCC and the answer I got was No idea. Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ???
Chris, Per your description, your Current Transformer is in a safety circuit. The fact that normally you do not have high voltages on the primary side does not cut it. (Besides, what is high voltage???) You have several choices (in order of what my preference would be, and money being no object!). However, if I misunderstood you, and your transformer is NOT in a safety circuit, then all you need to do is to prove to UL that this is the case;-- it should be obvious from your schematics. 1. Since the transformer manufacturer already is using a UL coordinated/approved insulation system, it would not take much more money for him to submit this particular transformer to UL. Your company probably should pay for the UL submittal costs, but the manufacturer should pay for UL factory inspections. This way, you are off the hook when he changes construction;-- he has to maintain compliance at all costs, and you don't need to know the details as to how he does this. 2. If the manufacturer is very stubborn for some reason, and does not want to do the above, tell him you will submit the transformer, however, you will need complete construction details that he will have to provide you. Since this is a custom design, he should not mind this. Thus, you pay directly to UL for this evaluation. However, you also designate the manufacturing location the address of your vendor, not your own. (This is not the same as split inspection.) Here, you have more of a headache: you pay for UL factory inspections;-- whenever anything is wrong UL writes you letters about it, since you are the listee and applicant. Thus, you know every time your vendor trips up. Be sure to tell him that now you will have this knowledge! 3. You submit this transformer to UL as described in 2 above, but do not designate the vendor as the manufacturing location. Now you have a very big headache. Whenever the vendor changes construction, you don't know anything about this, and then you get a spiffy UL field inspector who demands that you saw the transformer in half so that he can measure the spacings and count the number of windings! (Don't ever fall for this! You need a laboratory special saw to do this correctly.) I would never never choose this last option! Thus, number 1 is your best choice even if your company has to pay up-front costs for the UL evaluation-- after all, it is a custom design! However, you save money and time down the road. I hope I have given you some justifications for your decision. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Chris Wells [mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:20 PM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: UL rec. needed on custom transformer ??? Question - What is the simplest, least expensive, way to define an isolation transformer used in a UL508 (or similar standard) recognized product? The transformer is a custom design made by a magnetics vendor for use in our industrial products. The product is manufactured under a UL coordinated insulation system or recipe. Do I need the manufacture to obtain a UL construction file? I am concerned about managing our UL inspections since I can not prove the construction at our sight. What is the best way to handle the inspection issues? I run into this issue with some of our switch mode power supply isolation transformers. Typically these have a construction file. But I have been told that I don't always need to do this. I am confused! Details - My latest application is a Current Transformer used in power distributions systems. A power main transformer steps down the supply current to 0-5 Amp and then the CT in my product steps this down again to mA range for measurement purposes. These CTs in my product become referenced safety barriers in the UL product file but do not normally have high voltages on the primary. My magnetics vendor says I do not need the construction file but I do not see how I can get a split inspection with UL inspecting the CT at the vendor, with out this. Is there another way? Guidance on this topic would be most appreciated. Thank you Chris Wells Senior Des Eng. cdwe...@stargate.net mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net Cutler-Hammer 412 490 6862 --- 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: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?)
Thank you, Mel, I always try to persuade transformer manufacturers to obtain their own UL Recognition so that I don't have to ask for their construction details. However, since many or most signal transformers are custom or semi-custom parts, X-former manufacturers don't always want the expense of submitting such to various NRTLs. My experience has been that if the transformer is UL Recognized, UL states that in our report, and that's the end of it. However, if the transformer is NOT UL Recognized, then we have to provide samples to UL (to destruct and unwind!) and provide complete construction details, at which point all this information is printed out in OUR UL report. So, the details are out for all to see. I'll bet the same thing happens in CB reports on mains transformers. I think that the CB Scheme should up-date their process and establish their own CB database instead of requiring hard copies of CB reports to be included with our CB reports. (My last CB report is 3 inches thick!!! I have CB reports within CB reports. Where will this stop!) Sorry for getting off the subject. My latest hot button are CB reports;-- there's got to be a better way. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Mel Pedersen [ mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com ] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 3:11 PM To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'Loop, Robert' Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?) On Component Recognition: 1) I can certainly sympathize with an NRTL reserving the right to reject another NRTL's component recognition/certification. After all, an NRTL has the right and RESPONSIBITY to protect the integrity of its mark. It seems to me an NRTL listing equipment may be a bit foolish if it does not at least give a cursory review to the report of the NRTL giving component recognition...No NRTL is perfectcertainly some are better than others. (A certain popular NRTL I find myself having to constantly babysitsome of its offices and engineers are VERY good, but the other 50% I have dealt with were incompetent to the point of abysmal absurdity...I have had issues with its own engineers not accepting another offices (same NRTL) component certification because the two different offices (remember - SAME NRTL) had a different Interpretation on a matter. One office would be obviously wrong...this happened more than once...cost our company and our CUSTOMERS a LOT of time and money...I will say no more). It would be nice, however, if there was more of a spirit of cooperations between the various NRTL'sIn the case of component certification/recognition, it seems that BOTH the NRTL granting the component certification, and the NRTL granting the equipment listing (UL terminology here) would have a long term interest in trying to minimize thier customers testing costs headache. Especially these days, when its necessary to make every penny count. A spirit of cooperation would go a long way here. I have had a few experiences with Wyle myself, and the few I have had left me with a good impression of Wyle regarding this issue. I have never give Wyle my business only because they are not nearly as accepted at the component level as UL CSA. 2) Being that I work at a component manufacturer, I can sympathize with your suppliers who are tight fisted with thier UL reports. Certainly, it is silly to think that a modem manufacturer, for example, is only asking for my UL report in order to go into competition against me, a transformer manufacturer. But there ARE certain companies out there which have no sense of propriety, and hand our design information off to cheap competitors. Then we are in a position of providing these companies free engineering support. We like our jobs, but we have to eat too. (In my experience, Tania, your company has not been one of these, this is not a jab against your organization.) But understand, after being repeatedly burned...a component supplier can get paranoid. My company typically is not extremely free in sharing our UL or CB reports with our customer. Not that we NEVER share our UL reports, but we just like to be sure first. One option when dealing with a supplier who does not wish to share UL report, is to ask if they would be willing to share thier UL reports directly with your NRTL Engineer. This way, your NRTL Engineer gets the information he/she needs, and your supplier has little reason for suspicion. Just my humble thoughts on the matter. Regards, Mel Pedersen -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [ mailto:tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com ] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 1:07 PM To: 'Loop, Robert' Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?) Importance: High Thank you
RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?)
Supervisor Wyle Laboratories Product Safety ph - (256) 837-4411 x313 fax- (256) 721-0144 e-mail: rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com -- From: Grant, Tania (Tania)[SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com] Reply To: Grant, Tania (Tania) Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 5:37 PM To: 'duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL Importance: High All right, let's get specific here and actually use some names! UL has a Mutual Recognition Agreement with CSA to accept each other's test reports. This agreement also specifies details about how they conduct the various tests (it used to be that earth leakage current measurements were performed differently by the two agencies). The agreement also allows them to harmonize standards, and many have been harmonized since the MRA was first signed. Where the standards still differ, my understanding is that both UL and CSA will perform both sets of test to satisfy both agencies' requirements. I am not aware that MRAs exist between the different NRTLs. And how is one NRTL going to know whether the test procedures are the same between the different NRTLs? In other words, there is no allegiance between them. And yes, they do compete. But so did UL and CSA, but now they sing the same tune. Any NRTL mark is good, per OSHA and the U.S. NEC, for end-use product. But if you are incorporating components and other equipment into your systems, you need to specify your expectations when you purchase parts. We specify X NRTL and we get that. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [ mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com ] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 3:58 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL Group, What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B' Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are deemed 'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions of acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark they are all of equal standing. Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL B. The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no problems (in all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed) So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what happens next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get the whole lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject anothers recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as competition! Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to resolve it without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised component. Any comments would be greatly recieved. Regards, Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer Snell and Wilcox Ltd. --- 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: Got another beef about an NRTL....
All right, let's get specific here and actually use some names! UL has a Mutual Recognition Agreement with CSA to accept each other's test reports. This agreement also specifies details about how they conduct the various tests (it used to be that earth leakage current measurements were performed differently by the two agencies). The agreement also allows them to harmonize standards, and many have been harmonized since the MRA was first signed. Where the standards still differ, my understanding is that both UL and CSA will perform both sets of test to satisfy both agencies' requirements. I am not aware that MRAs exist between the different NRTLs. And how is one NRTL going to know whether the test procedures are the same between the different NRTLs? In other words, there is no allegiance between them. And yes, they do compete. But so did UL and CSA, but now they sing the same tune. Any NRTL mark is good, per OSHA and the U.S. NEC, for end-use product. But if you are incorporating components and other equipment into your systems, you need to specify your expectations when you purchase parts. We specify X NRTL and we get that. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [ mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com ] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 3:58 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL Group, What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B' Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are deemed 'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions of acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark they are all of equal standing. Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL B. The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no problems (in all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed) So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what happens next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get the whole lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject anothers recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as competition! Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to resolve it without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised component. Any comments would be greatly recieved. Regards, Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer Snell and Wilcox Ltd. --- 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: Got another beef about an NRTL....
My understanding is that NRTL marks are supposed to have equal value for adherence to National Electrical Code and OSHA requirements. In other words,-- this is O.K. for end-use applications only.However, this is as far as it goes. Nowhere does it state that NRTL X has to accept NRTL's Y marked equipment, especially when incorporated into a composite system that NRTL X is evaluating and where their mark will bless the complete system. My recommendation is, if you have other NRTL marked equipment than the one you are dealing with, call your NRTL first before springing such a surprise on them. Depending upon the agency, they may or may not accept part of the report from the other NRTL. Did you know that some 10 years ago, the German VDE safety agency would NOT necessarily accept the also German TUV Rheinland test reports of components (such as fans, filters, power supplies) that were incorporated in your equipment?? Much to my chagrin, I found that out. (We quickly replaced fans!) Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:58 AM To: 'duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL Duncan, I've had the scenario with my end product (very simple product - metal enclosure, SELV printed circuit, 150W Recognized component Power Supply, Recognized Input module. That's it.) I had it listed with NRTL B. Market pressure forced me to get NRTL A's listing mark - to the same standard. NRTL A would not accept ANY data (not just test data, even part number info - I had to send the complete package again). While I don't like to pay twice for the same thing, and while I was exposed to what amounted to be different interpretations (between the NRTLs) of the specifications causing great frustration . . . I looked at it from a different point of view. Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with you, and I wish they had an MRA between them - it would save a lot of time, money, and frustration . . . but I can see NRTL A's point. If a customer came to me with a product and wanted it listed with my mark, before I put MY mark on it (which, historically, most consumers consider a quality indicator) I would make damn sure that the product was compliant, lest I incur the wrath if it fails. I wouldn't take anyone's word for it (report or not) and rubber stamp it. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [ mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com ] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:58 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL Group, What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B' Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are deemed 'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions of acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark they are all of equal standing. Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL B. The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no problems (in all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed) So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what happens next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get the whole lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject anothers recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as competition! Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to resolve it without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised component. Any comments would be greatly recieved. Regards, Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer Snell and Wilcox Ltd. --- 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
RE: Got another beef about an NRTL....
Chris, The NRTL mark is not for your pleasure and convenience. It is for consumers who don't want their Christmas lights to light up their whole house. And it also is for whatever local authorities that want to go after the negligent manufacturer to recall product and/or bring him to justice. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [ mailto:chr...@gnlp.com mailto:chr...@gnlp.com ] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 10:47 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL This argument highlights why I like the self-declaration route to conformance. If I was NRTL A, I would be VERY cautious about accepting data from NRTL B for a product that will be sold with my (NRTL A) mark on it. I beleive that the system is much more practical when self declaration is used. Then, we as the manufacturer take responsibility for selecting an approved part (approved by NRTL A). We then take responsibility for either selecting an accredited lab (for instance, NRTL B) to test the entire product or we test the product in house using approved equipment and methods. We then self declare our product based upon sound engineering test data, regardless of whether it's from NRTL A, NRTL B or Sam's Discount Compliance Lab (assuming Sam is accredited). I don't even bother with putting the NRTL's mark on the product. After all, if there is a problem, the customer is coming after my company (maybe even me), not the NRTL. Also, most NRTL's limit their liability by saying that they have only performed a type test on a single unit, ... (insert lots of legal blah, blah, blah here) So, why should I worry about an NRTL's legal anxiety about putting their mark on my product? I'm not sure what protection it affords my company (as suming we already have test data from an accredited lab). In the end, Duncan. If I was in your position, I would ask your NRTL to produce a sound ENGINEERING, not legal, not commercial reason that your NRTL should not accept the other NRTL's data. I would also consider reminding them that their mark on your product is a form of free advertising for them and that your product would look just as good to a customer with the other NRTL's mark on it. (Maybe that's a little harsh). I would also consider the option of self declaration (if possible) it may lessen your NRTL's anxiety enough that they would accept the other NRTL's data. I caution that, if you consider self declaration, you really need to know that the product is safe and the NRTL is only holding out to either protect their name or jack up their invoice. This would be a hard call to make. My experience is that the laboratory and its personnel that I have dealt with are sincere when they have a concern about one of our products. Good luck Chris The views expressed here are mine alone, neither my employer or any NRTL is taking responsibility for them :-) -Original Message- From:John Juhasz [SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent:Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:58 AM To: 'duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL Duncan, I've had the scenario with my end product (very simple product - metal enclosure, SELV printed circuit, 150W Recognized component Power Supply, Recognized Input module. That's it.) I had it listed with NRTL B. Market pressure forced me to get NRTL A's listing mark - to the same standard. NRTL A would not accept ANY data (not just test data, even part number info - I had to send the complete package again). While I don't like to pay twice for the same thing, and while I was exposed to what amounted to be different interpretations (between the NRTLs) of the specifications causing great frustration . . . I looked at it from a different point of view. Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with you, and I wish they had an MRA between them - it would save a lot of time, money, and frustration . . . but I can see NRTL A's point. If a customer came to me with a product and wanted it listed with my mark, before I put MY mark on it (which, historically, most consumers consider a quality indicator) I would make damn sure that the product was compliant, lest I incur the wrath if it fails. I wouldn't take anyone's word for it (report or not) and rubber stamp it. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [ mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com ] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:58 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL Group, What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B' Firstly any components or equipment recognised
RE: Got a beef with an NRTL ...
Doug, A long long time ago, and not with the present company, I was submitting a new product very similar to one that was already UL Listed (using the same chassis, enclosure, and power supply) but with different cards installed, when.. .during UL testing and evaluation at our facility we first smelled something burning, then we saw a wisp of smoke, then, immediately the smoke turned to a dark 3-inch column, at which point I literally pulled the plug! The UL inspector stood up, looked at me and said there was nothing left for him to do, and to call him when we were ready to perform some serious tests. After swallowing my embarrassment and doing some research I noticed that the power supply specifications stated that it required x-amount of clearance on at least three sides. In the first Listed model, that was the case, and the product had no problem going through all the UL tests. In the second instance, the cards in the card cage were right against the power supply and shut off that required clearance. Thus, we literally choked the supply so that it overheated. The moral: don't get cocky just because you have passed UL tests with one version and therefore neglect to perform preliminary test with a new configuration. I know,-- time was of the essence and the schedule was pushing us rather than us pulling the schedule. Well, we quickly found another power supply, since the cards could not be moved because they were in a dedicated location, I performed preliminary tests to make sure everything was O.K., and called the UL engineer back. A lot of hard work, but it was worth it. (Do it right the first time!) This is just one graphic example why a Recognized component needs to be further evaluated in each and every application. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Doug [ mailto:dmck...@gte.net mailto:dmck...@gte.net ] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:11 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Got a beef with an NRTL ... The cert house which approved the power supply is the - exact same one - to which we took our product. I do not want to get any more specific about which NRTL it is for some obvious legal reasons. Apologize for the vagueness. I'm getting some good replies from people. But I can't for the life of me figure out why when a component is approved for a certain application and that component is used in that certain application, the approval for the component is rejected. The grounds for rejection is based on the fact that an AC fuse is being used for input protection inside the power supply. That point I can understand. But, the use of an AC fuse in the input should have been rejected when the power supply first was tested. - Doug --- 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: Got a beef with an NRTL ...
I agree with Stephen, except that I would exert a great deal of my energy to have this corrected by the power supply manufacturer, -- and fast! The manufacturer is in danger of loosing your business unless this gets resolved. Try to resolve this in parallel, assuming it is the same NRTL: address this issue with your NRTL certifying engineer and at the same time have the manufacturer work the issue with their cert engineer. Request that both NRTL engineers talk to each other. When the issue is resolved, your cert engineer should be able to give you a completed report a day or so later after the manufacturer gets his report corrected. The assumption is that both NRTL engineers proceed with their work per the agreement, and the first formal approval immediately toggles your formal approval. This approach worked for me several times. If it is not the same NRTL, having both cert engineers talking to each other will not work. You are now working serially, and this will take time. However, I still think that this will be faster rather than going to another NRTL entirely and starting from scratch, or using another power supply in your product (probably will take even longer!). Another option,-- you might want to consider taking your product to the same NRTL as the power supply manufacturer and forcing them to correct this issue. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:07 AM To: Doug; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: Got a beef with an NRTL ... Doug, You don't say for certain, but can we assume that the fact that the NTRL even knew of the internal fuse's limitations - that you and the ps company used the very same NRTL, including the same office? Or is this a case of one NRTL not accepting the 'interpretation' of another? Also, are you sure there are no CofA's on this supply? I require a copy of the UL and CB reports for every power supply, in an effort to avoid issues approaching this. It sounds very scary. I'd be pretty darn mad too! I'd direct some of that energy at the ps manufacturer as well as the NRTL. Best regards, Stephen At 12:42 PM 10/19/00 Thursday , Doug wrote: I'm just about ready to escalate this issue. Issue: Major NRTL has recognized a DC-DC power supply. Said ps is being used within the confines of it's stated purpose, input power, output power, temps, etc ... Said product is submitted to NRTL for what appeared to be a walk through. Oh no, Mr. McKean. You can't use THAT power supply as intended. Input fuse of power supply (that is the fuse INSIDE the power that is out of our hands) is an AC fuse. It should be a DC fuse. (From the documentation from the ps mfr, the approval was done with the aC rated fuse.) You have to either: 1. have the ps mfr change the input fuse. or 2. drop an in-line fuse between the power inlet of the product and the input of the ps. EXCUSE ME!?! How the heck can a power supply mfr get NRTL approval on one hand and, yet, when that power supply is used within it's intended and stated purpose, get rejected? Even bringing this to the attention of the test engineer (who has approx over 10 years experience as a test eng) it defaults to - well, that's just because the OTHER test engineer interpreted it that way ... I can understand and have been in those areas of interpretation with NRTLs, but this one really ... er ... surprises me. Yours truly and totally confused, Doug --- 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: Source for doing MTBF Calculations
Mike, I have a 1996 posting to this list that provides several resources. See attached Word document below: Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Mike Campi [ mailto:mike.ca...@setengineering.com mailto:mike.ca...@setengineering.com ] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 2:26 PM To: Emc/Pstc (E-mail) Subject: Source for doing MTBF Calculations I hope that someone in this group can help me find this information. I have been asked to find an outside source or company that can do MTBF reports. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks, Mike Campi EMI Engineer Set Engineering, Inc. V(408) 778-6238, F(408) 778-6288 --- 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 CALC.DOC Description: MS-Word document
RE: Application of agency safety markings
I want to thank all those who responded to my query. This question was posed to me from a non-member and, since I have no experience with other NRTL's except UL, I had no definite answer to give. Also, since some members responded only the sender (myself) and not to all, I am summarizing all the responses received: The following NRTL's require that their safety mark be affixed at the specified factory locations: * CSA. So specified in the Product Service Agreement, Section 1.2(b). * Intertek Testing Service (ETL). Specified in the Listing Agreement. * Factory Mutual. Where specified was not provided. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal [mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 7:53 AM To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal; 'Lyons, Jim'; 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings Sorry folks...need more coffee today as the info I added wasn't an answer Tania's question. I've found the same requirement in the CSA Product Service agreement, section 1.2 (b). Again, my opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Sr. Product Safety Engineer -- Sanmina Canada ULC Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758) fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Gawrzyjal, Kazimier [WDC:C149:EXCH] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:47 AM To: 'Lyons, Jim'; 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings Tania, With UL, I've found the requirement to apply the listing mark at the approved factory location gets invoked in the FUS Procedure, very first page identifying the Listee, applicant and possibly the manufacturing location and the CCN (a one page document at the start of the FUS proceduresorry to the UL folks but I'm not sure what the page is called). Section General of the FUS also reflects the requirement. Finally, this requirement is further indicated in the original Follow Up Service Agreement, signed by UL and the Subscriber sections 1 and 2. I assume a similar process requirement is held by other NRTL's. Was the option of field investigations or the like explored at all? It's often more expensive and good for a one-shot type of application or quickie field deployment but it can get the job done. My 2 cents and not that of Sanmina Canada ULC. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Sr. Product Safety Engineer -- Sanmina Canada ULC Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-769-4805 (ESN 758) fax:403-769-4813 (ESN 758) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Lyons, Jim [ mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com mailto:jim.ly...@gtech.com ] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 6:44 AM To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings I recently had a situation where we had transferred some completed product to a warehouse to free up floor production space while an ETL investigation was still underway, but before we had obtained the ETL approval. ETL would not allow us to simply go to the warehouse and affix the markings even though the units were identical to the ones still on the production line, and 100% had undergone the required hipot and ground testing. We were required to transport the units back to the factory for the sole purpose of marking them. So, add ETL to the list with UL. James W. Lyons Manager - Product Compliance GTECH Corp. 55 Technology Way West Greenwich, RI 02817 Tel (401) 392-7723 Fax (401) 392-4955 Email jim.ly...@gtech.com -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [ mailto:tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com ] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:52 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Application of agency safety markings Importance: High Does anyone know whether NRTLs, other than UL, have the requirement that their labels must only be applied at the factory location? And if so, is this an urban legend, or is this actually specified somewhere in writing? I know and respect UL's position but I was wondering whether other NRTLs in this country have the same requirement. Any replies or experience you might have had are welcome! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
Application of agency safety markings
Does anyone know whether NRTLs, other than UL, have the requirement that their labels must only be applied at the factory location? And if so, is this an urban legend, or is this actually specified somewhere in writing? I know and respect UL's position but I was wondering whether other NRTLs in this country have the same requirement. Any replies or experience you might have had are welcome! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions application/ms-tnef
RE: IEC950 in Russian
Peter, IEC standards used to be available in the English, French, German, and Russian languages. Whether that is still true, I don't know (did the Russians pay their dues to the IEC ???). I recommend that you address this question to the IEC in Brussels, Belgium. If it is available, you should be able to purchase it from them. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [ mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il ] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 4:44 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: IEC950 in Russian Hello All, Does anyone know where I can obtain an IEC 950 Standard in the Russian language? Thanks Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY! --- 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: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Paolo, Physics does work the same on both side of the Atlantic, but human rationale does not necessarily! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: Paolo Roncone[SMTP:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] Reply To: Paolo Roncone Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 3:51 AM To: 'Ken Javor'; 'Cortland Richmond' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Ken and Cortland and many others that entered this subject : First, radiated emissions are best measured with radiated (not conducted) measurements. There is a correlation between CM currents and RE but that's not all (resonances, cable layout etc. count a lot). Second, you say that CE are easier to measure than RE ? Agree if you talk about emissions on AC power cords (as per CISPR22 and FCC part 15). But for the new requirements on telecom ports, I suggest you to take a look at the new (3.ed.) CISPR22 or EN55022 (sec. 9.5 + annex C.1) and may be you change your opinion ! Radiated emissions above 30 MHz are already covered. If you wanna take care of lower frequencies ( 30 MHz) take a loop antenna (remember the old VDE rules ?) and measure radiated H-fields with your system in the same (typical) layout used for the higher frequencies (with whatever cables you specify, UTS, STP etc.). I am sure that is much quicker, easier and repeatable than all the nonsense (ISNs, CDNs, clamps, current probes, capacitive probes, ferrites, 150 ohm resistors, signal generators, impedance measurements, voltage measurements, current measurements and more) in the new CISPR22. As for the question of outside world, I think in this ever more connected world the border line between INSIDE and OUTSIDE is getting more and more blurred, BUT I also think that a line must be drawn by the standard bodies, otherwise it's gonna really get too much confusing (hope some CISPR/CENELEC member gets it). If we spill over the line (office, floor, building... whatever), emissions requirements are triggered. But within that line it's to be considered an intra-system (what's the system ? that's another good question to be settled) interference potential and the manufacturer should take care of it without need of enforcement because he has all the interest in making a product (system) that works properly and reliably. One last point: based on David Sterner's note, looks to me that North America has a pretty extensive Ethernet and-the-like network. I honestly don't know if the FCC has already enforced emission limits on LAN ports. Anyway, based on David's note looks like there are no complaits of interference with TV and telephones. And please note, this is the very bottom line of it. Emission limits should be intended to protect public services ... and physics works the same on both sides of the Atlantic... or not My personal opinion ... Paolo -Messaggio originale- Da: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Inviato: giovedì 7 settembre 2000 18.43 A:Paolo Roncone; 'eric.lif...@ni.com' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Oggetto: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume here 150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in the comments to which I am responding. The purpose of controlling common mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions in a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE. In turn, the purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception. -- From: Paolo Roncone paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it To: 'eric.lif...@ni.com' eric.lif...@ni.com Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 9:45 AM Hi Eric, I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be to protect the outside (i.e. public) environment from interference. So only ports that connect to public telecom networks should be covered by the standard. The problem is (as pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the new CISPR22 / EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition of telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter if they connect to the outside world or not. Regards, Paolo Roncone Compuprint s.p.a. Italy --- 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
RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test
So it took hot flaming oil to assess Rich's worth! My personal respect and gratitude goes out to Rich because he does his own empirical evaluations and tests, something that many of us either do not bother to do or do not have the bandwidth to do because we are busy pushing equipment out the door. Thank you Rich. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -- From: John Juhasz[SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Reply To: John Juhasz Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 8:16 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test I second that. Rich is indeed and asset to this board . . . . Thank you Rich. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: pgodf...@icomply.com [ mailto:pgodf...@icomply.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 9:42 AM To: ri...@sdd.hp.com; kmccormick...@hotmail.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Hot Flaming Oil Test Rich, As many times in the past, I have found your explanation very concise, interesting and informative (noting your 'disclaimer'). Thanks for sharing this with all of us. Phil Godfrey -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 4:13 PM To: kmccormick...@hotmail.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Hot Flaming Oil Test Hi Ken: The standards specify the oil as being: distillate fuel oil which is a medium volitile distillate having a mass per unit volume between 0.845 g/ml and 0.865 g/ml, a flash point between 43.5C and 93.5C and an average calorific value of 38MJ/l. I've found that this is equivalent to ordinary diesel fuel or #2 fuel (heating) oil. I've bought The tools for performing this test in almost any kitchen goods store: all-metal ladle with side-lip (for pouring the oil) large aluminum-foil roasting pan (to contain the poured oil) I found that the standard kitchen ladle was not configured for this test, so I chose an all-metal ladle so I could bend the handle to better suit a controlled pour. The height of the ladle above the holes under test must be controlled to 100 mm. The height is critical to pass/fail. I found that I could better control this parameter by using a rest for the ladle handle adjusted for 100 mm above the holes. The rate of pour is also critical to pass/fail. You should practice the pour several times. I found a big help if someone counted the seconds aloud for me as I poured. (You can't watch a clock and watch the pour at the same time!) The cheesecloth must be located 50 mm below the openings under test. I found that it was best to suspend or support the cheesecloth above the bottom of the pan so as to prevent saturation with the oil collecting in the bottom of the pan. I also used a dam of plumber's putty on the test panel to prevent the oil from spilling over the edge of the test panel. This helps control spilling the oil outside the roasting pan. The test panel needs to be independently supported and level so as to allow the oil to collect over the holes. Note that you are dealing with 3 parameters: hole diameter hole-to-hole spacing metal thickness All of these are critical to pass/fail. As near as I can tell, the process of passing the test is that of cooling the flaming oil by the heat-sinking action of the metal, and by quenching the flame as the oil passes through the hole (i.e., the oil fills the hole such that no oxygen can pass through the hole with the oil and sustain the burning as the oil emerges from the bottom of the metal). Note that you get to repeat the test for a total of 3 successes in succession. Due to the variablility of the test, if you get some passes and some fails, keep testing until you get 3 passes in succession! You'll find that passing is a matter of controlling the test parameters, especially the location above the holes, the rate of pour, and the pour height. Be sure to perform the test in a suitable area such as a fume hood. Also, be prepared to deal with spilled oil, and with spilled burning oil. Have someone standing by with a fire extinguisher at the ready. In the event of a failure, you'll need it to extinguish the oil in the pan (otherwise, it will burn for a long time!). By the way, the hole patterns (Table 15) specified as acceptable in the standard do not necessarily pass the test! Good luck! Let us know how you do! Best regards, Rich ps: Note that the oil will not ignite at room temperature. You can dunk a match
RE: EN60950 Military standard equivalent
Joe, UL 1950, 3rd edition, has been adopted by the Department of Defense on December 21, 1994. That takes care of the US military.Don't know anything about the rest of the world. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Joel Mandel [SMTP:joel_men...@teledata.co.il] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 3:10 AM To: Liste emc-pstc Subject: EN60950 Military standard equivalent Hi All I am looking for a safety standard such as EN60950 for the Military Industry. Thanks Joel Mandel Compliance ADC Teledata --- 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: Return: Rack populating?
So, how do you know that emissions from identical modules are not additive, unless you test?. And, didn't the FCC say in the past (or still states in the present?) that there is no need to hang additional cables all of the same type as long as emissions are not raised by more than 2 dB!Again, how do you know unless you test. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: wmf...@aol.com [SMTP:wmf...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 12:29 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Return: Rack populating? I began this thread by asking if a rack passed emissions profiling with 1 unit, is it necessary to fully populate it with (say) 4 units to demonstrate emissions compliance. I've located the reference I remembered reading...CISPR 11:1997+A1:1999 (of all things!) Under 6.4.1: 'A system which contains a number of identical equipments, but has been evaluated using only one of those equipments, does not require further evaluation if the initial evaluation was satisfactory' followed by a NOTE which says that emissions from identical modules are not additive. Any comments? In practice, I'm inclined to test to the full installation anyway, since I generally 'learn' so much about the integrated system during compliance testing... WmFlanigan Standards Engineer Ameritherm Inc Scottsville, NY --- 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: Rack populating??-Rationalize it !!
Whatever the standards say, the reality is that in certain circuits, the addition of more of the same type cards or cables will produce higher emissions.From personal experience, I have changed tests reports to state exactly the number of cables attached (or cards inserted) that give passing results, but fail when one more is added! Here is where your integrity comes to a test. Do you provide equipment to your customers with 16 slots available, when you can only pass with 10 slots installed?Needless to say, you will loose your customers sooner than later. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: chasgra...@aol.com [SMTP:chasgra...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:33 PM To: jestuc...@micron.com; wmf...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: e...@emcinteg.com Subject: Re: Rack populating??-Rationalize it !! Methinks I must protest against the keep adding until no more than xdB. As near as I can tell that was put in place by the FCC and others to minimize cable bundles - I cannot see how that applies to rack systems. The fundamental truth is that - no matter how one rationalizes it - if the full system is not tested then you flat have no idea what the real emissions profile is. Come on stop rationalizing - admit that there will be systems in the field that fail - and move on. This is a byproduct of volume vs test. The higher the volume the more rationalization takes place (witness the Class B procedures) until the emissions standards will be rendered irrelevant. --- 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: Implanted IC in brain
Years ago, one of the storage devices at the company I worked for, had a motor-start capacitor on the AC fan (that's how long ago it was!). This fan was an alternate vendor and we did not have many of them, and conveniently, this particular fan was not part of the configuration that went through EMC testing.Guess what! We received a complaint from one of our customers that the heart monitor tapes that were sent back from patients to this medical facility were being wiped out when placed on top of our desk-high storage device. (Yes, they should not have used our product as a convenient shelf, but there are no excuses!) We traced this back to the magnetic interference of this particular motor-start capacitor, and promptly purged these fans, apologized to the customer, sent replacements, etc. Yes, -- If we start implanting devices, we must make sure that we not wipe out another implanted device. This regulatory game can get very interesting! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Anil Allamaneni [SMTP:a...@acc.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 9:26 PM To: EMC PSTC; Barry Ma Subject: RE: Implanted IC in brain I remember reading the news article about the British Professor who installed a chip in his forearm to control the doors, appliances etc in his house. Always wondered if he went through some kind of testing. It would not be far-fetched to imagine the time when people would consider wrist-watches, PDAs et al, too bulky to carry around and would rather prefer implanted versions of the same. Close interaction between the physicians and EMC guys is very possible in the near future as doctors and EMI guys try to fix people who are failing the limits or are causing neighbor's computer (or neighbors) to crash etc...etc. The approvals/compliance field is getting very complicated -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Barry Ma Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 5:14 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Implanted IC in brain Hi, It seems not a pure friction to implant intelligent IC into human brains. Some people made prediction about this new breed of human being. Some are talking about downloading certain virtual sense from Internet. ... Let's put aside the feasibility and focus only on related EMC/Safety concerns. 1. If there going to be a wireless access from human brain to Internet, do we have the same Safety concern as cellular phone? 2. It would also be possible to directly communicate each other via brain ICs. We don't have to exchange thoughts by means of any language (spoken and written) or eye contact. ... Should we have EMC standards to regulate the emission level of brain waves and immunity capability for brain ICs? Thanks. Best Regards, Barry Mab...@anritsu.com ANRITSUwww.anritsu.com Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Tel. 408-778-2000 x 4465 ___ $1 million in prizes! 20 daily instant winners. AltaVista Rewards: Click here to win! http://shopping.altavista.com/e.sdc?e=3 ___ --- 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: BCIQ/BSMI Product Certification
Brent, I don't know the Taiwan requirements in detail but many countries require that anything that plugs into the wall meet their own requirements and carry some sort of mark.Assuming your ac/dc adapter is a wall plug-in unit, I am not surprised that they would require testing and/or marking your product.On the other hand, our low voltage/low current product that might connect to your adapter might be exempt from the same requirements. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Compliance [SMTP:complia...@eoscorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 5:25 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: BCIQ/BSMI Product Certification Hello Group, We are currently in discussion with one of our OEMs who is insisting that we obtain BSMI/BCIQ Safety Certification on our product. We are manufacturing an AC/DC Adapter for an end product that is a typical ITE product (with a processor and I/O ports). After reviewing the List of Electronic Products that are Subject to Measures Governing Registration of Product Certification I could not locate any reference to a Safety Standard for potential categories for our equipment (8471.41.00.00). Therefore, I do not believe that the safety certification is required. On the other hand, I am aware that regulations are changing on a daily basis. If the Safety Certification IS required, I would also appreciate a recommendation on test laboratories/agents that can assist in the process. Thank you very much for your kind assistance, Brent Taira Eos Corporation --- 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: High voltage testing and altitude correction factor
John, I would ask your friendly UL engineer how they test this, especially in Denver! Since UL/ANSI is a representative to the IEC 950 committee, they might be interested whether this correction was inadvertently omitted from Clause 6.4, or was intentionally left out! And yes, we'd all be interested what UL's response would be! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Boucher, John [SMTP:j...@bighorn.dr.lucent.com] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 2:35 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: High voltage testing and altitude correction factor All: I work for a test lab located approximately one mile above sea-level, and perform product safety testing on IT and telecommunications equipment (IEC 60950 and clones). I recently tested a telecom interface PWB that failed 6.4 HV testing (case c, 1.0kv). The PWB failed at approximately 900 volts. The PWB passed a re-test performed at an altitude correction factor (0.816). I know that clause 5.3 allows for altitude correction, but the standards dont mention any correction factors with regard to clause 6.4. Have any of you good people used altitude correction for clause 6.4 testing on international products? Any comments from you agency types? (yeah, you're good people too) Thanks. John Boucher Lucent Technologies --- 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: Global Engineering Change Process
Josh, Thank you. Never heard of Agile.Can you share with us who the creator is; hopefully this is not a custom product. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Joshua Wiseman [SMTP:wiseman...@printronix.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 3:34 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Global Engineering Change Process Joe, Here at my company we use a program by the name of Agile. All ECO's, CCR's, Deviation's, Stop Ships, and so on are done through this program. The nice part about the program is that it is pretty versatile in that every change goes through the same group or board. It doesn't matter if the change is originated in the here in Ca., Singapore, or Holland. You can import drawing files from Pro E or a scanned image from a basic photo editor. All spec sheets, drawings, BOM redlines are added to the change and submitted to the board for review. Once implemented the Quality department has the responsibility of ensuring proper installation of the most current parts and Revs. It has worked well for the last 5 years or so. Regards, Josh -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 10:56 AM To: 'marti...@pebio.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Global Engineering Change Process Joe, I too would like to hear an answer on this subject as well . . . I have 'sister' companies that manufacture some or all of some of my products and I would liek to know how other complaince engineers cope . . . John Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: marti...@pebio.com [ mailto:marti...@pebio.com mailto:marti...@pebio.com ] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 12:34 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Global Engineering Change Process Associates, The following subject is not related to our normal subject matter, however, I am hoping that some of you can provide me with some useful information for establishing a global engineering change order process. Several years ago, we were a small company with all business activities located on one campus. The Engineering Change Order process was a simple one. Now, we have manufacturing facilities all over the world that are supported by engineering services in different locations. We have many joint ventures and collaborations with other companies where they build a product, yet we provide engineering support. I am sure that many of you belong to companies that are in this same situation. How do your companies deal with the Engineering Change process? All responses are appreciated. Regards Joe Martin EMC/Product Safety Engineer P.E. Biosystems --- 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: EMI test software
Dave, How much you want to bet that the designer lives near Vasona Lake, Los GatosOr perhaps he had a brainstorm design idea while relaxing and drinking beer at Vasona Lake! -- Or jogging around Vasona Lake! Whatever. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Dave Wilson [SMTP:dwil...@alidian.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:40 PM To: 'John Chan'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: EMI test software I used Vasona (check out www.emisoft.co.uk http://www.emisoft.co.uk ) and would highly recommend it both on price and performance. You can download a demo version. Although the web-site is a UK address, the designer actually lives in Los Gatos! Dave Wilson Senior Compliance Engineer Alidian Networks Inc. -Original Message- From: John Chan [mailto:jo...@baclcorp.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1:42 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMI test software Dear Sir / Madam; I am looking for a software package to run with HP8566B in a chamber. Can anyone tell me where I can buy one? Thank you in advance. Best Regards; John Chan Bay Area Compliance Laboratory Corp. (Sunnyvale, CA) Tel: (408) 732 9162 Fax: (408) 732 9164 e-mail address: jo...@baclcorp.com mailto:jo...@baclcorp.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: Evaluation Boards
Vic, I am not sure whether you are providing a product or a service. Agencies control products;-- I am not aware that they are controlling services in the ITE product category. However, assuming that you want to perform due diligence with respect to what you are providing to your customers, I believe the question should be asked,-- how are your customers using these Evaluation Boards ?Are these boards just a convenient place to mount your chips?Is there any circuitry on these boards that enables your customers to run some tests? And if there is such circuitry, what would be the test platform? Assuming that the test platform is either a PC or some test and measurement equipment, and your circuitry is designed for that specific platform, and you want to encourage your customers to buy your chips rather than someone else's because they are so good and, most important, they meet the applicable EMC limits and safety requirements, then- * you test your Evaluation Boards in that platform to the appropriate standards. However, I am not sure that legally you are required to do all of the above. I hope that someone else can shed some better wisdom on this very interesting subject. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Vic Gibling [SMTP:v...@virata.com] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 8:35 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Evaluation Boards Hi All As a chip manufacturer we provide Evaluation Boards to licencees for product development. I would appreciate any advice, guidance or comments regarding safety and emc issues with regard to these boards. Thank you. Vic Gibling v...@virata.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, Be careful.The LVD might exempt your equipment; however, if your 48 Vdc ITE has TNV connections, then you need to meet, per the old Telco or the new RTTE Directive, the essential requirements of safety, which are presumed to be met by compliance to EN60950. Alternatively, you can provide other proof that you meet the essential requirements.Believe me, it is easier to comply with EN60950 than provide this alternate proof!If your 48Vdc ITE equipment is NOT connected to TNV circuits then, by the book, you can consider it as falling outside the scope of the LVD.However, I believe that this is a foolish position to take;-- you should take a look at the European liability laws and then decide whether you want to hide under LVD dc limit exemption. The EN60950:1992, incorporating Amendments 1 through 5, states that it is applicable to mains-powered or battery-powered ITE, ...with a rated voltage not exceeding 600 V. Note that there is no mention of a minimum voltage, whether ac or dc. Thus, the ITE standard does not exempt you, however, the LVD does, assuming you want to take up this exemption. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Andrews, Kurt [SMTP:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 10:04 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment 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: EN60950, 3rd Edition, and . . .
My advise is to have your products evaluated/tested to the old and new standards, and have this documented on your test report.I've done this before with UL standards.I've not had this experience with a CB Scheme report, but I fail to see why that should not be allowed.Later, when the new standard takes effect, you are covered. It is quite likely that the difference between the two is very minimal (as far as testing is concerned) and more time is spent determining whether the delta applies to your particular product;--- but this exercise is worth while! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Ron Pickard [SMTP:rpick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:23 AM To: Carla Robinson Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EN60950, 3rd Edition, and . . . Carla et al, I had recently asked a similar question regarding IE60950 3rd Ed. and its acceptabilitty, which also included the CB Scheme. I received very little response which I think was due to many not knowing themselves. After thinking about this while this thread has now resurfaced, I feel that IEC60950 3rd will not and should not enter into the CB Scheme arena until the member countries have national/regional versions of IEC60950 3rd Ed. in place. The only region I know that is pursuing this is North America with its UL60950 3rd Ed. The rest of the regulatory standards making bodies appear to be silent regarding this (unless I've been keeping my head in the sand). This apparent reluctance to proceed may jeopardize the one-basic-standard approach the ITE community has grown familiar with. So, to all those out there with their ears to the grindstones of the standard-making bodies, is IEC60950 3rd Edition being adopted into, say, EN60950 3rd Ed. or AS/NZ 60950 3rd Ed.? Any others? Just some added questions and opinions thrown in and tossed about. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com Carla Robinson Carla_Robinson@mwTo: emc-p...@ieee.org .3com.comcc: Sent by: Subject: EN60950, 3rd Edition . . . owner-emc-pstc@iee e.org 05/15/00 08:46 AM Please respond to Carla Robinson Greetings! I am seeking information on when will the 3rd Edition of the EN60950, L.V. Directive, go into effect? When will it be ratified for the European Community? Carla Robinson 3Com Corp. 847-262-2494 carla_robin...@mw.3com.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: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Jay, How could I forget??My Orange Book (Listed and Classified Components) is starring at me from the middle of the top shelf!Thank you Jay for adding to my ramblings. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jay Johansmeier [SMTP:jay_johansme...@mw.3com.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:05 AM To: Ned Devine Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory To Ned and Group, Read it for yourself on the UL homepage. http://www.ul.com/auth/tca/v6n1/difference.htm Regards, Jay Johansmeier Regulatory Engineer 3Com Corporation Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com on 05/11/2000 10:07:26 AM Please respond to Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com Sent by: Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(Jay Johansmeier/MW/US/3Com) Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hi, OK, I wasn't going to say anything, but. 1. A UL Listed product complies with all of the applicable requirements. Usually from a standard. 2. A UL Recognized Component does not comply with all of the applicable requirements. That is why they have Conditions of Acceptability. Whether the product is a complete unit or a component is immaterial to whether it is UL Listed or Recognized Component. If it meets all of the applicable requirements, it is Listed. If not, it is a Recognized Component. Now, sometimes UL cheats on this and calls it Classified. Medical equipment is Classified to UL 2601-1. This is mostly because UL does not require you to meet all of the requirements. They say the FDA (US Government agency) covers them. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:49 AM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Jon Keeble' Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hello Tania and All Members, Al is well said, but allow me to add one additional fact. UL also Lists COMPONENTS which an electrician might use in the field; for example closed-loop connectors, quick-disconnet connectors, splicing connectors, fixture wiring, circuit breakers, outlet boxes, etc. These components undergo more rigorous testing than normal components and are always provided with installation instructions limiting the usage; for example a splicing connector may specify the exact crimping tool and the # and size of all the combination of wires to be spliced by that connector. Best Regards At 18:50 10/05/2000 -0700, Grant, Tania (Tania) wrote: John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark' is but one of many UL marks. This is the UL Recognition Mark;-- there are also UL Listing Marks, UL Classification Marks, and perhaps others that I have forgotten.And you are correct that only UL can issue UL marks.However, UL can do this based on CB Scheme reports, provided you have also complied with the U.S. National Electrical Code requirements, which are spelled out as deviation in the UL1950 standard. You should be looking at the UL1950, 3rd edition, which is also harmonized with the Canadian Standards Association and its Electrical Code. (Kill 2 birds with one stone!) Generally speaking, the UL Listing Mark is for end-use product, such as coffee pots, computers, and finished things one can generally buy in the store that perform a function.UL Recognition Marks are for components and incomplete assemblies that are to be placed inside end-use products, where their recognition still has to be evaluated in this final application. For example, power supplies, such as UPS, electronic load boxes, or desk type boxes with power cords which are used for test equipment, would be UL Listed.However, power supplies (transformer/capacitor/choke/etc. circuitry mounted on a printed circuit card) that are sub-assemblies of assorted computer products, would be UL Recognized.That means that this power supply would be further tested in you end-use product to be sure that you are not overloading it, and that you are using it within its rated specifications. You might find the following web sites helpful. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jon Keeble [SMTP:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:05 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory I work for an Australian company that has always assumed that 'having UL' means 'having the 'UbackwardsR' mark'. The facts as I understand them are (1) a UL1950 certificate is required (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate (3
RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Oooops! Brent, I don't think you want an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement. You will find that your CB report would not be accepted by other countries/agencies. The CB Scheme requires all its participant labs and agencies to update their CB reports every 3 years, change or no change. You should be grateful that your agency is reminding you of this fact. Can you imagine your surprise or better yet, the surprise of your Marketing organization, that you flubbed and that the CB report you were counting on is no longer valid! My recommendation is that you update your budget to take this into account, and schedule this on a timely basis. Try to align your changes every year and a half. Tell your purchasing department to buy enough parts to last in between.Or. pay the price. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Compliance [SMTP:complia...@eoscorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 3:58 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- 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: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark' is but one of many UL marks. This is the UL Recognition Mark;-- there are also UL Listing Marks, UL Classification Marks, and perhaps others that I have forgotten.And you are correct that only UL can issue UL marks.However, UL can do this based on CB Scheme reports, provided you have also complied with the U.S. National Electrical Code requirements, which are spelled out as deviation in the UL1950 standard. You should be looking at the UL1950, 3rd edition, which is also harmonized with the Canadian Standards Association and its Electrical Code. (Kill 2 birds with one stone!) Generally speaking, the UL Listing Mark is for end-use product, such as coffee pots, computers, and finished things one can generally buy in the store that perform a function.UL Recognition Marks are for components and incomplete assemblies that are to be placed inside end-use products, where their recognition still has to be evaluated in this final application. For example, power supplies, such as UPS, electronic load boxes, or desk type boxes with power cords which are used for test equipment, would be UL Listed.However, power supplies (transformer/capacitor/choke/etc. circuitry mounted on a printed circuit card) that are sub-assemblies of assorted computer products, would be UL Recognized.That means that this power supply would be further tested in you end-use product to be sure that you are not overloading it, and that you are using it within its rated specifications. You might find the following web sites helpful. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jon Keeble [SMTP:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:05 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory I work for an Australian company that has always assumed that 'having UL' means 'having the 'UbackwardsR' mark'. The facts as I understand them are (1) a UL1950 certificate is required (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate (3) The CB scheme was created to allow people in countries like Australia to achieve accreditation in other countries (including the US) through their local test house (4) the mark of any test house qualified to issue a UL1950 certificate is all that is required In our case, there are people in neighboring countries that (1) participate in the CB scheme (2) recognize some Australian test houses (none of which can issue UL1950) (3) are qualified to issue 1950 Our marketing department is fearful that not having the 'UbackwardsR' mark will raise questions in the mind of prospective customers. I'd be very appreciative of some candid feedback. - Jon Keeble Fairlight Hardware Engineering Manager 02 8977 9931 j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au _ The bounds of Time, Space or Mechanics should never stand in the way of a perfectly good idea... --- 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: modest proposal
I think we are going to have fun with these PCs!Us humans create interesting bloopers, can you image what a PC translator could do Human example, that actually happened at the Monterey (Army) Language School some years ago: Translate the following (either from Russian to English, or perhaps it was English to Russian.): The firefighter rushed into the burning house and emerged carrying a child. Translation: The firefighter rushed into the burning house and came out pregnant. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Doug [SMTP:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:11 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: modest proposal I've heard efforts of a universal translator through Java being worked on as we speak. You'll be able to go to any website written in any language and see it in your default language. I only hope they fix the little language snafus that crop up. And perhaps the death of having to learn another language? Gosh, I hope not. - Doug Barry Ma wrote: Hi Lou, There must be some day in the future, the artificial intelligence has been so well developed that (1) An instant interpreting machine built-in to your PC would automatically transfer any language you input (either typed or voiced) to any languages the other party would like to have. (2) Learning foreign language is a very pleasant process and can be completed in very short period of time even when you are in sleep. ... :-) Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.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: List of upcoming dates for standards
Thank you, Benoit, Can you perhaps clarify: do the effective dates published in this standards list coincide with the effective dates published in the OJ? I believe that for a number of standards, the OJ effective dates prevail, notwithstanding whatever may be published in the standard.Thus, I for one, have been keeping track of the OJ effective dates and ignoring those published, or suggested, in the standard itself.Obviously, this would only apply for those standards that support the various Directives. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Benoit Nadeau [SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: List of upcoming dates for standards Bonjour de Montreal, For European standards the most useful link I found is http://www.cenelec.be/ Do a search on Harmonized standards and it will list you with the dates of effect (DOW). Regards, At 11:28 AM 3/28/2000 -0500, you wrote: Does anyone know of a web site that lists when the various EMC standards will go into effect? If not, would such a web age be useful? /\ | Martin Rowe | / \ | Senior Technical Editor | /\ /\ | Test Measurement World | / \/ \/\ | voice 617-558-4426 |/\ /\ / \/ | fax 617-928-4426 | \/ \/ | e-mail m.r...@ieee.org | \ / | http://www.tmworld.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 -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox http://www.matrox.com/ -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, mailto:bnad...@matrox.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: modest proposal
Paul, I consider myself proficient in English, but I agree with you that those who throw Acronyms around without first typing them out are inconsiderate. There are quite a few Acronyms that have more than just one explanation. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Paul Rampelbergh [SMTP:rampelberg...@swing.be] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:24 PM To: ieee pstc list Cc: Lou Gnecco Subject: Re: modest proposal Hi there, A little bit behind the subject, i take the opportunity to express my opinion in general on english and at the end a NEW proposal (maybe). I'm from belgium and as you certainly know we don't have our own language here. In my country we have FRENCH, FLEMISH and GERMAN. I speak/write only French, Flemish (equivalent to Dutch) and some English (it could be worse). This being said let me comment a few general problems encountered with english: - its unbelievable the long time it takes to express my opinions and put it down on paper. The same way, it takes a long time to find-out the real meaning of some sentences put forward by people who try to convince they know very well english subtleties. The use of commonly used words in simple expressions would be more efficient and helpful. - in the future i had some people who ridiculed my spelling and expressions, but that past time, thanks for your understanding There is now spell checking, it helps (a lot). - pithy enough, and i find things smoothly changing, english speaking people don't do enough effort to try to find-out what's the real meaning behind the sentences and words expressed. This happens often during meetings. Just misplace the accentuation point in a word and there it goes.. A little more interpretation effort to understand the objective of the text or at least ask for complementary information could be less frustrating when the author read the reply. - the last, and the worst. To understand english i have to have at least 2 big dictionaries of abbreviations generally used. OK EMC everybody knows but other ones... Some time ago i worked with the US airforce, how boy that's an adventure you never forget. I think it would be wise to have at least once in the original text a full expression (word) and then its abbreviated equivalent. Final modest proposal for a solution (maybe): I suggest to use hieroglyphics in stead of abbreviations, its more image speaking and universal for everybody but i'm afraid it will require an extra language on my computer. Hey Mr MicroSoft! Consider this not as a open criticisms but more as an expression of my findings during several years of traveling (-/+ 45 times to the us and 15 to canada). I enjoy to come to the states, a comfortable car and country music let's me feel like in holiday even if i'm not. Best regards to all of youPaul On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:53:40 -0500, you wrote: To all who replied: Thanks for the quick and hearty responses! SORRY LOU, it took me some time I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. Just realize, whe strugle here with frensh, english, german, dutch, spanish, italian, greeks, norsk, and more. Whe don't require an extra one. Some people are better at languages than others, though, and i have seen some very good engineers having to really struggle with ours. See above. Meanwhile, I have it on excellent authority that the Spanish Government is about to simplify the Spanish language, eliminating all the accent marks to make an easy, logical language even easier to learn and to use. Oh well, lets get back to work. Best Regards, Lou --- 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: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
Thank you, Rich, I notice that I am more tolerant of requirements when I understand their reason for existence.This, unfortunately, is not part of a standard's format;-- however, it would be of great benefit ( I am changing subjects now!) if standards routinely identified the objective of every test, and sometimes even of requirements. What happens often is that due to either poor sentence structure or poor translations, the language is so garbled that it is not at all clear what the whole thing is all about. This then becomes an open field for a multitude of 'interpretations'.In majority of cases this could be avoided by clearly stating the objective and employing good writing techniques. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 5:25 PM To: tgr...@lucent.com Cc: geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: Re: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Hi Tania: For example, I always thought that it was a perfectly ridiculous idea to require that all equipment falling under the scope of IEC 950 should be double insulated, as pushed by certain Nordic countries many ages ago. Until--- until it was pointed out to me that certain Nordic countries have a heck of a time finding a reliable ground connection in permafrost. I no longer think that this is a ridiculous idea;-- I am just grateful that we still have choice in IEC 60950. That's not the only reason... Norway uses the IT power distribution system; nothing wrong with that. But, not all Norwegian outlets include a ground contact. A few years ago, I was at NEMKO in Oslo for a meeting. The NEMKO main meeting room has two-wire outlets! (Their labs have grounding-type outlets.) When I lived in Spain, my NEW condo (1994) had BOTH grounding and two-wire outlets, depending on location. The outlets that were optimally positioned for lamps were two-wire; all of the rest were grounding. Unlike the USA, the two-wire outlets in both NEMKO and my condo accept grounding-type plugs. Two-wire outlets commonly exist in homes throughout the world. For this reason, our grounded products are also double-insulated. (The ground wire is for EMC purposes, not for safety purposes.) Best regards, Rich --- 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: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
George, I am not offended, since I would never assume that anyone in this group would deliberately desire to do so.I just felt that you may have been making certain assumptions not borne out by history. We very often do that when we don't know or don't understand the background. For example, I always thought that it was a perfectly ridiculous idea to require that all equipment falling under the scope of IEC 950 should be double insulated, as pushed by certain Nordic countries many ages ago. Until--- until it was pointed out to me that certain Nordic countries have a heck of a time finding a reliable ground connection in permafrost. I no longer think that this is a ridiculous idea;-- I am just grateful that we still have choice in IEC 60950. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 6:07 AM To: tgr...@lucent.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Tania, I did not mean to offend anyone, but trying to clarify someone's understanding. Yes, MANY countries say they use nearly the same IEC 60950. However, getting a product approved in some of these is far more difficult than in others. This is what triggered the discussion, i.e. the costs associated with long, tedious approvals. By dealings with the Western world, I mean, for example, how many ITE products were approved for import to Russia during the period when relations were somewhat strained? I deal every day with people in Moskow, Warsaw, Budapest, Prague, etc. and I do know what their countries have gone through, and where they are now. Most are well on their way to regaining the prominent places they had in the global economy before WW II. Actually, the GOST process is probably more stable and understood than many others, e.g. China CCIB/CCEE. My comments were not intended to be political, but what the average product safety/EMC professional confronts in getting numerous global approvals at the present time. Regards, George Alspaugh tgrant%lucent@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/22/2000 05:25:32 PM To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Careful, George! I agree with your term Emerging standards.However, you must not have been familiar with IEC standards until very recently. IEC standards, during the iron curtain time, used to be published in three languages on the title page: French, English, and Russian.Then, you had a choice whether you purchased the French/English version, or the English/Russian version, etc. In fact, I noted that when the Soviet block began to disintegrate, did the Russian titles disappear. Could have been a coincidence, or not. I just don't know.What I am saying here is that, as far as the IEC organization is concerned, Russian (in whatever political format) participation was the rule, not the exception. I also don't agree with your historical assessment that under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, ... In fact, the Soviet block countries had a lot of dealings with the Western world, some of which we did not appreciate or want.But these are political issues.And, by the way, I am not and have never been a Soviet apologist; however, it does bother me when history is not portrayed correctly. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear ??? Perhaps emerging countries is not the best terminology. Emerging standards may be more appropriate. First of all, there is the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the USSR. For some 50 years under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, but are all now at some point in developing standards to participate in the global market. Russia, Belarus, etc. Then there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, sometimes called Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. Many already have well developed approval processes, but some, such as Poland, can be very difficult to completely satisfy at times. The good news here is that several of these very much want to join the European Union, and may even accept the CE marking in the near future prior to membership. Japan has long been a well developed nation, but has no product safety certification requirements for typical ITE product, and only voluntary (VCCI) requirements for EMC. Meanwhile, China and
RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
Careful, George! I agree with your term Emerging standards.However, you must not have been familiar with IEC standards until very recently. IEC standards, during the iron curtain time, used to be published in three languages on the title page: French, English, and Russian.Then, you had a choice whether you purchased the French/English version, or the English/Russian version, etc. In fact, I noted that when the Soviet block began to disintegrate, did the Russian titles disappear. Could have been a coincidence, or not. I just don't know.What I am saying here is that, as far as the IEC organization is concerned, Russian (in whatever political format) participation was the rule, not the exception. I also don't agree with your historical assessment that under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, ... In fact, the Soviet block countries had a lot of dealings with the Western world, some of which we did not appreciate or want.But these are political issues.And, by the way, I am not and have never been a Soviet apologist; however, it does bother me when history is not portrayed correctly. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear ??? Perhaps emerging countries is not the best terminology. Emerging standards may be more appropriate. First of all, there is the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the USSR. For some 50 years under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, but are all now at some point in developing standards to participate in the global market. Russia, Belarus, etc. Then there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, sometimes called Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. Many already have well developed approval processes, but some, such as Poland, can be very difficult to completely satisfy at times. The good news here is that several of these very much want to join the European Union, and may even accept the CE marking in the near future prior to membership. Japan has long been a well developed nation, but has no product safety certification requirements for typical ITE product, and only voluntary (VCCI) requirements for EMC. Meanwhile, China and Taiwan have relatively recent certification requirements for ITE. Argentina only recently began to require IRAM certification for ITE. The bad news is that there are still many countries that do not now have certification requirements, but will probably adopt some within the next decade. If you don't like change, Product Safety and EMC are the wrong fields to be in at this time. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 03/22/2000 09:04 AM --- rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/21/2000 08:21:01 PM Please respond to rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com To: grassc%louisville.stortek@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear Charles, REGARDING: ..the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation... The emerging countries are quite numerous, can you come up with some actual examples? Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 03/22/2000 02:43:36 AM To: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn@TUV-Twn, Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries It has been my experience that - with the exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation. Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods available well before the required date. If only it were true universally... -Original Message- From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM To: Kevin Newland Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries What about Japan, AustraliaNewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico... In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily basis. And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a similar schedule for the stock exchange? If you can, I will change
RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's
Bandele, Testing to Bellcore requirements can be quite expensive when your are burning a whole cabinet of expensive OEM stuff, especially if you are burning it twice because the first test failed! Thus, the cost is not just what you pay the lab for running the test, but the cost is also equipment going up in smoke. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:51 PM To: 'Doug'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Doug, telling your customers that your product was UL approved when in fact it was approved by a Lab other than UL would have been a hard sell - in any period. I wouldn't have bought that story myself, and your arguing in support of it would have just irritated me much more. You should have told your customers that your product was safety approved to a UL standard. ps, I wonder at what test lab those companies paying over $160,000.00 are doing their testing? Poor souls! Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC, NEBS NRTL's I have a little experience with this interpretation by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance testing as the compliance guy of a former company. There's certainly people here with more experience and history with this stuff than I. The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a small lab in the engineering department where I personally did some of the more simple tests for Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ... I had someone on the qualification survey team from these places come in and witness the testing I did. All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements. I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950, EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for $25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC. I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. Two problems arose. One was having UL testing performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus, with some customers, it was unfathomable that a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT have been tested at UL, and NOT have the classic UL label showing compliance. I always ran into this where ever I went. Second, a change occurred whereby some of the RBOCs got scammed or whatever (so I was told). This lead to testing such as safety, environmental, shake testing, flame spread ... to be done *** AT *** important word there at, an NRTL. A lab that had some sort of national accreditation, i.e. reputation. In other words, in scanning the test results, the customer could see that the testing was done at some maybe famous lab, and well ... then it was in like flint. FCC testing was still separate from an NRTL lab. I threw many wrenches back then about this. Some of those wrenches landed on this newsgroup. Anywho, I estimated that such testing off site would raise from $25,000 to well over $100,000. This would impact my budget, it would bleed over into cost for the product and thus would obviously end up with increased costs to the customers (RBOCs) and finally, the increased costs would settle right in their customers laps - i.e. you and me. The heck with arguing about raising minimum wages. We're talking increasing the overhead on developing a product by a factor of times 4 overnight! I may as well have been a chickadee blowing flowers in a hurricane with that one, scuse my language. I'm hearing that those same type of products on which I used to spend only $25,000 to get through compliance now costs somewhere on the order of $160,000. And you as the mfr of that equipment are totally out of the loop during the testing. No more customizing some part of some test for a customer by way of a phone call and doing the test before running off to lunch. Anywho, at that time there were some really good people at the RBOCs. People who really knew their stuff when it came to compliance and Bellcore. And I could actually negotiate with them various parts of the Bellcore tests to do. They're almost gone now. And I fear some marketing contract reviewer with a business degree is the only person at some RBOC who checks off required testing deliverables. And things like NRTL and Class A don't mean a hoot to them ... Sorry for the length. Regards, Doug McKean --- 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:
RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's
Gary and Company, You have a valid point, but incomplete historical data.The reason OSHA blesses NRTLs is because the whole issue started because the National Electrical Code used to state that the appliances (everything is an appliance in the NEC!) placed into buildings be safety approved by nationally recognized testing laboratories, such as Underwriters Laboratories.The NEC, as you well understand, does not care about radiated emission limits. Some time later an independent east coast safety testing lab sued, or almost sued, OSHA/NEC that the specific mention of the UL name was un-American, etc. As a result, this offending language was removed from the NEC, the National Recognized Testing Laboratory achieved new status and, it seems, other (any) safety labs could now approve appliances.Well now, that did not sit too well with a lot of labs or even OSHA.The upshot was, safety labs were made to submit their expertise to be blessed by OSHA as an NRTL. Now, if that same safety lab also happens to offer EMC testing, it seems that this also falls into the NRTL umbrella. I believe that this is an incorrect premise. Several UL offices also perform EMC testing. The east coast lab also performs safety (which is how they first got NRTL listing) and EMC. Thus, to my knowledge, there are at least two labs that are NRTL and do both safety and EMC.However, I am not aware that any independent, EMC only test lab has gotten OSHA (which is only concerned with safety) NRTL approval. The RBOCs, not realizing this fact, made a sweeping statement that all testing had to be performed by an NRTL lab. This immediately cut out excellent independent EMC only testing labs. This mess is continuing because the RBOCs, very often, don't do their homework, but assume many things.Too bad. To make a long story short, Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:57 AM To: 'Naftali Shani'; 'Collins, Jeffrey' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Still can be done at an independent site. The Lab I use, ACME Testing, here in Washington has accreditation to at least the radiated emissions portions of the GR-, I have to check on the susceptibility, but I think so. Even if that were not true. I believe that if your NRTL accepts the EMC data from the other lab they will include it in the overall report. Now there is the dicey part. Many of the NRTL's have their own EMC labs and may not want to loose the cash, and try reject the independent lab's report. I would find that a really hard sell however, because the NRTL labs undoubtedly carry accreditation through NIST for the EMC portion, making any argument about competency of the independent lab a tough sell. At any rate I've never quite understood the justification for not calling laboratories which are accredited through programs set up by and through the FCC, as NRTLS'. The basic assumption I would make is that the FCC knows a heck of a lot more about this aspect of testing and accreditation than OSHA does. Heavy sigh! Gary -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 6:05 AM To: 'Collins, Jeffrey' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's BM__MailDataJeffrey, the requirement that was for NRTL lab ( Bellcore representative) for each section of GR-63 GR-1089, has been dropped. See section 3.1.2 in the BA-NEBS-R10. However, FCC data/frequency range for radiated emissions is insufficient: You should have data based on GR-1089 requirements objectives (10 kHz to 10 GHz). Regards, Naftali Shani, Nortel Networks, Dept. 0S45, MS 117/C1/M05 21 Richardson Side Road, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2C1 Voice +1.613.765.2505 (ESN 395) Fax +1.613.763.8091 (ESN 393) E-mail: mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com nsh...@nortelnetworks.com or mailto:n...@ieee.org n...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 4:57 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' 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
RE: derating of conductors.
Gary, Regarding whether the ground conductor should or should not be also derated along with the power conductors;-- it depends. I believe that the NEC derating rules apply to individual conductors or to two or more in a cable or bundle.I have always conservatively interpreted this to mean that if the green/yellow wire is bundled alongside other wires, then you apply the appropriate derating formula for how-ever many wires in the bundle. The NEC term for power conductors is flexible cords and cables (used externally from the equipment) whereas fixture wire is for wires (which also could carry power) internal to the equipment. Check out Table 400-5(A) for Allowable Ampacity for Flexible Cords and Cables. Also check out 400-5 for derating formula and explanation whether or not the third Neutral conductor can be considered a current-carrying conductor. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:37 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'; 'phill...@itronix.com' Subject: derating of conductors. Ran across a new wrinkle on this issue. The NEC in section page70-162 and table 310-17 does describe derating of ampacity capacity for conductors with temperature That is for normally current carrying conductors. - hot and neutral. How about for grounding and bonding conductors? I see section 250-95 basically says that the ground wire shall be the same size as the feed wires. It also says that if the feed wires are adjusted in diameter for voltage drop the equipment ground conductors shall be adjusted proportionally - but no reference (here at least) for temperature. I am wondering if the fact that the ground wire is not intended to be a normal current path but rather a short term 'emergency cutoff mechanism', if you will. As such it won't have current flowing along it long enough to be adversely affected by a higher than 30 degree ambient and therefore required to be derated for ambient. Make sense to anybody. Gary PS I also have a question for a non-member. He is wondering if anyone has a source for shielded power supply cords? I am also thinking that Europe hates those things because many countries many not have a grounded outlet, or that outlet is so far from earth ground that there is a significant impedance along that path. You can respond directly to phill...@itronix.com mailto:phill...@itronix.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: ITE Disconnect Devices
George, Your Philosophical example struck a raw nerve.I periodically rail against inane user instructions that safety agencies force upon us, until we find out about the inane things consumers do to our products. Electric/electronic gadgets have become so ubiquitous in our lives that we forget that these things can be potential fragile killers. Gone are the days when computers were served by white-coated high priests in designated computer labs. Nowadays, laptops make perfect hamburger trays when pulling up to the drive-in. Engineers the world over! Why cannot we design product that recoils (power OFF condition, with all memory and files automatically saved!) when subjected to two drops of Coke (or 5 of water) and 7 cubic centimeters of crumbs, whether hamburger or potato chips! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 12:10 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ITE Disconnect Devices Technical The ITE standards allow for the power cord to be the official disconnect. However, this does involve a required installation instruction. See the second part of 1.7.2. When it was common for most ITE to have fixed power cords, this meant that the disconnect could be the plug at the wall outlet. Admittedly, these are seldom easily accessible in the typical PC workstation, with a rat's nest of wires and dust bunnies under the workstation. However, given the global economy, many ITE products use detachable power cords (providing for the locally required cord), where the disconnect may be considered at the side or rear of the unit, i.e an arm's length away. Financial True rated disconnect switches are not cheap. Purchasers of ITE bear the final costs of these in products. With so many ITE products selling for $50 to a few hundred dollars, the markup is significant. This is one practical reason for using power cords as disconnect devices. Philosophical Users have proven time and again that they will use electrical appliances (including ITE) as they please, not how the standards, manuals, and labels indicate. When our site produced commercial keyboards for IBM and other manufacturers, the warranty return rate was extremely low. This rate shot up when we placed these in consumer outlets. On investigation, we learned of users soaking keyboards in soapy water to remove spilled coke residue, removing all keycaps to clean the keyboard and not being able to replace them, etc. George Alspaugh --- 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: Certification School
And the industry has been hiring these excellent people, especially here in Silicon Valley, where there is a local UL office. Let's lift a toast to many of my colleagues in the industry who came from UL, including one of my ex-bosses, who have taught me many things! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Compliance [SMTP:complia...@eoscorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:32 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Certification School All - There is a Product Safety School...It goes by the name of Underwriters Laboratories in the United States. It is a two to three year apprenticeship following a basic BS in Engineering. The school offers training seminars about 1-2 times a month during the first two years and private sessions with standards experts. The advanced student is offered an opportunity to work on special projects or standards development to enhance their knowledge. On one hand, I am joking, but there may be some truth in the matter. I know that in the past, UL's would train the industry by hiring fresh college graduates (or war veterans). They would then train them in the concepts of safety and then allow/force them to leave (by offering sub-standard wages for the level of experience). No, I did not make this up. It came from a book that I had read 4-5 years ago. It was written by one of the former UL presidents (Baron Whitaker?). Brent Taira -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of sbarr...@icomply.com Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 6:14 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Certification School Years ago when the Product Safety Society was petitioning the IEEE for Society status, the subject of Safety Professional Certification was discussed. It was assumed that our alliance with the IEEE would enhance this move. Well, 15 years later, we are still petitioning the IEEE for society status and discussing certification for professionals. In order to achieve these goals, product safety professionals from all disciplines need to talk to the various colleges, at the community level as well as 4 year ones. I have found with talking to professors that they are in favor of Safety and EMC professionals coming in to give seminars and short classes. This needs to be better organized and a good video or face to face presentation prepared, so that each working group/ area can work with the local educational establishments to build an appreciation of the precepts of our chosen field. It may take a long time before classes are actually given (may give consultants something to do when they retire?), but if we don't start nothing will happen. My 2 cents because I don't really think The IEEE has given us much over the years (I haven't changed my mind Rich), and if there is going to be value in the alliance, then this would be the place to start. Scott Barrows --- 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: Y2K glitch
Yea, yea, yea!-- On paper. However, if I took out those paper millions, the same bug would clock the same 1900 date. And in those days, the interest rate percentages were infinitesimally small. So, what have I really gained? -- Except some trouble with the bank police, maybe. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Brent DeWitt [SMTP:bdew...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 4:14 PM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'Ken Javor' Subject: RE: Y2K glitch Look at the bright side Tania, if they took your deposit on the fourth of January 1900 it will have earned one large chunk by January of 2000! ;} Brent DeWitt Datex-Ohmeda -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Grant, Tania (Tania) Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:22 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'Ken Javor' Subject: RE: Y2K glitch So! ;) They got their money, didn't they?Of course they are compliant! However, I would not be depositing money via the ATM in this case! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 11:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FW: Y2K glitch Here's a little (real) Y2 K glitch from Hungary. The attached picture is of an automatic teller machine receipt. The date is circled in orange, as is a proud disclaimer beneath stating that the OTP Bank's ATMs are Y2K compliant. Enjoy!File: OTPy2k.jpg - 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). - 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: Y2K glitch
So! ;) They got their money, didn't they?Of course they are compliant! However, I would not be depositing money via the ATM in this case! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 11:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FW: Y2K glitch Here's a little (real) Y2 K glitch from Hungary. The attached picture is of an automatic teller machine receipt. The date is circled in orange, as is a proud disclaimer beneath stating that the OTP Bank's ATMs are Y2K compliant. Enjoy!File: OTPy2k.jpg - 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: Boilerplate Disclaimer?
Thank you, George, good point. As I've stated before, I very much emphasize with the intent. It's just that we need to be aware of the legal beagles and their perspective. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:02 PM To: tgr...@lucent.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: RE: Boilerplate Disclaimer? Tania, One could also ask what are the liability risks for IEEE - EMC/PSTC, etc. when NOT posting such a message under their banner! Maybe no one should post anything because of the crazy legal system we have? My goal was for some statment that at least indicates intent, i.e. personal exchanges between professionals with no fees nor warranties implied. George tgrant%lucent@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/09/99 02:36:19 PM To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Boilerplate Disclaimer? George, This is an excellent idea;-- however, knowing how litigious this country is, what are the liability risks for IEEE - EMC/PSTC, etc. when posting such a message under their banner! Inversely, would it do the rest of us any good, or would some lawyer come after the unfortunate individual and successfully argue him/her into the poor house! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 7:09 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Boilerplate Disclaimer? This is merely a suggestion for consideration by the managers of this listserver, to whom we are all indebted for their services. Many postings contain some form of disclaimer such as: These comments reflect the personal opinions of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the writer's employer. Since this forum is a free exchange of information between professionals with similar interests, aren't ALL comments basically personal opinions? I recommend that some generic disclaimer be added to the present emc-pstc tag which clearly states that all appended comments are considered as personal opinions and are not to be taken as the official position of the writers' employers. This would save us all from typing some caveat with our inputs. Most, including myself, simply do not take the time to add this important legal comment. George Alspaugh Lexmark International - 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). - 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: Russian Telecom Standard, 7153-85
Ron, Sorry, but the web site is not in the Russian language but in some software language hell! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Ron Pickard/Hypercom/US [SMTP:rpick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:22 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Russian Telecom Standard, 7153-85 To all, The Russian telecom standard is question is 7153-85, Standard telephone (Handset) Common technical requirement. To my knowledge this standard has not been offically translated into English, however, some English tranlations may exist. The reportedly most important part of this standard, as can be seen on the following web sites, is in Russian. It has also been reported that these sites have the most current information. http://www.espo.ru/techno/class.htm http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hub/7154/standards.htm Does anyone out there have an English translated version of this standard? If so, please be kind enough to reply to me privately. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.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: Boilerplate Disclaimer?
George, This is an excellent idea;-- however, knowing how litigious this country is, what are the liability risks for IEEE - EMC/PSTC, etc. when posting such a message under their banner! Inversely, would it do the rest of us any good, or would some lawyer come after the unfortunate individual and successfully argue him/her into the poor house! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 7:09 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Boilerplate Disclaimer? This is merely a suggestion for consideration by the managers of this listserver, to whom we are all indebted for their services. Many postings contain some form of disclaimer such as: These comments reflect the personal opinions of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the writer's employer. Since this forum is a free exchange of information between professionals with similar interests, aren't ALL comments basically personal opinions? I recommend that some generic disclaimer be added to the present emc-pstc tag which clearly states that all appended comments are considered as personal opinions and are not to be taken as the official position of the writers' employers. This would save us all from typing some caveat with our inputs. Most, including myself, simply do not take the time to add this important legal comment. George Alspaugh Lexmark International - 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: ECO ?
Ed, I can think of a number of flippant responses, but that will not help your friend. And at this point, trying to unconfuse the molders might turn out to be a Herculean effort. Here is a suggestion: have your friend request the molders to send him (FAX, e-mail, whatever) the source of this original news.If it is part of letter, have them copy the pertinent section so that you can see it in context.It is amazing what people will do when they start paraphrasing something they don't completely understand. If you still can't make sense of it, forward it back here and give us another shot. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 9:13 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: ECO ? Hi Listmembers! A chemist friend called me this weekend and asked if I had ever heard of a European ECO requirement. His company makes polymer resins, and sells to molders in Europe who do injection molding of computer housings. He said the molders seemed to think ECO involved some kind of EMC/RFI requirement. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) - 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: Manuals
Ray, The flippant answer is,-- it depends how conservative your company's lawyers are and which partner is the heavy! From the safety agency's perspective, it depends on the product standard and on the agency, and even the individual evaluating engineer. It also depends whether the product is easily user accessible, notwithstanding the fact that it should only be installed/serviced by trained service persons. Also, some countries are extra sensitive regarding user/service instructions. If the request is reasonable, I find it easier to comply rather than fight;-- fighting takes longer to market even though you might win in the long run. However, if the request is unreasonable, I have fought and won. But then, I was able to obtain support by fact or precedent. My method of fighting is usually not verbal, but politely on paper, providing explanation, justification, supporting evidence, etc., and asking for a response.Then the agency has to respond back and justify their position.If they really have no justification, you will win. If they can justify the request, you have just learned something. Obviously, this all takes time. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Richard Lanzillotto [SMTP:rl...@concentric.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 1:23 PM To: Russell, Ray; 'IEEE PSTC' Subject: Re: Manuals I recommend you refer to the particular safety standard for your product, which likely has a section dedicated to manual requirements. -Original Message- From: Russell, Ray ray_russ...@gastmfg.com To: 'IEEE PSTC' emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 4:21 PM Subject: Manuals Greetings, In this day and age of trying to cover your butt, from liability (especially in the USA), I have found it interesting that the information in some User manuals are going to the extreme to warn the consumer, while other similar products have very few warnings. In addition, our European partner is balking at the warnings we now have. They state that since the instructions require that installation or service should only be a qualified personnel then this person should know some of the obvious dangers, such as unplugging the device before servicing. Now assuming that a product is approved to US and European standards, can someone recommend a guide that would help to define additional manual requirements for US and Europe? Thank you, Ray Russell Regulatory Compliance Engineer - 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). - 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: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive
Kevin, I cannot believe that we are all cowards here. However, it may be that we are unfamiliar with your subject matter. I, for one, have never heard of the EMC standard EN50130-4, don't know if it falls under the new approach EMC Directive or not, and don't know what other EN standards it may be in conflict with. In other words, I cannot shed light on your subject. I would not be surprised if many have the same problem. It might help if you get a bit more specific here, such as, what are the conflicting EN standards, and what are the specific conflicting clauses. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Kevin Harris [SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 3:01 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive Hello Again Group, Well the group's total silence on this point is indeed interesting. Does nobody know how to proceed or is everyone just keeping their corporate heads down : Please reply offline if you feel uneasy answering this question in a public forum. Regards Kevin Harris -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:38 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive Greetings, Is there an established procedure for demanding the withdrawal of EMC clauses within standards who's primary purpose is industry regulation, not EMC. In my company's industry there is an established product family standard for EMC (EN50130-4) but the good people at CENELEC seem to be ignoring the EMC directive, and have published within the last year or two, EN standards which include EMC testing clauses, with methods that are at odds with the EMC document EN50130-4 published in the OJ. Especially troubling to me is the fact that all of the test organisations that test for the industry regulation specification do not accept either third party or self declarations that the product is EMC compliant. I do not wish to test the same product more than once for a single market. What path do you recommend I follow to demand the repeal of these clauses. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 - - 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: Power hazard on modular equipment
Duncan, screw their boxes shut,YES! screw their cards in, YES! designate the equipment for use only in a restricted access area, YES! . or use another method YES! We fused each port on the backplane. We've done all or part of the above, whatever made more sense. For your information, there are compact PCI servers that screw their cards in. When we choose OEM, we make sure the design fits our application requirements. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [SMTP:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 8:40 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Power hazard on modular equipment Group, Has anyone had any experience of problems with energy hazards on modular products and may be able to give some advice. The problem is that some of our equipment uses the compact PCI standard for interconnection. One of the main problems with the compact PCI standard is that it uses male connectors on the backplane card. This becomes a big problem when there is a bank of redundant power supplies capable of supplying over 240VA The product is modular and therefore a customer can hot-plug cards. When all cards are in place they have current limiting on board and there is no access to the backplane therefore there is no problem, however they are removable without a tool and because the system is modular you never know how many slots will be used. EN60950 clearly states that 'there shall be no energy hazards in the user accessable areas' and this is quite clearly the case so how do other manufacturers of IT equipment with compact PCI busses and large power supplies get over this problem? Do other people screw their boxes shut, screw their cards in, designate the equipment for use only in a restricted access area, or use another method of protection from the hazard. I know the possible solutions but I am looking for feedback as to how some other people have overcome this and what method they have used. Any information anyone can give me would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Duncan. - 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: 90V 47Hz - Is this a realistic combo
Ages ago when I worked at another company that shipped products to Japan, their unwritten rule was to design in power supplies that operated without problems at 85 Vac, and that had better be designed/tested down to 80 Vac, because of the continued brown-out conditions in Japan. It seems nothing much has changed. I don't remember what was stated about the frequency tolerance. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 10:34 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: 90V 47Hz - Is this a realistic combo See the website below for global mains voltage/frequencies: http://www.panelcomponents.com/guide.htm The most notable example listed would be Japan, 100V @ 50Hz, or 90V @ 47Hz under usual tolerances of -10% and -3Hz respectively. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/03/99 01:31 PM --- grassc%louisville.stortek@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/03/99 12:59:30 PM Please respond to grassc%louisville.stortek@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: 90V 47Hz - Is this a realistic combo Hello standards sages.. We have a product that stumbles when the input voltage/freq is 90V/47Hz. My question is.. Is this a reasonable test combo? Does anyone know of a country that falls in this range? - 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). - 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: Laser Standards
Lou, You are right. This system works extremely well. However, only very few companies have a bona fide library, with a librarian, that can provide this service. The rest of the small companies are struggling with small/inadequate budgets and the local city and county libraries usually do not stock esoteric international standards. How many times have I purchased standards that don't really apply to our products, except in a very peripheral way! I try to ascertain from others the scope of a specific standard and determine whether it really would apply to our products. This forum is great for this sort of information. Then, if the shoe fits, buy the standard. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Lou Gnecco [SMTP:l...@tempest-inc.com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 8:43 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Laser Standards Group, There is actually a precedent for all this. It is called an Inter-Library Loan and librarians do it all the time, including corporate librarians. It works like this: I need a document, say a EUROPEAN STANDARD. Your Company Library has it. I ask my librarian to ask your librarian for it. If it is ok with your company, your librarian sends it LIBRARY TO LIBRARY, complete with receipts, accountability, and a paper trail. My librarian then checks it out to me, and I become responsible for it. Now I can't just keep it, because it is due back on a certain date and my librarian will get after me to return it. This is what librarians do, and it works. Lou - 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: The Doors
May the Doors of Perception enlighten all of us attending!! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Dale Albright [SMTP:da...@emclabs.com] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 1:46 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: The Doors No, it is not about the rock group. It is about the doors of GR-1089-CORE. Over the last couple of days I have enjoyed observing multiple opinions and supporting evidence of the proper limit to apply to a product that has no cabinet doors (Table 3-1 Vs Table 3-2). It is clear that at minimum, the emission levels with cabinet doors open must meet the open door requirement and with cabinet doors closed must meet the closed door requirement. Perhaps this is a fine way to limit the shielding effectiveness of the enclosure so that in real life, when the doors have been removed and tossed, the threat of interference remains low. And how about cabinet doors. That type of language seams to indicate a large 7ft cabinet in which rack mount devices are contained. Is the actual housing/chassis of the EUT considered a cabinet ? There does seam to be an indication that another type of door exists - one that is not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair. What type of door is this that remains closed during all of those circumstances. And what is the un-identified operation mode for which it is opened? And now finally for equipment that is not intended to be placed in a cabinet - maybe table-top or open-rack type. Notwithstanding the ultimate decision being driving by the RBOCs, what do you think? See some of you at the conference next week. Regards, Dale Albright EMCI - 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: NEBS Levels..
George, Bellcore standard: SR-3580, Network Equipment - Building Systems (NEBS) Criteria Levels. I am afraid you will have to buy it. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 4:22 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: FW: NEBS Levels.. Posted for sparaci...@andovercontrols.com: -Original Message- From: sparaci...@andovercontrols.com [SMTP:sparaci...@andovercontrols.com] Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 1:35 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: NEBS Levels.. Hello Group, I should probally direct this question elsewhere, but does anyone know where I can get an explaination of the criteria for each NEBS level ? Thanks, George :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) - 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: Re: EN 60 950 and Denmark
For years we have been specifying Double or Reinforced insulation between Primary Ground and Primary Secondary, as described in the Rich's 3rd to the last paragraph. This specification alerts the engineer to look for off-the-shelf sources that meet this requirement, and it also alerts the source what the requirement is in case of custom supplies. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 1:51 PM To: pe...@itl.co.il Cc: b...@anritsu.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com Subject: Re: Re: EN 60 950 and Denmark Hi Peter: This is the exact deviation which I was referring to. One of my clients states that a distributor wishes the product to be safe for those establishments where earthing cannot be relied upon. Does this mean to provide double or reinforced insulation from hazardous live parts to earth? This may be a pain killer if the power supply is Apporved for Class I. Not necessarily. Today's designs of SMPS are typically double or reinforced insulated. Even if certified as Class I, you have the option of evaluating it for double- or reinforced-insulation and declaring it as complying with double- or reinforced-insulation for use in Denmark (and other Nordic countries where grounded outlets may not be present in the electrical installation). There are two insulations that must be considered: primary-to-secondary primary-to-ground 1. Primary-to-secondary. In a typical SMPS, there are three such insulations that must be considered: transformer opto-isolator PWB spacings Typical SMPS transformers are double-insulated. It is very inefficient for a SMPS transformer to employ a grounded shield. If the certifier did a good job, he will have ascertained that the solid insulation, the through-air insulation, and the surface insulations meet the respective double-insulation requirements. In my experience, most SMPS transformers do meet these requirements. Opto-isolators are almost always rated as double- or reinforced-insulation. Most PWB spacings are those for double-insulation. If not, the secondary circuit and conductors must be grounded as if they were protective conductors. So, I believe you will find that most PWB spacings are sufficient for double-insulation. 2. Primary-to-ground. In a typical SMPS, there are two insulations that must be considered: PWB assembly and the metal chassis PWB spacings across Y capacitors and similar spacings Here is where you are likely to find spacings only sufficient for Class I. Most power supply vendors will likely balk if you should require Class II construction between the circuits and ground. But, you can easily get around MOST of the spacings by interposing a solid insulating sheet between the circuits and the grounded parts (e.g., chassis). You can get around the Y capacitor spacings by asking for double-insulated spacings on the PWB conductors. Its really not too difficult. Its really easy if you spec your power supply as double-insulated primary-to-ground and primary- to-secondary. Almost zero cost. By the way, we find that the weakest insulation in such designs is the Y-cap lead spacing on the PWB. We experience arcs in the range of 4-5 kV, well above the required 3 kV! We do this on all of our products. We KNOW our products will be used in situations without ground. So, we require our power supply vendors to provide double-insulation as well as grounding. Best regards, Rich - 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: UL legal requirement
Jeff, Check the scope of UL1950/CSA950, 3rd edition harmonized standard and you will find that a minimum voltage is not specified, just a maximum of 600 V. Note that the standard is applicable to equipment connected to the mains Therefore, your battery-operated camera and toys are O.K., but not O.K. if there is a power cord connecting them to building mains power. Then the appropriate standards apply. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 3:04 PM To: jbai...@sstech.on.ca Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: UL legal requirement Hi Jeff: I am trying to find a basic document from UL and or CSA regarding the legal requirement of UL or CSA listing. I am thinking along the same lines as the European LVD. Can anyone offer insight as to whether this documentation exists? UL and CSA are private organizations. To my knowledge, neither has published any document describing how their respective certifications are required by Federal, State, County, and City laws. I believe that both feel that such a publication would be out of place and rather presumptive. How the various laws invoke third-party certification has been rather completely discussed in this forum from August 16 to August 19. See: http://www.rcic.com/ Click on: Virtual Conference Hall Click on: Browse Recent EMC-PSTC Threads Click on: Next 25 until you get to August 19. Then, click on: U.S. National Product Safety Laws (18) The real question is: Is there a legal requirement to obtain UL or CSA listing on a product that operates at a low voltage (below 50VAC or 75VDC), does not have a circuit that would be classed as a TNV circuit, does not operate in hazardous explosive environments, and does not consume a high amount of power? The product is also not connected to the mains supply, it is specified to require power from a safety listed supply. The answer to this question must be determined from the NEC and from OSHA regulations. The NEC has regulations for low-voltage wiring installations (Article 625). So, if the product involves low-voltage building wiring, then it must be certified by UL or other acceptable certification. Since stand-alone (i.e., not a part of the building installation) low-voltage products are not addressed, then the NEC does not apply to such products. Consequently, under the NEC, flashlights and similar battery- operated products are not required to be certified. Furthermore, low-voltage products provided with an external power supply (adapter) need not be certified since the product is not part of the building installation. I was unable to find anything under OSHA rules that implies exemption of low-voltage products. Best regards, Rich - Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group AiO Division Tel : +1 858 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 858 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.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: Soak Testing Requirements
Paul, What does your product warranty state What are your customers expecting? What are your competitors doing? I am not aware that there is any statutory legislation in the U.S. for general consumer/commercial markets. For medical devices and equipment, there is (or used to be) something called Good Manufacturing Practices. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Paul Smith [SMTP:phsm...@excite.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 3:10 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Soak Testing Requirements Is there any legislation regarding soak testing. I'm thinking of length of soak and if its required by law. Our quality manager is looking reduce the amount of time of soak testing (possibly drop it all together)as failures are non-existent, Design authority on the other hand wants to keep it, ideally to reduce failures in the field (but we hardly ever get any). Strikes me as bit of a viscous circle, I can see (and appreciate) both sides of the argument, what I need is confirmation of requirements (if any), so we can decide what way we should proceed. TIA Paul Excite -- Control Yourself. This E-mail brought to you by Excite's free E-mail service. Get your own E-mail address at http://www.excite.co.uk - 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: shielded data cables
J. Benary, You use shielded data cables when you don't pass EMC with unshielded data cables. There are no standards that say you must use them. However, there are many books, magazine articles, and various lectures on EMC that provide you design guidelines under what conditions shielded cables can improve your EMC performance. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 11:00 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Cc: 'j.benary' Subject: FW: shielded data cables Posted for j.benary [jben...@netvision.net.il]: :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: j.benary [SMTP:jben...@netvision.net.il] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 11:17 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: shielded data cables Need information about shielded data cables. are there any standards, specifications. when it is must to use?. thanks. - 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: Concrete as an insulator???
And it is still a good insulator during a rain storm?? Or would the torturous path of the water molecules embedded in concrete be too much to create a free flowing conductive path? Wouldn't it depend upon the type of concrete and/or the process??? Thus, the concrete insulator would be very much a product of a quality process, a risky adventure, I would think. Can someone elaborate on this more! Sounds very exciting, perhaps too much so! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Robert Macy [SMTP:m...@california.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 7:40 AM To: POWELL, DOUG; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Concrete as an insulator??? Not sure, but check into Light Rail. They use 600Vac (I believe) and use the natural insulating qualities of concrete (where the rails are placed) to give fairly good isolation from ground. From memory - the rails are the return terminal. - Robert - - Hello all, I have a very innovative engineer who has come up with a design idea that uses concrete as an insulating compound in a very large inductor for a 200 kW switching power supply. Yup, this is the stuff you buy down at the local building supply company. He was very proud of the idea, but until he came up with it I think he was pretty desperate. I'm thinking I should make him desperate again but would like to be able to give him a clearly reasoned-out explanation. Has anyone ever had experience with using concrete or mortar in a high voltage application? What are the concerns here? It is my understanding that it does not actually dry but it cures with all the water contained inside. thanks, -doug === Douglas E. Powell, Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com http://www.advanced-energy.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: U.S. National Product Safety Laws
To all us others, and primarily to George at Lexmark! Regarding your item 3. The NEC and OSHA requirements probably do apply to any electrical device that is operated from voltages above SELV.Take a look at the 3rd edition of UL1950 under Scope, 1.1.1: This standard is applicable to mains-powered or battery-powered information technology equipment, including electrical business equipment and associated equipment, with a rated voltage not exceeding 600 V and..Nowhere does it state that this standard applies only to equipment at SELV and above. In fact, if you go further into the standard and check out section 1.2.4.3, it describes Class III equipment (SELV supplied). Thus, any equipment, including that which operates at SELV voltages, falls under this standard. Regarding the following comment- (Obviously, OSHA ignores low-voltage and battery-operated equipment such as flashlights and calculators. I haven't located the out for these kinds of equipments.) -- I believe that flashlights and calculators are ignored because the standard addresses mains-powered or (they should have said) mains battery-powered equipment. If your equipment needs a wire to obtain power, you are covered by this standard (assuming other characteristics apply.) And yes, I do agree with your 4th item. The legalese could be more user friendly. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 2:02 PM To: ri...@sdd.hp.com Cc: private_u...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws To Rich et al (fancy way of saying and others): I was a little reluctant to fan the embers of this discussion the other day, but do not regret doing so based on the healthy discussion that followed. In any event, I shall blame Doug's append for peaking my interest. I assume we can all agree that: 1. We do not want to market unsafe products that may cause harm. 2. No one is looking for loopholes in the safety standards. 3. The NEC and OSHA requirements probably do apply to any electrical device that is operated from voltages above SELV. 4. The NEC and OSHA requirements are worded like legal documents, and thus, far from clear in their meaning. Having said this, I have added some remarks (in brackets [ ] ) to your last note below, hoping that these do not not extend the discussion, but are my final thoughts. Best regards, George Alspaugh __ Hi George: I've read these sections of the CFR many times, and always interpreted them to apply to end user equipment, as you imply. However, I am beginning to see that this may be somewhat like quoting the Bible out of context. The context in this section of the CFR (before and after) overwhelmingly refers to house wiring types of equipment. I don't agree that the text overwhelmingly refers to wiring (i.e., in OSHA words, utilization system). First, it would be derelict of OSHA to ignore the utilization equipment used by employees. One of the major construction site hazards was failure of insulation in portable electric tools. OSHA was the prime mover towards double-insulated electric tools! While our government often makes mistakes, they do NOT ignore utilization equipment. [I believe that there are a dozen ways utilization equipment could be better stated to clarify the intended meaning. How about any electrical equipment, devices, appliances, and other products that are connected to electrical power systems at voltages deemed to be hazardous. Note that in homes and offices there are products requiring 220V (e.g. air conditioners, dryers, heaters) in addition to those operated from 115V.] Second, the text refers to equipment and to utilization equipment, both of which are defined terms. The definitions must be substituted EVERYWHERE the words appear in the text. When I apply the definitions, I cannot conclude as you do that the text refers overwhelmingly to wiring. [I suggest if one goes to the cheapest discount store in their area, and look at the table/floor lamps offered for sale, they will find some with no NRTL markings. I will also suggest that these were NOT approved by a Federal, state, or local government authority. Are these utilization equipment? If so, how can they be offered for sale?] Is it only me, or do others have problems reading into this that it does apply to end user products such as ITE or blenders? With so many pages dedicated to describing the exact requirements for the construction of an installation to provide power to equipment, why are there no pages dedicated to describing the requirements of the equipment? IEC 60950 contains 180 pages of such
RE: FCC approved 3m chamber suitable for 10m qualification testin g
Steve, FCC does not certify any test sites;-- they merely accept your site's description, photographs, attenuation measurements, antennas used for testing, etc., to make sure you have done due diligence to the requirements. They then provide this list of available commercial sites to the general public. In fact, when FCC acknowledges the receipt of your letter filing all the above information, they make a statement that this in no way confers their approval of the site or of the lab. (At least that is what they used to do; this now may have been pre-empted by NVLAP, etc.) We all know that the best site in the world is not worth the paper the test report is printed on if the test measurements were performed in a sloppy manner. That is why those of us who use outside labs (and want to do things right), always shop around for labs with excellent ethics, competence, and reputation. In the several companies I have worked for, I have steered away from those who are plain incompetent or border on the criminal. You know who you are because we suddenly stopped coming. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Steve Kuiper [SMTP:aegisl...@email.msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 2:45 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: FCC approved 3m chamber suitable for 10m qualification testing Dear esteemed colleagues, Our small commercial laboratory lost a modest sized FCC verification test and report to a competitor who DO NOT operate an OATS, but claim the following.. Our 3m semi-anechoic chamber measuring 18 ft. wide, X 28 ft. long and 28 ft. high is FCC certified for testing Class A and Class B digital devices, hence we are in compliance with ANSI C63.4/1992, CISPR 22 publication and FCC Subpart B Class A regulations If this is in flagrant violation with the FCC rules then I would like to decide on a course of action suitable enough to grab the attention of those who misrepresent our industry. Does anyone have experience with this same problem or approached A2LA, NVLAP or FCC? Regards, Steve - 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: U.S. National Product Safety Laws
George, To add to your statements;--- It is not just cities that may require NRTL marking on equipment, but also the insurance carriers of the various businesses where the equipment is installed. In many cities the Fire Department inspects for NRTL markings on business premises; they don't normally do this in homes. Also, the city codes may include (and usually do) equipment installed in business locations, not just for the home consumer. After all they might be held liable for poor plumbing and electrical installations, and they don't want to be held liable. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 2:07 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: U.S. National Product Safety Laws Here is my understanding of this issue relative to ITE. I post this both to inform, and solicit comments which could improve my understanding. The only U.S. Federal law I am aware of pertaining to product safety is that covered in 29 CFR 1900 (the OSHA section). Electrical equipment to be used in the U.S. workplace must either (1) comply with a detailed list of construction requirements, or (2) be accepted, certified, listed, labelled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory [29 CFR 1900.399 (a) (ii)]. There are seventeen OSHA approved NRTLs, half of which can test to UL 1950. Summary: For workplace ITE, an NRTL certification is the easiest option. Note that this is an option, not the only path. Note also that UL and other NRTLs are private companies, not U.S. government agencies. What about non-workplace ITE for consumers? These are outside the OSHA requirements. Some of the major cities in the U.S. (e.g. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago) have local electrical codes that include the electrical requirements for household eletrical equipment. However, these are usually in the absence of any NRTL listing, which is generally acceptable. Summary: Again, an NRTL certification is the easiest path to market home electrical products in all parts of the U.S. One CAN find electrical products on the market that bear no agency markings that are being sold in ways that do not conform to OSHA requirements or city electrical codes. However, these tend to be very cheap low end products like Christmas lighting, extension cords, etc. The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) is a Federal agency. It does not establish product safety requirements. However, its mission is to identify and remove from the marketplace any products found prone to expose hazards. It is an after-the-fact enforcement agency that can apply pressure for a a product recall. Moral: A manufacturer can either negotiate the mine field of specific OSHA (for workplace) or city (for home use) electrical requirements, or go with an NRTL certification. George Alspaugh Corporate Product Safety Lexmark International Inc. - 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: Equipment for development
Tim, I am not aware that the different states have different approaches; however, the local authorities, including your customer, might have different ideas, especially with respect to safety. That is why I recommend that you contact your customer to ask him what their expectations are specific to safety. My expectations for safety, as a minimum, would be a complete design review for safety compliance, an individual product safety inspection by you product safety engineer of the specific unit that is to be shipped out, and a hipot test and ground resistance test at the appropriate voltage for your product.Be aware that Underwriters Laboratories has a program where a UL inspector/engineer will go out to a site and perform visual inspection for basic safety (may require supporting documentation from you!) and may require hipot tests at the site, and then affix their own UL mark (which is different from the one you can affix to the product). All this is a lot of rigmarole that may be definitely worthwhile to minimize any liability issues that may arise. You can obtain details from UL. Our process is to obtain official safety approvals before we ship any so-called BETA systems (still under development) to any potential customers. For compliance to FCC Part 15 (EMC), the federal regulators are quite specific. For Class A product only, you are allowed to ship systems still under development, provided the customer is advised that this equipment has not yet been tested for compliance, but will comply when finally shipped...All this is specified in Part 2 of the Rules. What many people don't realize is that FCC Rules Part 15 are the technical part, and Part 2 the general and administrative part that still apply to all equipment covered under the other parts. I always advise that the letter stating the above be addressed to a specific person and reference the specific model and serial number that is being shipped. You want to show due diligence in case the authorities have any questions. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: tim.hay...@gecm.com [SMTP:tim.hay...@gecm.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 8:12 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Equipment for development Hi Everybody, I have some equipment that is currently under development for an American company. While the design of the equipment still has to be finalised, the customer requires a set of units to run on a simulator for test purposes. Apart from the obvious requirement that these development units must not cause harm, are there any specific requirements for safety or EMC (etc.) that *must* be complied with? I don't know (at this time of writing) which State the company is located - is there any serious differences between States that must be considered? Regards Tim - 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).
Are there 5x20mm Euro approved fuses 6.3 amps???
Help and suggestions are appreciated from any corner! 1. What we really want is a 5x20mm fuse rated at 8.0 amps with UL, CSA, and European agency approvals. We find that these types of fuses seem to loose their European approvals above 6.3 amps.Why is this? 2.Are there other than 5x20mm fuses with UL, CSA, and European approvals? 3. It is a shame to have an autoranging power supply rated 100-250 Vac and be stuck with providing different fuses for North American and European applications. 4. What about the fuseholders? (I've been preaching to hardware design engineers to use circuit breakers, but this equipment was designed outside my influence; and no, they don't want to redesign to use circuit breakers!) Thank you for all responses and suggestions. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.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: IEC950 vs. EN 60950
What Pete is describing is quite fitting for Europe and the US.However, in the rest of the world, what is accepted and/or required varies as much as the different flora and fauna around the world. South Africa, for example, does not care for compliance to an EN60 950 document, but will accept compliance via a CB Scheme report to IEC 950 (but not to EN60 950!). What we do, therefore, is have the CB report and Certificate reference both EN60 950 and the IEC 60 950 document!!! There are other countries (and since their requirements are constantly changing, I will not point them out here) that will accept US safety and/or FCC Part 15 compliance.Other countries will require compliance and/or testing to their own national standards in their own country. You need to approach each case individually at any given time since requirements, agencies, addresses, and even governments are constantly changing. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Peter E. Perkins [SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 1:46 PM To: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) Cc: PSNetwork Subject: IEC950 vs. EN 60950 Daniel PSNet, IEC 950 - now IEC 60950 - is an international standard, meaning that all countries participating in the development of the standard bring their codes and practices to the table and some subset of the same is included in the final standard. EN 60950 is the European version of that standard. It includes specific Euro codes and practices which were not agreed to by the international community. These differences are important and must be adhered to in complying with the standard. You cannot claim compliance to the EN for CE marking purposes without meeting these deltas. In the same way, UL 1950 is the American version of IEC 950. It includes many American changes that result from our codes and practices here. In order to get NRTL certification to this standard, the equipment must comply with these deltas, too. From a certification point of view, the IEC standard is not important. The equipement must meet the locally adopted version for compliance. From a standards development or future looking viewpoint the IEC standard is driving the local standards in the highest or most general way. The manufacturer's dream is to see all of these standards be exactly equal in wording - i.e. no local deltas. Probably not in my lifetime - there are some basic underlying requirements in each market. In America, for instance, the NEC contains basic requirements which will not change soon; plus there are legally driven requirements based upon case law that companies have to meet in America - such as the use of ANSI labels else the product markings are deficient. So, get the local standards and comply with them... that's the requirement. :) br, Pete Perkins - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - - 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: French Customs demand EC Declaration!
Thomas, Read the fine print in the EMC Directive regarding placing [equipment] on the market and putting it into service. You also might want to have your legal representative take a look. I read that providing 'samples' to potential customers is placing [equipment] on the market but not putting it into service. There is another DRAFT directive that seems to take into account equipment still in the final design stages that is sent to potential customers to undergo further testing with the customer's equipment, i.e., sometimes called BETA. However, that is for EMC. The LVD safety directive does not seem to make any provisions for any BETA systems. If anyone has any more insight into this, I would be very much interested in hearing about this. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: andreas.tho...@toshiba-teg.com [SMTP:andreas.tho...@toshiba-teg.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 1:15 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: French Customs demand EC Declaration! Dear All, the process to import production machines into the EU seems clear, but have you considered the problem of samples, too ? Usually, samples are used for evaluation purposes and cannot often be marked with CE because the CE compliance tests should be done at least with the final version. Therefore, no CE-Declaration can be issued and the customs may stop these samples at the border (we experienced the same problems with the French customs). How do you handle sample shimpments into the EU ? Kind regards Andreas Thomas Toshiba Europe GmbH - 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: Follow Up Services/Factory Inspections
A long long time ago...(and I hope it never happens again!)
1. The construction details of a low voltage signal transformer
(telephony application) was described in our UL Report. For those who are
not familiar with such descriptions, it goes something like this: Open
type. Stacked steel lamination, 0.19 by 0.19 by 0.19 in. thick. Bobbin,
phenolic. Crossover insulation by 0.02 in. gap with minimum 0.02 in. thick
polyester tape. Outer wrap is polyester tape, 0.02 in. thick. Insulation
between (TEL) and (SEC) provided by bobbin and one layer polyester tape,
0.02 in. thick. When the UL Inspector came across this, he asked me to
unwind the insulation and wrap so that he could inspect to the Report. The
transformer was varnished. I said that this was impossible. He then
suggested that I get a saw and saw it in half so that he could measure the
spacings and thickness of wraps, etc. I told him that for this procedure
to work, one needed a laboratory type saw so as not to deface spacing,
etc., in the process. A carpenter's saw would not do. I offered him a
sample transformer to take back with him and perform his inspections at his
office. He told me that it was my responsibility to provide proof that the
transformer complied. I placed the transformer in his hands and suggested
he call his supervisor for advise. After a lengthy conversation with his
supervisor, he returned the transformer to me and said he would not write
anything up. I was sympathetic to his plight and agreed that UL
engineering should not write descriptions of items that could not be
inspected in the field. He never asked to saw a transformer again.
My recommendation to UL was that they should either bite
the bullet and demand that all transformers be UL Recognized, or institute
a sampling collection program, much like they have with plastic enclosures,
where they take samples once a year and re-inspect them back in their
offices. Needless to say, nothing has been done about this yet.
2. The UL Inspector checked the flammability code on a printed wiring
board ('twas 94V-0) and then, per the UL Yellow Book,
asked me to provide proof that the solder temperature was not
exceeded during the solder-wave process. Good question! We do not
wave-solder our cards, but sub-contract them out! We hopped in the car and
went to the local PCB stuffer while horrendous thoughts drifted in my mind.
The manager there was very helpful;-- no, he was not running any cards for
us that day, but yes, he did have a log with all the pertinent data. His
records were impeccable: he had part numbers aligned with PCB fab vendors,
PCB flammability ratings, date codes, solder temperature in ºF, solder
dwell time in inches/minute, etc. The UL Book had solder temperature in ºC
and solder dwell time in cm per second (now it states cumulative dwell
time). After we figured out the math and converted everything properly we
had proof that the solder temperatures were not exceeded. I was very
pleased with the results of this effort.It was only as I was driving
home that night that it dawned on that the delta between the actual solder
temperature and the stated limit in the UL Book was so great that this UL
limit would never be exceeded, because if it were exceeded, the PCBs would
be a crisp dark toast and no sub-contractor in his right mind would deliver
such a result to his customers. The UL limit, after all, is for
flammability concerns and not for performance and reliability. Next time
the inspector came to visit, I informed him of my conclusions. He never
asked to see any wave solder logs again.
Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division
tgr...@lucent.com
--
From: Jon D. Curtis [SMTP:j...@curtis-straus.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 5:54 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Follow Up Services/Factory Inspections
I am writing an article on preparing for factory inspections. Please
share with me your gotchas and any advice that a person should know
before the inspector arrives. What did the inspector look for? What
documents did you need to provide?
Any references on what to expect published by the NRTLs or others such
as NEMA?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
--
Jon D. Curtis, PE
Curtis-Straus LLC j...@curtis-straus.com
Laboratory for EMC, Safety, NEBS, SEMI-S2 and Telecom
527 Great Roadvoice (978) 486-8880
Littleton, MA 01460 fax (978) 486-8828
http://www.curtis-straus.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
RE: CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS
Canada requires that these markings be both in English and in French. Here is the exact wording, from Annex of ICES-003 : Canadian EMC statement in English and French: This Class (insert A or B) digital apparatus meets all requirements of the Canadian Interference-Causing Equipment Regulations. Cet appareil num/erique de la classe (A ou B) respecte toutes les exigences du R\eglement sur le mat/eriel brouilleur du Canada. (Accent aigue over a vowel is denoted by / before that vowel. Accent grave over a vowel is denoted by \ before that vowel. And both are underlined.) Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Dale Albright [SMTP:da...@emclabs.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 7:51 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS George, It is our understanding that If your equipment meets the appropriate sections of FCC Part 15, than no further testing is necessary for Canadian approval and your FCC report will be acceptable. However, an equipment label is required which is similar to the FCC Class A label. The suggested text is given in the Annex of ICES-003 . This Class (A or B) digital apparatus meets all requirements of the Canadian Interference-Causing Equipment Regulations. Best Regards, Dale Albright President EMC International, Inc. -Original Message- From: George Waters gwat...@digiceiver.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 11:59 AM Subject: CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS I need some guidance on an indoor satellite receiver we build. Functionally it is similar to a DISH network receiver, but ours is not a consumer product. We worked with test labs to obtain conformance to FCC Part 15, and CE, for which we have a DOC. Now our US customer wants to lease some of the units in Canada. What else do we need to do? George Waters - 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). - 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: Packaging vs. Shipping Container
Richard, Your definitions make very good sense, with or without a lawyer's hat. The problem is not with us. The problem is with the various regulatory agencies. If they define packaging as the outer enclosure of a product (much like cosmetic manufacturers do) then we are stuck with making sure this packaging now complies with the slot opening size of IEC/EN 60 950 (assuming that standards applies)!And if the French customs officials interpret packaging as the shipping container, then you are stuck with providing whatever the information they are seeking on that packaging. The only recourse we have is to insist, complain, and howl to all standards writing bodies that they be precise, concise, and define their terms. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 5:49 AM To: 'emc-pstc'; 'treg' Subject: Packaging vs. Shipping Container Various EU Directives require certain information to be placed on the packaging of a product. However, packaging is not defined. The intent of the requirements appears to be to provide the consumer with information so that they can make an informed purchasing decision. Please put on your lawyer's hat and tell me if the following definitions are reasonable to distinguish packaging from a shipping container for compliance marking purposes. Shipping Container: A protective container in which a product is placed for shipping purposes. The container is not intended for public display of the product such as in a retail store, nor is it intended to convey product information to the consumer; therefore, displayed product information may be limited. The product in the shipping container may or may not be enclosed in packaging. Products intended to be shipped direct to the end user may not include packaging. Packaging: A container in which the product is placed for public display purposes in retail shops and similar stores. Consumer information and certain required compliance information is displayed on the packaging. - 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: EMC Book Summary
Ron, You have provided a valuable service. Thank you very much. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: ron_pick...@hypercom.com [SMTP:ron_pick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 5:16 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC Book Summary To all, Well, the responses died off earlier than I anticipated. With information that I had plus what had been provided by the respondents, I have compiled a list of all the EMC books identified in this query and tabluated the list to include Author, Title, Copyright date, Publisher, and the applicable ISBN/ISSN number. Some respondents had provided web sites that had many books listed. From the author title information, I was able to search the Library of Congress for the rest. I have already spent more time on this than I wanted, but I think it was a worthwhile exercise nonetheless. This list of EMC books and submitted web sites will be provided in a Word97 file to any who ask, for a nominal fee. How does free sound? :-) Oh, what the heck. Find the list as an attachment to this message. The size of the attachment should hopefully not be big enough to cause a problem for our able forum administrators. I hope you find this list useful. Disclaimer: I claim and will assume no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy of the information contained in this attached list. Best regards, Ron Pickard ron_pick...@hypercom.com File: emcbooks.doc - 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: Argentinean Power Cord
Ali, Check out Panel Components, www.panelcomponents.com http://www.panelcomponents.com . They have an IRAM approved Argentine power cord. This configuration is similar to, but is not the same as the Australian power cord. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: ali.a.e...@exgate.tek.com [SMTP:ali.a.e...@exgate.tek.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 1:33 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Argentinean Power Cord Today I received a call from one of distributors stating that as of August of this year, Argentina will have their own power cord requirements. I believe Argentina has the same configuration as Australia. Does anyone know where I can find out more about this requirement? Thanks in advance. Ali Elmi Tektronix, Inc., CPID P.O. Box 1000, M/S 61-001 Wilsonville, OR 97070-1000 (503) 685-3081 (503) 685-3880 Fax - 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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Network Equipment and UL 1459/1950
Yep, That is one way of doings things to make product compliant to UL1950. Octel Communications Corporation was doing this before we were even a gleam in Lucent's eye. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Jody Leber [SMTP:jle...@ustech-lab.com] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 7:03 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Network Equipment and UL 1459/1950 We just completed an approval with the exact same situation. I cannot speak for your prodcut since I have not reviewed it. I can provide a contact at UL if required. One of the big concerns is the R/C connectors normally used for bringing the lines in do not even meet UL1950 unless pins are skipped. Best Regards, Jody Leber jle...@ustech-lab.com http://www.ustech-lab.com U. S. Technologies 3505 Francis Circle Alpharetta, GA 30004 770.740.0717 Fax: 770.740.1508 -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [SMTP:j...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 3:42 PM To: emc-pstc; 'TREG' Cc: jim.wi...@adtran.com Subject:Re: Network Equipment and UL 1459/1950 In a message dated 3/24/99, jim.wi...@adtran.com writes: The only design criteria with regard to insulation in Bellcore standards or UL 1459 is a hi-pots test. Creepage and clearance do not exist in traditional C.O. equipment (just look at wire wrapped backplanes). Dear Jim and others: Jim Wiese has raised several concerns regarding the transition from UL 1459 to UL 1950 (3rd Edition). One of these concerns relates to the new creepage and clearance requirements for separation of TNV circuits and ground/SELV. I would like to pick up on this one issue (I know that Jim has raised several other issues as well). In particular, I would like some feedback from others in the group regarding my interpretation of how the separation requirements in UL 1950 apply to certain types of equipment. Just this week I met with a PBX manufacturer who is in the process of re- designing the backplane and all of the line cards in their PBX to comply with UL 1950. The PBX is presently approved to UL 1459, but the manufacturer has its eye on the March 2000 date for new or modified products to comply with UL 1950. Needless to say, the redesign effort is an expensive one. The biggest headache in the redesign is complying with the creepage and clearance distances for separation of TNV and SELV circuits. The PBX manufacturer seemed incredulous when I stated that I did not think the creepage and clearance requirements applied to their product, since the PBX has a permanent (hardwired) connection to ground. My interpretation is based primarily on the following statement in clause 6.2.1.2 in UL 1950, paraphrased below: Basic insulation is not required provided that all of the following conditions are met: - the SELV circuit is connected to protective earth...in accordance with 2.5; and - the installation instructions specifya permanent connection to earth; and - the test of 6.2.1.3 is carried out... (where applicable) There are other clauses that call out isolation, such as 6.3.3.1 and 6.4.1, but the permanent ground exemption appears to apply here as well. In my view, these exemptions are specifically targeted at equipment such as PBXs and network equipment that are typically installed by service personnel and include hardwired grounding. Without these exemptions, it is almost impossible to separate certain types of TNV circuits from SELV and ground. For example, a feed circuit that provides 48V battery (SLIC, FXS, DID, etc.) is inherently referenced to ground. The situation with a ground-start FXO interface is not much better. Do others in the group agree with this interpretation? If not, how are feed circuits supposed to be isolated? Does anyone have direct experience with getting a product through UL with these exemptions? I recognize that the original thread here related to network equipment, but the permanent ground exemption should apply to network equipment as well. I also recognize that these exemptions only apply to circuits that qualify as TNV, and do not address some of the other issues that Jim Weise raised concerning things like 200 volts DC for repeaters. However, for simple TNV isolation, it seems that network equipment could use the permanent ground exemptions from having to provide creepage and clearance (or in fact, any isolation at all). Any input from others in the group would be welcome. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) - 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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from
RE: 3mm contact gap for Circuit Breakers
Peter, I cannot tell you whether all UL/CSA Listed/Recognized/Certified circuit breakers have a minimum 3 mm contact gap, but I always specify that this is what I need when using breakers as a disconnect device. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: pe...@itl.co.il[SMTP:pe...@itl.co.il] Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:15 PM To: EMC-PST Subject: 3mm contact gap for Circuit Breakers Dear Members, Can someone confirm that a UL/CSA Listed or Recognized/Certified circuit breaker has minimum 3 mm contact gap and can be considered suitable as a service disconnect device in UL1950/CSA C22.2 950? Regards, PETER S. MERGUERIAN MANAGING DIRECTOR PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD. HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211 OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL TEL: 972-3-5339022 FAX: 972-3-5339019 E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il - 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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Rack System Safety (UL1950/EN 60950) Questions
Richard, Regarding your last statement I don't believe that they [CSA UL] will accept each others marks. Certain UL and CSA component standards have been harmonized and, I believe, this effort is continuing. If you look at Appendix P.2 [be sure it is P.2 and not P.1] of UL 1950, 3rd edition, you will find a matrix of UL and CSA component standards where meeting one or the other is considered acceptable for meeting the requirements of UL1950, 3rd edition. Additionally, if you are working with an astute UL engineer, very often they will inform you of additional components that fall under that category but have not yet been published in this Appendix. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: WOODS, RICHARD[SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 5:00 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Rack System Safety (UL1950/EN 60950) Questions As I think about this situation, there is a way of obtaining UL Listing on the rack and have other certification marks on the internal equipment. Have UL List just the rack without the equipment. Now you can mix and match the internal certified equipment as you see fit keeping in mind not to exceed the cooling and electrical capacity of the rack. This is what we use to do a decade ago at a mini-computer company. We would configure systems from Listed racks, cpus, disks, tapes, etc. Now to Jim's point. There is no law that requires one agency to accept the certification marks of another agency. For example, UL will not accept ETL marks on components and both are NRTLS. The only way one agency will accept the marks of another is if there is an agreement between them. The CB scheme is one good example. CSA and UL have an agreement to accept each others test data I believe, but I don't believe that they will accept each others marks. -- From: Jim Eichner [SMTP:jeich...@statpower.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 3:23 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Rack System Safety (UL1950/EN 60950) Questions Re Richard's item 5)... 5.UL requires that all internal equipment be UL Listed or Recognized. If that is true, then the value of the CSA/NRTL mark, and conversely the cUL mark if CSA plays this way too, is highly questionable. Do you have a direct-from-UL interpretation saying that they are not accepting the CSA/NRTL mark? If so, I would expect CSA to take action to defend its mark, and UL to have no firm ground to stand on! Comments? Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 11:15 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: RE: Rack System Safety (UL1950/EN 60950) Questions 1.Peter, equipment with the standard NEMA plug is considered to be Class A.. 2.Equipment using the heavy duty Industrial plugs complying with IEC are considered to be Class B. I have never seen those used inside rack mounted equipment. 3.If the power supply is UL Listed, then temperature measurements are not required. However, most power supplies are categorized as Recognized and are therefore incomplete in construction - that is, they cannot pass the safety requirements for a stand alone power supply. Temperature measurements will be required. 4.Stability is performed in a worst case situation, but reason is also taken into account. Most likely, you will determine that it is possible and reasonable to assume that more than one assembly can be extending at the same time. 5.UL requires that all internal equipment be UL Listed or Recognized. --- From: pe...@itl.co.il [SMTP:pe...@itl.co.il] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 11:26 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Rack System Safety (UL1950/EN 60950) Questions Dear All, I would like to know some of your professional advice on some issues reagrding rack systems to be evaluated to UL1950/EN 60 950. 1. For the North America, does a NEMA 125 V, 20 A plug meet the pluggable B definition? 2. What are some plug configurations which will meet the pluggable B
RE: Standards history
Bob, Your memory goes a long way. Additionally, as I remember it, in addition to UL flammability requirements, the mechanical stability section was also adopted almost word for word from UL 478 into IEC 435. The whole was further polished for clarity of thought and good body English by the tireless efforts of the Canadian contingent (Robert Mayhew ?? I may have the spelling wrong!) Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Divsion tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Robert Johnson[SMTP:robe...@ma.ultranet.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 2:12 AM To: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Cc: Lista de EMC da IEEE Subject: Re: Standards history I can fill in a little. It will be interesting to hear other historical views. EN60950 was copied from IEC 950 IEC 950 has been renumbered to IEC 60950 in line with the EC numbering scheme. IEC 950, Information Technology Equipment First edition1986 Amendment 1Nov-88 Amendment 2Jun-90 Second editionSep 91 Amendment 1Feb-92 Amendment 2Jun-93 Amendment 3Jan-95 Amendment 4Jul-96 Third editionAny day now. IEC 950 was the result of the merger of IEC 380 on business equipment, and IEC 435 on data processing equipment. Sorry, I don't have date histories on 380 or 435. IEC 950 has recently incorporated telecom needs, deriving much from IEC guide 105, EN 41003 and UL 1459 into the standard starting with the second edition third amendment and expanded significantly in the fourth amendment. IEC 435 was developed in the 1970s and inherited the aspects of a couple cultures. In general terms, the fire control portions came from North America, mostly out of UL 478, and the shock control portions came from Europe, mostly from VDE standards. The fire control portions seem to reflect the concerns in North America of largely wood construction which is quite sensitive to fire propagation. UL had previously developed a substantial base of flammability testing and construction rules which were incorporated as flame resisitance ratings and enclosure requirements into UL 478. The shock control seems to be driven from the increased risk of shock from higher mains voltages in Europe. Double insulation and the SELV circuit concept was the primary means to improve shock risk. At the same time IEC 950 was merging from its office and data processing roots, UL was doing the same by merging UL 114, office equipment and UL 478, data processing, into UL 1950, ITE. All use of UL 114 and 478 will be ended on 15 March 2000. CSA likewise merged CSA 143, office equipment and CSA 154, data processing, into CSA 220. UL and CSA made a transition from their old formats to CSA 950 in the IEC 950 format (with deviations) in the current edition. CSA 143 and 154 expired on 30 September 1993 and CSA 220 on 30 September 1999. EN60950 closely followed the IEC 950 schedule with: First edition 1988 Amendment 11990 Amendment 21991 Second edition1992 Amendment 11992 Amendment 21993 Amendment 31995 Amendment 41997 Third editionAlso close on the heels of IEC 950. Muriel Bittencourt de Liz wrote: Hello All, I doing a research that deals with EN standards. I'd like to know if someone has a brief historical of the changes from the early standards till actual standards (for example, IEC555 turned to IEC1000-3-2 and after EN61000-3-2). I'd like to know the reason for different naming and if possible the year of the changing... Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely Muriel -- == Muriel Bittencourt de Liz INEP - Instituto de Eletronica de Potencia Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Caixa Postal - 5119 88.040-970 - Florianopolis - SC - BRASIL Phone: +55.48.331.9204 - Fax: +55.48.234.5422 e-mail: mur...@inep.ufsc.br Homepage: http://www.inep.ufsc.br == - 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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com
RE: CE mark self certification
Derek, Nothing puzzles me about the TCF except your greeting! (And I am smiling as I type this;-- no offense was taken since no offense was meant by you.) Tania Grant, a chappette from Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tg...@lucent.com -- From: lfresea...@aol.com[SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:51 PM To: rehel...@mmm.com; jjuh...@fiberoptions.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: CE mark self certification Chaps, What in particular about a TCF contect puzzles you? Derek. Owner L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility - 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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Radio Frequency - Definition
Barry, I am not Mike, but. microwave - loosely applied term for the range of radio frequencies from one gigahertz to one terahertz. See also frequency data, waveguides and resonators. Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary of Electronics, Parker Publishing Co. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: b...@namg.us.anritsu.com[SMTP:b...@namg.us.anritsu.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:09 AM To: Mike Hopkins Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Radio Frequency - Definition Mike, Can you do me a favor by looking up the definition of Microwave from your dictionary? Thank you. Best Regards, Barry Ma Anritsu Company - Original Text From: Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com, on 1/5/99 9:02 AM: Per IEEE 100-1988 Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (A) (Loosly). The frequency in the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is between the audio-frequency portion and the infrared portion. (B) The frequency useful for radio transimision. Note: The present practicable limits of radio frequency are roughly 10kHz (kilohertz) to 100 000 MHz (megahertz). Within this frequency range electromagnetic radiation may be detected and amplified as an electric current at the wave frequency. Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com -Original Message- From: Kevin Richardson [SMTP:k...@compuserve.com] Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 9:30 PM To: EMC-PSTC - IEEE Subject: Radio Frequency - Definition I am trying to find definitions for two terms: a) Radio Frequency ie what is radio frequency, and what frequencies are recognized as being RF rather than what may be practical for transmission purposes ?; and b) radio frequency energy (used in the first paragraph of the scope of CISPR 14 and on a few other occasions throughout the standard) Can anyone provide a pointer to what could be recognized as an official definitions for these terms? Any input would be most appreciated. Thank you. Best regards, Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited Specialists in Technology Requirements and Compliance Ph: 02-43-29-4070 Fax: 02-43-28-5639 Int'l: +61-2-43-2x- Email: k...@compuserve.com (Internet) or k...@technologist.com (Internet) or 100356,374 (Compuserve) - 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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer
Mike, et al. [For lack of a comma, some people can be hanged!] What has never been clear to me is whether the manufacturer should also be established in the community or whether this is only applicable to the distributor who places the product on the market. Look at the two following sentence fragments without and with a comma. In my mind, placing a comma after the word 'manufacturer' definitely removes him from requiring to be part of the EU community. However, without the comma, I am less sure. I would like to see others comment on this! issued by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community..(no comma) issued by the manufacturer, or his authorized representative established within the Community.. (comma) Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Mike Hopkins[SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:48 AM To: 'bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph: 1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity issued by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community.. Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, ... or his authorized representative established within the Community can sign the Declaration. Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com -Original Message- From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Signatory for US based Manufacturer Greetings to all: I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the Signatory for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based manufacturer. Thanks in advance, Bill Jacowleff VDO Control Systems 150 Knotter Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 Phone: 203 271-6394 FAX : 203 271-6200 Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Compliance Issue on (Need 220VAC Power Strips for Racks)
Dear Captain, You test the rack. It's amazing how the little noise gnomes glom onto whatever cables you've got inside your rack and come whistling out from unexpected places. In other words, you don't know and, therefore, you test the rack. You attach cables from whatever external ports you have and, hopefully, you terminate to whatever peripheral equipment that they are supposed to be attached to. (Read your FCC Rules, Part 15, Sections 15.27 15.31, and Section 6 of ANSI C63.4 Measurement procedure.) Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tg...@lucent.com -- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz)[SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 7:00 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; 'rkes...@monitoringtech.com'@majordomo.ieee.org; rkes...@monitoringtech.com Subject: Compliance Issue on (Need 220VAC Power Strips for Racks) Well I trust you have found the strip. I would like to take this opportunity to ask a complinace question. If you are supplying rack equipment, how do you intend to verify the EMC performance of the final configuration? Thank you Charles Grasso (Capn Hook) -- From: rkes...@monitoringtech.com[SMTP:rkes...@monitoringtech.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 4:53 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Need 220VAC Power Strips for Racks Hello to all, I am in need of finding an EMI, surge protected, etc., etc. power strip for 220VAC. We are assembling rack mounted equipment that will be sold in the EU. It may be me, but I am finding it very difficult to locate (domestic/USA) manufacturers like Tripplite for CE approved plug strips. Ideally, these would be IEC320 type plug/sockets that can be mounted in a 19 rack. I'm sure they exist! Don't they? If anyone, especially the other side of the river, can point me to a url/phone number it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance. Ray Kester MTC - 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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Portable EMC Site
Bob, Back in the old days when I was testing (not with my current company), we had, what could be called, a portable test site. However, there is no way that you could have a portable ground screen;-- after you roll and unroll it several times, you will have discontinuity due to kinks in the wire and weird reflections from undulations, etc. Here is how we did it: We built our own 4-foot diameter turntable and put it on casters. Since we only had table top equipment, we did not need to have the turntable flush to the ground screen. The site was adjacent to a black asphalt private company driveway. We placed the ground screen lengthwise, overlapping the sections by 4 inches. We placed wooden boards along the edges to keep cars from driving over the screen or to guard people from tripping over the edges, and more important, to keep the edges from curling. This driveway was NOT used very often, but we still needed to provide access to it. Thus, the ground screen remained in place for the duration. We knew that when it became scruffy enough, we would need to replace it. We also hired an EMC consultant to perform site attenuation measurements, which turned out to be quite respectable. The ambient, however, in this Silicon Valley, was, and still is, outrageous. Power to the turntable, equipment under test, and electric antenna mast (which also was on a small wooden platform on casters) was brought out from the building door via heavy insulated 2 AWG (or so) cable. At the other end, all this was centered inside a room which overlooked the outside setup. Thus, we had automatic turntable and antenna mast control, and the EMC test engineer was comfortably ensconced inside an air conditioned room. For this to be truly portable, the antenna mast, turntable and other support equipment could be trucked in a small truck or van. Ages ago, I also knew an EMC test engineer who used a portable setup like this to perform tests at the various companies' parking lots. A site attenuation test was also performed prior to each test. This was back when there were very few EMC test labs in or near Silicon Valley. What greatly helped us at that time,-- we also had a screen room. We built a wooden 2x4 frame and covered it with copper screening on all 6 sides, overlapping edges, which we soldered. (Use a very very big solder gun!) This screen room was placed inside a standard high ceiling 'factory' floor location, the screen on the floor covered with a sheet of linoleum, a swinging screen door with copper mesh gasket provided a noise-tight environment. We did not need to provide lights, air conditioning or sprinklers for this room, since the mesh allowed the beneficial environment to air through. We named this room the dB Room (and the local jokers named me the Queen Bee!) We normally ran through the 30-1000 MHz frequency band, just characterizing the equipment under test. Then we took it outside and made actual measurements. The screen room also allowed us to perform delta testing;-- once we knew that we needed to attenuate any particular signal by x dB, we tested our fixes in the screen room, rather than hauling everything outside every time. However, you must be careful in preserving the exact EUT configuration and cable placement during this type of testing. A.H. Systems used to (and perhaps still do) make wooden turntables and antenna mast that could be placed on casters. An alternative is to nail 4x4 wooden blocks to allow a dolly (manual or battery operated) to pick up the wooden turntable and bring it out as needed. Obviously, this type of setup will not give you a flush-to-the-ground turntable. For the antenna mast, I would affix casters to two corner platform sides (likes boot spurs) so that the antenna mast can be manually towed in and out. Hope this helps. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Message Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: rehel...@mmm.com[SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 9:00 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Portable EMC Site We are thinking about building a portable pre-compliance EMC site. Has anyone had any experience with this? Also does anyone know of vendors that we can obtain a portable ground plane and a portable electric turntable. We will probably want to measure at 3 meters and we have not yet looked at the possible geographical locations of measurement. We are in the feasibility planning stage and I trying to gather information. Thanks in advance. Bob Heller Senior EMC Engineer 3M Company - 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,
RE: Why are CB reports truly useful?
We use CB Scheme reports, and make sure that the EN 60950 standard is referenced in addition to IEC 950. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: ron_pick...@hypercom.com[SMTP:ron_pick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 3:37 PM To: ri...@sdd.hp.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Why are CB reports truly useful? Hi Rich, Not sure what the flag-waving was all about, but we also get a CB certificate/test report with each national safety approval we get. The reason we still do is that we have on numerous occasions taken advantage of the CB stuff with virtually 100% success. We also use it as the basis for compliance with the LVD. Also, what's the new Full CB Certification Scheme all about? BTW, it might be interesting to see how many of us safety types use the CB Scheme. Best regards, Ron Pickard ron_pick...@hypercom.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Why are CB reports truly useful? Author: Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com at INTERNET Date:11/20/98 12:13 PM Why are CB reports truly useful? 1. The CB Certificate and Test Report are sufficient to prove compliance to the Low Voltage Directive and thereby back up the use of the CE mark on the product. The CE mark is required in the EU. The CE mark is also accepted in the EFTA countries. 2. The CB Certificate and Test Report facilitates product certification in any country (e.g., China) who is a member of the CB Scheme. Ideally, testing is not repeated, and only a limited number (or even no) samples are required. Furthermore, CB Scheme certification houses are encouraged to provide priority service to CB submittals. For a list of CB Scheme countries, see: http://www.cbscheme.org/ (The major world area not a member of the CB Scheme is South America.) Think of the CB Certificate and Test Report as a passport for the product. 3. If you certify your products at a NCB certification house, then you have one-stop shopping for product safety certification. You can get both national certification and the CB at the same time, and for a reduced combination price. Many North American certification houses offer USA, Canada, and CB with one submittal for a very favorable schedule and cost. The goal is one test, one certification worldwide. The CB Certificate and Test Report is the means to this goal. The more we use the CB Scheme, the more it will be accepted throughout the world. A new CB program, the Full Certification Scheme, is currently nearing completion. This is another major step towards one test, one certification. If you market in multiple countries, the CB Scheme is the best means for obtaining multiple certifications! We buy a CB Certificate and Test Report for all products. Best regards, Rich - Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group AiO Division Tel : +1 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.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, j...@gwmail.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,
RE: Insulation color on grounding conductors
Dear fwhitfield, 2.5.5 Protective earthing conductors are permitted to be bare or insulated. If used, insulation shall be green/yellow except in the following two cases: - for earthing braids, the insulation shall be either green/yellow or transparent; - for internal protective conductors in assemblies such as ribbon cables, busbars, flexible printed wiring, etc., any color is permitted provided that no misinterpretation of the use of the conductor is likely to arise. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: fwhitfi...@rheintech.com[SMTP:fwhitfi...@rheintech.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 1998 1:45 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Insulation color on grounding conductors Hi everyone, Does anyone know exactly what insulation colors are acceptable for protective earthing conductors per UL1950/EN60950? fwhitfi...@rheintech.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, j...@gwmail.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Attention: Sun Microsystem!
Hello, I would appreciate if the designated product safety/regulatory compliance engineer at Sun Microsystems please get in touch with me off-line. Thank you very much, Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com TEL:408-324-5238 - 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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Re[2]: US NRTL required ?
Ron, I've lifted your questions from below and provided my response within . Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com I would also ask, what if it connects to a telecommunications network? . I have responded by saying that the NEC (based on 800-4) requires products to be Listed that connect to a telecommunications network. Does this argument from these people have any merit? NO. Do battery powered products that connect to a telecommunications network need to be, in fact, Listed? YES. 800-4 requires Listing for telco equipment, and 480-3 requires that equipment supplied by storage batteries meet the requirements of the NEC. Also, as described in the NEC, does the term telecommunications network refer to only public networks? 90-2 covers Scope of the NEC. 90-2(a) describes what is covered; 90-2(b) describes what is not covered. 90-2(b)(4) states the following: Installations of communications equipment under the exclusive control of communication utilities located outdoors or in building spaces used exclusively for such installations. It has been my experience that telcos may reserve the above exclusion for themselves when they manufacture their own equipment, but demand Listing when buying it from someone else to be installed in their locations. Also, Bellcore standard (forget which one, and I am too tired to go chase it right now) states that equipment must meet UL1459. (Hopefully, the next edition will add ...and/or UL1950, 3rd edition or later.) In any event, telcos have been buying our equipment meeting UL1459 or UL1950, 3rd edition. -- From: ron_pick...@hypercom.com[SMTP:ron_pick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 5:16 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: tgr...@lucent.com; richard.pa...@exgate.tek.com Subject: Re[2]: US NRTL required ? Hi Richard, You raised this point (some additional thoughts of mine follow): Let me take this opportunity to present another point for anyone who cares to give it some thought. The NEC and/or local electrical requirements come into play because the product connects to the local electrical supply. What about battery operated products ? Is there then nothing that says that a battery operated product needs any third-party safety approvals ? I would also ask, what if it connects to a telecommunications network? In my travels, I've come across some people that have said that All you need is an external Listed power supply and there's no need (safety-wise) to do anything else, even if the product does connect to the PSTN. I have responded by saying that the NEC (based on 800-4) requires products to be Listed that connect to a telecommunications network. Does this argument from these people have any merit? Do battery powered products that connect to a telecommunications network need to be, in fact, Listed? Also, as described in the NEC, does the term telecommunications network refer to only public networks? Comments? Best regards, Ron Pickard ron_pick...@hypercom.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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours
Great! Are the IEC and DIN standards mandatory for EN60950 equipment? What is the scope of the above standards? tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Griffith, Monty[SMTP:mgrif...@ingr.com] Reply To: Griffith, Monty Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 12:44 PM To: 'ron_pick...@hypercom.com'; jeich...@statpower.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours Hey guys I have an antique version of IEC 364 (Similar to NEC but for Europe) which indicates Identification of Conductors by colour as indicated in IEC446 which now has been replaced by IEC 60446 IDENTIFICATION OF CONDUCTORS BY COLOURS OR NUMERALS and there is also DIN 40705 IDENTIFICATION OF INSULATED AND BARE CONDUCTORS BY COLOURS. Monty Griffith Senior Product Safety Engineer Intergraph Computer System Huntsville, AL 35894-0001 PH: (256) 730-6017 FX: (256) 730-6239 http://mecsrv.b29.ingr.com -Original Message- From: ron_pick...@hypercom.com [SMTP:ron_pick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 7:52 AM To: jeich...@statpower.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Re: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours Jim, You are correct in that IEC950/EN60950/etc. does not specify primary wiring color schemes, but only the earth conductor(s). Actually, UL1950 does not specify black/white either. That is accomplished in the NEC. Conversely in the international markets, I believe the blue/brown color scheme is described in HD-21, HD-22 or IEC227(IEC950 Annex P). I don't have those documents so I can't be sure. Anyone out there who has access to these documents or knows specifically where this blue/brown color scheme is specified, please shed some light on this. Comments would be appreciated. Best regards, Ron Pickard ron_pick...@hypercom.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours Author: Jim Eichner jeich...@statpower.com at INTERNET Date:7/29/98 5:06 PM Unless I am missing something, I see no reason why I can't allow our North American black and white wiring colours to be used for the line and neutral wiring INSIDE a product, even though that product is destined for CE-marking and European sales. EN60950 only limits the use of green/yellow wiring. As far as I can see, it does not mandate the blue/brown colour code. Does anyone disagree? Thanks. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest.
RE: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours
Jim, Annex ZA of EN6095 provides a list of referenced standards, including IEC 364, Electrical installations of buildings, which in turn references HD 384. The explanatory text of this Annex states the following (appropriate sections capitalized by me for emphasis): This European Standard incorporates...provisions from other publications. These normative references are CITED AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACES IN THE TEXT and the publications are listed hereafter. Now, in Section 3, Wiring, HD 384 is NOT cited anyplace, not even for the green/yellow safety ground (2.5.5 and 3.1.6).My take on this is that, therefore, you can use whatever color you choose for internal wiring, with the exception of the safety ground wire. I've had experience with certain European agencies demanding nice to have stuff that is not required anyplace in the standard. My usual response is to ask them politely to educate me regarding this matter and show me just where that specific requirement is documented. I've yet to be educated on the following subjects: color of internal wiring, red LEDs on disk drives that must be green, package reclaiming recycling, and various ergonomic requirements. Note that this latter issue was not a mandatory requirement some 15 years ago, and was definitely not part of the scope of any TUV type agency. I believe that today there is either an ISO type ergonomic standard, especially for terminals and keyboards, or national (Swedish?). But I believe that these are industry type standards and do not fall under the scope of EN60950. However, I am always willing to be educated!! Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Jim Eichner[SMTP:jeich...@statpower.com] Reply To: Jim Eichner Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 12:24 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: FW: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours Thanks for all your replies. In short the answers I have received range from - EN60950 will let you use black and white for internal AC line wiring to - HD384 series documents dictate that line and neutral must be blue and brown I am left wondering whether the HD384 requirement apply inside equipment, or whether the situation is similar to the North American one, where the colours specified in the electrical code apply to premises wiring but NOT inside equipment (unless called out in an equipment standard). Again my basic question, now slightly longer: Can I, in spite of HD384, use black and white AC line wiring INSIDE a CE-marked, EN60950 piece of equipment??? Thanks again for your help. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 10:48 AM To: jeich...@statpower.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; 'ron_pick...@hypercom.com' Subject:RE: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours The ac wiring color codes for the EU are specified in the HD 384 series which are based upon the IEC 60364 series.. The HD series has been compiled in one single BSI standard, BS 7671:1992/A1:1994/A2:1997. The color scheme is specified in Chapter 51. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic. -- From: ron_pick...@hypercom.com[SMTP:ron_pick...@hypercom.com] Reply To: ron_pick...@hypercom.com Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 8:52 AM To: jeich...@statpower.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours Jim, You are correct in that IEC950/EN60950/etc. does not specify primary wiring color schemes, but only the earth conductor(s). Actually, UL1950 does not specify black/white either. That is accomplished in the NEC. Conversely in the international markets, I believe the blue/brown color scheme is described in HD-21, HD-22 or IEC227(IEC950 Annex P). I don't have those documents so I can't be sure. Anyone out there who has access to these documents or knows specifically where this blue/brown color scheme is specified, please shed some light on this. Comments would be appreciated. Best regards, Ron Pickard ron_pick...@hypercom.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: EN60950 - Internal wiring colours Author: Jim Eichner jeich...@statpower.com at INTERNET Date:7/29/98 5:06 PM Unless I am missing something, I see no reason why I can't allow our North American black and white wiring colours to be
RE: Power transformers
Brian, I don't know where you are located, but here are European UL addresses and their local affiliation. Hopefully, some of these might be of help. The requirement has always been there but it is not equally enforced; some cities and/or customers are more particular than others. However, if your product does not comply, you never know when you would be loosing sales because of the non-compliance. Denmark: DEMKO A/S P.O. Box 5114 Lyskaer 8 DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark TEL: 45 44 85 65 65 FAX: 45 44 85 65 00 WEB: http://www.demko.dk United Kingdom: UL International (U.K.) Ltd. 30 Shenlely Pavilions, Chalkdell Drive Shenley Wood, Milton Keynes MD5 6LB TEL: 44 1908 522 220 FAX: 44 1908 522 221 Germany: Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. c/o TUV Product Service GmbHc/o VDE Testing Certification Inst. Ridlerstrasse 31Merianstrasse 28 80339 Munich, Germany D-63069 Offenbach (Main) TEL: 49 89 50084 118 TEL: 49 69 8306 656 FAX: 49 89 50084 133 FAX: 49 69 8306 581 The Netherlands: Underwriters Laboratories Inc. c/o KEMA Nederland B.V. Ultrechtseweg 310 6812 AR 6800 ET Arnhem TEL: 31 85 56 91 11 FAX: 31 85 51 49 22 Sweden: Underwriters Laboratories Inc. c/o SEMKO AB S-164-22 KISTA, Sweden TEL: 46 8 750 0329 FAX: 46 8 750 0379 Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Brian Harlowe[SMTP:bharl...@vgscientific.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 1:52 AM To: tania.gr...@octel.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Power transformers Hi Tania Thankyou for your help I think the standard I need is UL 1561. We have supplied one of our instruments to a customer in the States and we have a transformer on the input to cater for input supply variations and also to assist with conducted EMC. The local safety inspectors will not allow our equipment to be connected to the supply until we can show compliance with an NRTL specification which seems to be more and more of a requirement over there. Has any one else met this problem or is it something that has always been a requirement. Brian Harlowe * opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the position of VG Scientific
RE: Power transformers
Brian, You are not stating how much power, but here goes: UL 697Toy transformers UL 1411 Transformer and motor transformers for use in audio, radio and television type appliances. UL 1561 Dry-type general purpose and power transformers. UL 1562 Transformers, distribution, dry-type-- over 600 volts UL 1585 Class 2 and Class 3 transformers UL 2161 Neon transformers and power supplies My recommendation is that you take your specific application question to your nearest friendly UL engineer (if you don't have one, try their Client Advisor) and they will help you find the appropriate standard. You might want to purchase several standards and study the scope very carefully. Also, compare what your competition is doing. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: Brian Harlowe[SMTP:bharl...@vgscientific.com] Reply To: Brian Harlowe Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 8:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Power transformers Hi everyone After the response to my question regarding the differences between CE and FCC for emc. Can anyone advise me of the UL standard for mains power transformers. Regards Brian Harlowe * opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the position of VG Scientific
RE: UL Approved vs Recognized
Doug, I believe that UL does not approve anything;-- they are NOT a Good Housekeeping type of approval agency. I understand that they either Classify, Recognize, or List products to specific requirements which usually do not address such customer satisfaction parameters as quality or reliability (except for safety interlocks and other such safety circuits). In the case of wire, it is either Recognized, or Listed. However, it would be nice to hear from someone in UL directly. Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division tgr...@lucent.com -- From: do...@ftc2.aei.com[SMTP:do...@ftc2.aei.com] Reply To: do...@ftc2.aei.com Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 2:33 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL Approved vs Recognized Hello group, I have recently been in discussions about what is the real difference between UL Recognized and UL Approved. In this instance it was about wire but I believe that it applies to most any product. If UL recognition is not as rigorous as approval but am I able to rely on recognized parts for safety applications? Just what is the distinction? My experience has been with NRTL/C and GS marking but never component approvals through UL. Thanks, Doug Powell, Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Ft. Collins Colorado USA
RE: Blatant Suggestion
Thank you, Ed! I am using Voice-It in my photography to record my camera settings, filters used, if any, aperture, etc., but it never dawned on me that I could/should use it at work! Thanks for the suggestion. Tania Grant -- From: ed.pr...@cubic.com[SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Reply To: ed.pr...@cubic.com Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 6:02 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Blatant Suggestion A very short note to my friends in emc-pstc: This is not an advertisement. This is a product review. For people who have to keep track of lots of stuff. I'm going to suggest that you buy something. Did you ever walk into a room and wonder why you went there? I reached that stage when I was thirty. So, you resolved to make notes, or even carry a notebook. Maybe get a micro tape recorder. Did it work? Not for me. I kept leaving the tape recorder someplace, and I never seemed to be able to get pencil, paper, and ideas at the same place and time. I think I found a great solution. I just discovered a thing called Voice It, Model VT-90. It's a 1/4 thick, credit card sized digital note recorder. No moving parts. Fits your pocket easily. Very light. Simple controls. You get 90 seconds of recording time (more with fancier models). I bought mine at Office Depot for $30. I've been using mine for about a week now, and I can say that the price performance convenience make this an excellent gadget. I just wanted everyone who I've crossed emails with in the past couple of years to know about this organizational aid. Ed -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 Date: 07/10/98 Time: 17:02:37 --
