RE: UL 508 C
Hi Rafael, I don't know how to exactly align UL 508C to an IEC equivalent, although some of the learned members of this forum are sure to have suggestions. Mine would be to contact UL. UL is well connected with a European agency and so I'm assuming they would likely be able to supply the information fairly quickly. Good Luck. My opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal 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 Sanmina Canada ULC does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. *** -Original Message- From: Rafael González [mailto:rgonza...@cetecom.es] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 8:49 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL 508 C Importance: High Sensitivity: Personal Dear Sirs, How can I know the equivalent IEC standard of the UL 508 C ? Thanks very mush for your time and collaboration. Rafael González Licerán Area Seguridad Eléctrica rgonzál...@cetecom.es _ CENTRO DE TECNOLOGIA DE LAS COMUNICACIONES, S.A. PTA - C/Severo Ochoa 2, 29590 Campanillas (Málaga) Tel: 34 952619100 - Fax: 34 952619113 - Web: http://www.cetecom.es/ _ --- 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: Desperate for help on a UL1950 interpretation
Hi Doug, Without knowing the details of your product, how the part is implemented, what exactly it is exposed to or the concerns of the safety house, a question I would ask is what exactly is the concern? Is it possible that the exemptions under 1950, 3rd, cl. 4.4.3.2 .7th hyphenated item dealing with abnormal testing per 5.4.6 to prove in no issues could be applied? Keep in mind it's a D3 deviation so although it might work for North America, you might have issues with non-North American markets. Another pointer might be the general description regarding the use of small parts, cumulative effects and the propagation of flame in 4.4.3.1-it is a bit nebulous and leaves the door open to applying engineering judgement. Good Luck! My opinion and not that of Sanmina Canada. 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 calgary...@aol.com Sanmina Canada ULC does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. *** -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@lxe.com] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:37 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Desperate for help on a UL1950 interpretation Hello All - I desperately need some opinions on an interpretation of a particular clause in UL1950. The background: I have an investigation underway to UL1950 of a portable handheld computer, powered by battery and other power options, all of which meet the requirements for inherently LPS. Clause 4.4.3.1 states, Components inside a FIRE ENCLOSURE, and continues into flammability requirements of materials and components. Clause 4.4.5.2 addresses components not requiring a fire enclosure, and states, -components in a SECONDARY CIRCUIT supplied by a limited power source complying with 2.11, provided that The product in question absolutely meets the requirements of clause 4.4.5.2, which I interpret to mean that a fire enclosure is not required. However, the test house performing the evaluation is applying all of the criteria of clause 4.4.3.2. Unfortunately, I have a relatively small foam spacer inside that does not meet the flammability class HF-2 or better as specified in 4.4.3.2. The test house tells me that yes, the product meets the requirements for the exemption allowed in 4.4.5.2, but that I cannot literally interpret the statement in 4.4.3.1 to mean that the substance of clause 4.4.3 regards only component and material flammability ratings inside a fire enclosure. I guess I'm a literal type guy - I can't see any other way to interpret the standard. Can anyone shed some light on this interpretation so that I can read between the lines and understand the real requirements? I'm not trying to make an enclosure of gasoline-impregnated paper, and with the exception of a small (but critical) piece of foam, everything else meets the requirements without the exclusion allowed by 4.4.5.2. HELP !?!? Doug Massey Safety Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. Norcross, GA., USA Ph. (770) 447-4224 x3607 FAX (770) 447-6928 e-mail: masse...@lxe.com Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.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
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] 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] 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 Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions --- 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: Red LED's
Hi, I'm not familiar with any requirements disallowing the use of red leds (at least per IEC 60950 and derivatives) but you'll need to ensure the LEDs (and the application) meet EN 60825 laser class 1 requirements (ref. to cl. 0.2.6; 4.3.13 and Annex P).. 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: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 7:59 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Red LED's Is the use of Red LED's acceptable for I.T.E. equipment in the EU in accordance with LVD and EMCD? All comments welcome. Thank you. Mark Schmidt X-Rite Incorporated U.S.A. mschm...@xrite.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
RE: Using fuse to protect wire undersized for load?
Lauren, To add to Peter's comments below, another relevant factor might be the required observation of termination temperatures and conductor ampacity and therefore selection per NEC art. 110-14(c). Without knowing more of the product nature or implementation, the requirement may yet add further argument to increasing conductor size beyond 2/0. My 2 cents and not that of my employer. 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: calgary...@aol.com mailto:calgary...@aol.com , k...@nortelnetworks.com mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 5:02 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Using fuse to protect wire undersized for load? Lauren - I'm not familiar with NFPA79, so I'll answer only with regard to NFPA70 (the US NEC). The 125% issue in the NEC is for two items: attachment plugs sizing and circuit breaker sizing (1/1.25 = 0.80), both relative to load current. Attachment plugs for equipment that contain motors must be rated for not less than 125% of the steady state operating current. General purpose circuit breakers need to be sized at 80% of steady state operating current for all branch circuits, unless marked for 100% load rating when used as a switch for lighting circuits (IIRC, this marking is SWD). Fuses, on the other hand, are useable up to 100% of their marked rating. Wiring need must be sized according to the applicable load current and overcurrent protection provided according to the wire size and load current. The above, of course, can be used outside these ratings, if under engineering supervision and acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Use at lesser currents than rated is just fine for wiring, fuses, circuit breakers and attachment plugs. It's difficult to comment further, without knowing more detail about the product, since speculation can get far afield from your specific case. BTW, I hope your client is aware of Sections 400-7 and 400-8 of the NEC, as well as the notes to Table 400-5(b). I would have normally expected to use the tables in Article 310 for this. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Crane, Lauren Colleagues, I have an internal client who is proposing a design. In this design, a resistive heating load is being supplied by conductors that are far below the 125% of load recommended/required by the NEC or NFPA-79 (ref 1994 sect 15.5.3). The client argues that it is okay that the supply conductors are far below because they are fused at a level that will protect them. .26 ohm load driven at 120 volts max Full Load Amps calculates to 462 amps. 125% = 577 amps. 60degC wire size should be 700 mcm per NFPA-79 1994 table 11. Client proposes using 2/0 90degC wire because drive circuit is an SCR controller fused to 50 amps feeding a 4:1 step down transformer. They rationalized max current (given 50A fuses) is 200 amps on the secondary. 2/0 90degC wire is rated to 300 amps per NEC table 400-5b. It seems clear to me that the codes say the wire should be sized to the load. But the codes don't seem to say that wires SHOULD NOT be sized to thier over current protection (regardless of the load). Does anyone have a pro or con rational for undersizing the conductors to a load provided they are protected correctly by a fuse or breaker? Thanks in advance. Lauren Crane (my own opinions, not my employeer's) * Product Design Safety Compliance Manager * Ion Beam and Thermal Processing Systems * Axcelis Technologies Inc. * 108 Cherry Hill Dr. * Beverly, MA 01915 * 978.921-9745 lauren.cr...@axcelis.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
RE: RE: EN55024 question
Folks, Just to add to the mix of questions so far, here's a few more that Debbie may wish to consider: 1) is the demarkation point for the product clearly identified? 2) Is a smart jack always to be used with the product? Who supplies it (i.e. mfg. or customer)? 3) Is the product in question specified to meet the immunity requirements with/without the use of the smart connector? 4) Are there a million+1garden variety smart jacks or is there only a unique smart jack to connect with this particular product? 5) What will the customer's obligations for installation and deployments of the product be? I guess the point I'm raising is that the product Debbie(below) refers to has to live up to it's specs...whatever they are. If the immunity spec is not to be met stand-alone (i.e. without smart jack) due to whatever the mfg. pushes onto the customer...that's fine but it should be clearly identified on the mfg's side and to their customers in one way or another. Any assumptions that are made regarding what it is that Telcos supply is ok as well...they might be wrong however, so the design docs, approvals and customer supplied information should clearly spell out what the product meets and what the customer's obligations are prior to deployments, implementation and possible field issues. My 2 Cents...if I'm way off track, please accept my apologies. Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. k...@nortelnetworks.com mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.com calgary...@aol.com mailto:calgary...@aol.com -Original Message- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:00 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question Bandele - Please forgive an ignorant question: I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines. To wit: outside is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic) that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and subject to transients. Direct implies to me that there is no interposing hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices, galvanic isolating equipment, etc). Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of the standards committee that wrote the requirement? Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM Hello Debbie, If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to it is considered to be an indirect connection. If the jack does not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a direct connection. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [ mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com ] forwarding for Debbie... Reply Separator Subject:EN55024 question Author: Debbie Mallory debbie.mall...@fibre.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 8/25/00 10:59 AM Hello, I have a question about the use of the word directly in Note 2, of Table 2, in EN55024: 1998. It says Applicable only to [telecommunication] ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect directly to outdoor cables. If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the outdoor cable via a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to immunity testing) or does it not apply? Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises? Thanks for your comments. Regards, Debbie Mallory AFC, Inc. Largo, FL
RE: Why routine hipot is required.
Mike, In my experience, the purpose of the end-assembly, 100% mfg. hi-pot test is to check the integrity of the electrical connections and of the required isolation levels. On the manufacturing end, any number of events can create a disturbance in the insulation of the product. These can often include insulation migration, miswiring, skinned insulation on conductors, quality issues with OEM supplied parts (i.e. connectors, supplies, etc.) due to time or transportation effects and so onthink Murphy's Law. Restated, the factory test will help identify an otherwise catastrophic fault waiting to happen out in the field. For the most part, it's effective and pretty much required by a safety agency as part of the approval. Cheers, Kaz Gawrzyjal Sr. Product Safety Engineer -- Sanmina Canada ULC Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Mike Morrow [mailto:mi...@ucentric.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:40 AM To: EMC Society Subject: Why routine hipot is required. I've been asked why a routine hipot test is required on an end assembly computer when it uses a Listed power supply that has already been hipot tested. So far I don't like the way I've worded my response. Basically what I've said is that a power supply is approved as a component. The end safety of the device depends on the installation. Can anyone add some more beef to this statement. Thanks. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems 978-897-6482 mi...@ucentric.com www.ucentric.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
RE: Implanted IC in brain
Greetings, Interesting topic Personally if forced to choose, I'd place my money on the recent advances announced by the genetics community to get my great-grand kids to the enhanced state of humanity as opposed to a chip set in the old noodlemy thoughts will continue to be my own and not accessible by the crackers of tomorrow via the wireless web concept. Seems some form of operating system would be required to get the web interface runninganyone have that much faith in the existing options today as to load up some software in your noggin?? Hopefully airline pilots will be excluded from this vision of the future else face at least one crash per week.Can you go to Bob's Headshop for some aftermarket knock-off parts? Does UL 1950 cl. 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 allow for added abnormals? My 2 Cents and not those of my current employer. Kaz Gawrzyjal Safety Guy nortel networks k...@nortelnetworks.com k...@hotmail.com -Original Message- From: Mel Pedersen [mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 10:54 AM To: 'Barry Ma'; EMC-PSTC Subject: RE: Implanted IC in brain Hello: I believe we should consider what precedents the Medical Equipment community has laid out hereat least as a startIEC 60601, FDA regs, etc these address safety concerns for implanted. Just my humble thoughts on the matter. - Mel -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 7:14 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
RE: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals
Hi Dan, The guideline you've mentioned below is one that I've heard from UL and CSA in the past and have applied within the realm of engineering judgement/common sense as much as possible without much issue. It is reasonable to expect that ambient temperature may fluctuate somewhat in pace with the test lab conditions or EUT design and operation ( EUT may cycle in operation). The objective of the temperature test is to determine the operating temperatures of critical and accessible components of the EUT stabilized over a period of time under conditions that are considered representative of the normal operation for the EUT to ensure that fire or shock hazard does not exist. With that in mind, if your temperatures vary a bit but are cyclical in nature and offer much margin at the high points, what's the safety issue? On the other side of the fence, if your temps. are on the edge of failure and the stability question is the defining factor, you'd probably want to revisit the design anyhow, to alleviate safety and reliability concerns. To date, the safety engineers in both agencies that I've worked with have applied engineering judgement in terms of thermal stability since the definition can easily vary with the EUT design, operation and of course with the test being appliedanother good reason for tracking the external ambient. Have you requested a written definition from whichever safety agency you're working with? My 2 cents and not those of my current employer. Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Product Safety Engineer -- Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com e-,ail: k...@hotmail.com -Original Message- From: Dan Mitchell [mailto:dan_mitch...@condordc.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 9:32 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL1950/UL2601 Thermals In UL2601 Clause 42.3.3) Duty Cycle - for Equipment for Continuous operation it lists 2 ways to conclude the test a) temperature of the windings stabilize and do not increase by more than 2 deg. C in 1 hr, or b) 2.5 hr, which ever is shorter. UL1950 only states that; for continuous operation, until steady conditions are established. I haven't been able to establish what is meant by Steady Conditions. I was told once by a rep. of a large safety company that it meant no more than a 1 deg. C rise in 15 minute period. However, since I can't find this written in the standard, I am a bit skeptical. If anybody has a good definition of Steady Conditions and can point it out to me in UL1950 or in the PAGs, I would appreciate it. Daniel W. Mitchell Product Safety Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc. P: (805) 486-4565 x323 F: (805) 483-4307 --- 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: Fwd:RTTE directive
Hi Jim, Try the following link. http://www.tsacc.ic.gc.ca/MRA/BlueGuide.pdf My 2 Cents and not that of my current employer. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Product Safety Engineer -- Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Allan, James [mailto:james_al...@milgo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:01 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Fwd:RTTE directive Does anyone have a link to a copy of the Blue Guide mentioned by Tony below? Jim Allan Senior Compliance Engineer Milgo Solutions Inc. E-mail james_al...@milgo.com -Original Message- From: Tony Reynolds [SMTP:reyno...@pb.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 10:56 AM To: k...@i-data.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Subject: Re: Fwd:RTTE directive Kim, According to the information I have on the RTTE Directive (99/5/EC) the following applies to the Declaration of Conformity. 'There is ONE Declaration of Conformity. It is held by the manufacturer with the technical file for the product. The standard EN45014 is an accepted model for the DoC, referred to in the Blue Guide*, therefore manufacturers would seem to have no good reason not to use this model. The DoC is signed by the manufacturer, and is expected to be in the language used by the manufacturer (and understood by the signatory). A COPY of the DoC (in its original language) must accompany every product.' *This is a guide to the implementation of Directives based on the New Approach and Global Approach (EC Doc Certif 98/1) also known as the 'Blue Guide'. This information was on a DTI FAQ paper recently distributed at a TAPC meeting. I hope this helps. Kind Regards Tony Reynolds Principal Compliance Engineer Pitney Bowes Ltd The Pinnacles Harlow Essex. CM19 5BD UK Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118 e-mail: reyno...@pb.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
RE: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment
Hi Kurt, I believe that under the RTTE Directive, now in full bloom, the requirements of the LVD apply without the voltage limits. For North America, UL 1950, third edition/CAN CSA C22.2 No. 950-M95 (the binational standard) would likely be your best fit. My 2 Cents and not that of my current employer. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal , P. Eng. Product Safety Engineer -- Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 11:04 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
RE: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors
Oops, Can't unsend the previous response so I'll apologize instead...the last effort seems to be totally off-track. Instead of a direct requirement, I've noticed a possible exemption in the 1999 NEC Handbook to alleviate Article 300 wiring Methods requirements per installations in information technology equipment rooms. The commentary following Section 645-5 (d) indicates that all of methods for branch wiring under raised floors are subject to the specific article for the wiring method used and also that Article 300 applies, except where modified by Article 645. So, Sections 300-22(b) and (c) have some discussion that connectors used with flexible metal conduit shall effectively close any openings in the connection. 300-22(c) has further requirements on wiring methods for spaces other than ducts or plenums, used for environmental air which must be listed for the use...a possible entry to the dust tight req't you've mentioned. The commentary following 300-22 states the intent is to limit the use of materials that would contribute smoke and products of combustion during a fire and to provide an effective barrier against the spread of combustion products into the ducts or plenums (might be relevant to the dust proof connector req't.) However, the commentary following Section 300-22 (d)states that it is not intended that the requirements of Sections 300-22(b) and 300-22(c)apply to air-handling areas beneath raised floors in information equipment technology rooms and follows up with a reference back to 645. So the exemption appears to be there from an NEC (Handbook) standpoint but of course, the handbook qualifies the commentary as opinion of the editor or other contributors and not the official interpretation of the NFPA or it's technical committees. Personally I find the commentary useful but if it's not official, how often is it in conflict with an official interpretation? Is it possible the installation you've mentioned might be seen (by the inspector) as an indoor wet installation? Is a local code being invoked? My 2 cents and not that of my current employerapologies for the previous clutter folks. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Product Safety Engineer -- Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Gawrzyjal, Kazimier [WDC:2Y31:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 2:31 PM To: 'shad...@us.ibm.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors Ken, You might check the varied assortment of UL standards dealing with fittings. The following link may be of use (the only one I have readily available). I'm assuming CSA and others, will have similar info on the web.: http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/catalog/ Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Product Safety Engineer -- Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com The Contents of this Email are Nortel Networks Confidential -Original Message- From: shad...@us.ibm.com [mailto:shad...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:50 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors Can anyone point to a requirement for dust-tight/water-tight connectors for use under a raised floor in a computer room? I believe that City of Chicago requires dust-tight/water-tight connectors when the area beneath the raised floor is also used as a plenum (e.g., a return or supply for 'conditioned' air). The NEC and NFPA 75 do not directly mention dust-tight/water-tight connectors. Any help or comments would be appreciated. Thank you and best regards, Ken Shadoff Product Safety, Environmentally Conscious Products, Installation Planning Technology IBM Corp. - Enterprise Systems Group 2455 South Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Dept. GFQA, B/416, Rm. 10-16, M.S. P932 Phone: (914)-433-4699, T/L 8-293-4699 Fax : (914) 432-9807, T/L 8-292-9807 E-mail: shad...@us.ibm.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:
RE: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors
Ken, You might check the varied assortment of UL standards dealing with fittings. The following link may be of use (the only one I have readily available). I'm assuming CSA and others, will have similar info on the web.: http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/catalog/ Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Product Safety Engineer -- Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com The Contents of this Email are Nortel Networks Confidential -Original Message- From: shad...@us.ibm.com [mailto:shad...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:50 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Dust-Tight/Water-Tight Connectors For Use Under Raised Floors Can anyone point to a requirement for dust-tight/water-tight connectors for use under a raised floor in a computer room? I believe that City of Chicago requires dust-tight/water-tight connectors when the area beneath the raised floor is also used as a plenum (e.g., a return or supply for 'conditioned' air). The NEC and NFPA 75 do not directly mention dust-tight/water-tight connectors. Any help or comments would be appreciated. Thank you and best regards, Ken Shadoff Product Safety, Environmentally Conscious Products, Installation Planning Technology IBM Corp. - Enterprise Systems Group 2455 South Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Dept. GFQA, B/416, Rm. 10-16, M.S. P932 Phone: (914)-433-4699, T/L 8-293-4699 Fax : (914) 432-9807, T/L 8-292-9807 E-mail: shad...@us.ibm.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
RE: EMC and product safety split?
I echo Tania's point of view. From a product safety standpoint, I have found several EMC topics of discussion in this forum which were of use since there are at times, impacts to product safety.implement an EMC fix...create a safety concern..besides it's my belief that to broaden one's horizons is always a good thing. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal ( gav jay ow) Product Safety Engineer -- Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions Wireless Development Centre 2924 11 Street NE Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2E 7L7 tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765) fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765) e-mail: k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 4:35 PM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum; 'Robert Legg' Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? If this is becoming an issue, I would like to recommend that the Subject header in the e-mail be preceded by either EMC: or SAF: followed by the subject.This way, persons not interested in one or the other could easily delete the message without opening it.However, I would not like to see a split;-- there are many engineers that are responsible for both functions and, as mentioned previously, many safety issues could affect EMC, and vice versa. And, into what category would you place requests for ALL regulatory requirements for different countries? Do we have to send such to three different addresses? Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Robert Legg [SMTP:rl...@tectrol.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 10:33 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum Subject: EMC and product safety split? Is there any possibility of getting the EMC and product safety postings partitioned ~ to assist in cutting surplus mail traffic? Rob Legg rl...@tectrol.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Correction factor for power supply cords.
Kelly, For another, possibly different point of view, you might consider contacting the good folks at the NFPA, who write the NEC for their interpretation. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: ed.ra...@na.marconicomms.com [mailto:ed.ra...@na.marconicomms.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 8:12 AM To: Kelly Tsudama Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Correction factor for power supply cords. Kelly: The NEC is written to keep structures safe. Flexible cords used in structures are normally used in free air. If you are using a flexible cord in equipment, you need to rate its ampacity in accordance with whatever standard you are using. The NEC relies on the NRTL label and testing for the safety of equipment. If you are using a flexible cord in a high ambient I would contact the mfg for the appropriate derating. Kelly Tsudama ktsud...@cisco.com on 03/09/2000 09:33:14 PM Please respond to Kelly Tsudama ktsud...@cisco.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Ed Rauch/MAIN/MC1) Subject: Correction factor for power supply cords. Hi Group I am hoping that I can get your opinions with an issue regarding the correction factor of power supply cords. For instance, in the NEC table 310-17, for single conductors in free air, there is a chart at the bottom of the table that allows you to determine how to factor in the ambient temperature. However, for a flexible power cord, the table 400-5 does not have any correction factor table. At first I thought that this is because cords always have a temperature rating marked on them, but then I recall that most (if not all) single conductors have this marking too Is there a need to de-rate a power cord's current rating based on the expected ambient temperature? If so, where in the NEC did I miss this fact? If not, why not? Thanks for your help, Kelly Kelly Tsudama Cisco Systems ktsud...@cisco.com 408-527-0216 408-525-9150 fax 408-322-9024 pager --- 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: Where has the rcic gone to?
All, Thanks for the prompt responses. Seems I've uncovered a curiosity. My browser still takes me to never-never-land. Cheers, Kaz Gawrzyjal k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Gawrzyjal, Kazimier [WDC:2Y31:EXCH] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 12:17 PM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: Where has the rcic gone to? Folks, Can anyone tell me where the Regulatory Compliance Information Center has moved to in cyber space? It seems www.rcic.com is now the Future Home of a Dotster Registered Domain? Comments? Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal k...@nortelnetworks.com
Where has the rcic gone to?
Folks, Can anyone tell me where the Regulatory Compliance Information Center has moved to in cyber space? It seems www.rcic.com is now the Future Home of a Dotster Registered Domain? Comments? Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal k...@nortelnetworks.com
RE: Canadian Equivalent to NEC Article 810
Hi, I think CEC Sections 16, 54 and 60 might fit the bill...depends on the details of your system. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal Product Safety Eng. Nortel Networks k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [SMTP:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 7:29 AM To: emc-pstc Subject: Canadian Equivalent to NEC Article 810 Hello All, I understand that for ITE with means for connection to outside antenna, UL requires reference to Article 810 of the NEC (in respect to clearances from power and lighting conductors, mounting, and if necessary, grounding). Does anyone know the equivalent of the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) to the NEC Article 810? Best Regards, +++ RTTE Directive Seminar Renaissance Hotel, Tel-Aviv 12th January 2000. For details: http://www.itl.co.il/RTTE.htm +++ 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 - 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).
Nortel Networks EMC Career Opportunity
Folks, Nortel Networks Wireless Solutions has the following career opportunity. Interested applicants are asked to respond to the contact person below. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. Product Safety Nortel Networks k...@nortelnetworks.com - Position: Sr. EMC Design Engineer Contact:Adiseshu Nyshadham, e-mail: adise...@nortelnetworks.com Tel.: 403.232.4172 Fax:403.232.4813 Job Description Primary Responsibilities/Position Purpose Nortel Networks Wireless Development Center , Calgary, Alberta, Canada is involved in the design and development State of Art Technologies for Wireless Communication Products.All wireless communication products must meet the National and International Regulatory standard specifications for Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility (EMI/EMC). At WDC we strive for excellence and our goal is to design, develop, create and maintain world class EMI/EMC designer tools and test facilities. We are looking for a Sr. EMI/EMC Design Engineer who can champion the EMI Designer's Tool Development activity in architecture, in development and implementation. The Key Responsibilities Are: - Provide Leadership to the EMI/EMC design teams and actively participate in the area of System level EMI/EMC Tool development (including, defining are assist in defining Design tool architecture, development and completion). - Work effectively with Nortel Functional groups (Digital HW Design, RF HW Design, Packaging Design, Contract Manufacturing including various OEM supplier groups and Service groups (System Integrity, Product Integrity, PCB Design) to define and create design specifications and guidelines for designers. - To develop and validate techniques and algorithms for module as well as system level EMI/EMC predictions and simulations. - To develop techniques for determining GTEM correlation models for various sub-system and system architectures. - Development of models for various sub-system and system configurations using standard Numerical SW packages (Moment method, Finite element Method, Time domain techniques, etc.) Qualifications/Experience (Required) - Ph.D. in electrical Engineering with 3 yrs related experience or, Master Degree in Electrical Engineering with 6 yrs related experience, or Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering with 8 yrs of related experience - Knowledge and intent of the EMI/EMC standards, test procedures - Experience with best class Numerical Techniques and procedures. - Strong administrative, project management, team leadership, problem resolution and interpersonal skills. - Familiarity with software development techniques and web based application development Note: candidates who demonstrate exceptional abilities are also considered with less experience.
Employment Opportunity
Folks, My apologies, Please note the correction to the fax number. It should read 403-232-4813. Nortel Networks - Wireless Solutions has the following career opportunity: Nortel Networks LOCATION: 63B/WDC 2924 - 11Th Street, N.E., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2E 7L7 DEPT: Systems Integrity TITLE: Power, Protection Grounding (PPG) Engineer JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS Position Title: Power, Protection Grounding (PPG) Engineer Targeted Disciplines: Electrical Engineering Departmental Function: Provide design input, test and qualification of Nortel Networks Wireless products in the areas of regulatory and product integrity (systems integrity). Key Responsibilities: - Provide design input for compliance to PPG specs. - Test Wireless Products to industry recognized and corporate PPG specs. - Develop and maintain PPG Lab to keep with industry standards. Skills Required: - Analytical approach to problem solving. - Familiarity with PC applications. - Some experience in test and measurement. - Familiarity with the principles involved in communication systems an asset. - Good communication and teamwork skills. LEVEL OF EDUCATION REQUIRED: Bachelors Degree in Engineering Please send resumes by fax or e-mail to the attention of: Janet Johanntges jjoha...@nortelnetworks.com fax: 403-232-4813 Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal (gav jay ow) Product Safety Engineer Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions k...@nortelnetworks.com mailto:k...@nortelnetworks.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: NRTL requirement in the NEC?
Jeff, It's a bit difficult to provide an exact answer since it's dependent on the design of your system. Is the system approved by an NRTL? What is the nature of the approval (i.e. listed, recognized, field investigated, etc.). Different AHJ's may interpret and accept different markings from some NRTLs as opposed to all markings from any NRTLs and it would have to be on your shoulders to convince him/her otherwise. I suspect the inspector is drawing upon section 90-7 of the NEC and also the definition of Listed in article 100. My 2 Cents, Kaz Gawrzyjal k...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: JENKINS, JEFF [SMTP:jeff.jenk...@aei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 10:48 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: NRTL requirement in the NEC? Hello Group, Has anyone heard of a requirement in the National Electrical Code that power supplies which are components of larger systems be approved by an NRTL? I have an inspector telling me this, but our copy of the NEC is 20 years old, and I can't find it, anyway. In this case, the power supply is part of a rack system. It was my understanding that the supply could be evaluated as a component of the system. Is that not true? Thanks, Jeff Jenkins Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins, CO USA 80525 Opinions are my own and not necessarily shared by Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. or its affiliates. - 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: Consultants
Monty, If you're serious about a cost estimate, you might consider contacting the safety consultant(s) in a more direct manner, for negotiating purposes. My guess is the more info you provide in terms of the product, which markets you are targeting, etc., the more accurate a response you'll get from the forum. The complexity of the product would affect the total cost of services since a large and complicated product will likely require more design review, more testing and more paperwork (therefore more time, effort and use of resources)than something small and simple. If the safety efforts have to be revisited due to design changes, that would probably be reflected in the bill as well. My 2 Cents, Kaz Gawrzyjal Safety Eng. k...@nortel.com -Original Message- From: Griffith, Monty [SMTP:mgrif...@ingr.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:14 AM To: 'EMC POST' Subject: Consultants What is the typical cost of a safety consultant? This would include design review, tests, test report and construction report generation for ITE products. Thanks!!! 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 - 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: Factory Mutual
Steve, I have never had direct contact with Factory Mutual but if you check their website, you may find what you're looking for. http://www.factorymutual.com/ try the contact us link and then the FM office. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal Nortel Safety Eng. \k...@nortel.com -Original Message- From: Steve Grobe [SMTP:ste...@transition.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 7:53 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Factory Mutual Does anybody have a contact at Factory Mutual? Steve Grobe - Transition Networks
RE: generating 50Hz power in the US
Richard, Check out Elgar Corporation at www.elgar.com. They may have an output variable (frequency and AC volts) power supply to suit your needs. Kaz Gawrzyjal Nortel k...@nortel.com -Original Message- From: Richard Cass [SMTP:richard_c...@iris.scitex.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 7:37 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: generating 50Hz power in the US We want to do ongoing testing of an ITE product (here in the US) on 220 VAC 50Hz power to simulate the European environment to make sure our power supply vendor is doing his job. In this esteemed group's experience, what is best (i.e easiest, cheapest, most reliable) way to set this up. I have an electrician describing scenarios of a 60Hz electric motor mechanically driving a 50Hz generator. In this age of high power solid state electronics, I gotta believe there's a better way. Please keep answers simple as I am only a lowly mechanical engineer (analogies to water running through pipes always is always big help to me). At 120VAC our products pull 6 amps peak at start up and only 3 amps running. I would never test more than 4 products at a time. Thanks in advance for the usually invaluable help that I get from this group. Richard Cass Iris Graphics, Inc.
RE: What is Class 1, Div. 1 Group D?
Jim, I'm not positive but that sounds like classifications under a Hazardous Locations safety standard (UL or CSA) ... I don't have any on hand to verify. Kaz Gawrzyjal Nortel k...@nortel.com -Original Message- From: bach...@ccmail.mmsday.com [SMTP:bach...@ccmail.mmsday.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:14 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: What is Class 1, Div. 1 Group D? Yesterday we had a customer call asking if our products were Class 1, Div. 1, Group D compliant. Can anyone tell me where I can get information on what it is and what it takes to meet it? Jim Bacher Paxar-Monarch bach...@monarch.com
Re: Voltage for 3 pahse syst
REVoltage for 3 pahse systems 7/16/96 Kaz-ESN 765-4805 Moshe, I believe there exists a document, put out by the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Technical Information Service), titled Electric Current Abroad 1991 Edition. By the title, this document is likely out of date but still highly useful.. It outlines power systems throughout the world as well as the type of attachment plugs used in principal cities throughout the world. There may also be a website available. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal Safety Engineer Nortel 0307...@nt.com -- List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 7/16/96 10:35 AM To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal From: Moshe Valdman - E X T E R N A L L Y O R I G I N A T E D M E S S A G E - Hello everyone, Sorry, I asked this several days ago and got no response, so maybe the email just didn't come through. Would anyone know what are the voltages/frequencies used in the various countries/environments around the world for high power industrial 3 phase equipment? thanks moshe valdman -- RFC822 Header Follows -- Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;16 Jul 1996 10:33:31 -0400 Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by corpgate.rich.nt.com with SMTP (PP); Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:31:26 + Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA23446 for emc-pstc-list; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:44:15 -0400 (EDT) List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 16:34:16 EST From: Moshe Valdman moshe_vald...@mail.stil.scitex.com Message-Id: 9606168375.aa837560...@mail.stil.scitex.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Voltage for 3 pahse systems Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Moshe Valdman moshe_vald...@mail.stil.scitex.com X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
Re: Routine Hipot testing
RERoutine Hipot testing 5/8/96 Kaz-ESN 765-4805 Agreed. Cheers, Kaz Gawrzyjal Nortel-Safety Eng. 0307...@nt.com -- List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 5/6/96 10:38 PM To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal From: Egon H. Varju - E X T E R N A L L Y O R I G I N A T E D M E S S A G E - Hi Kaz, You wrote: You may have a point. However, Note 1 of UL 1950 ed. 3, cl. 5.3.2 merely reads: For = production test purposes, it is permitted to reduce the duration of the = electric strength test to 1 s. Alternative methods of production test = are under consideration. The above sub-clause note, in no way details = manufacturing and production test requirements, unlike UL 1459 (cl.6.3). Hence, there is much implied in the above note while not much is stated = regarding production testing requirements. This is likely due to the = complete reliance of such requirements being stated in the report as = opposed to being a specified standard requirement. Yes, I agree with you that the requirement may be viewed as implied, rather than stated. The way I read it personally is that this is more in the nature of a fait accompli. Since, historically, all safety agencies have always required a production test, I assume that the 950 subcommittee decided that there is no need to get too verbose about this. As you point out, it's going to be in the Certification Report, or other document, anyway. But the nice thing about this paragraph is that it defines both the voltage and the duration, thus ensuring that there is only one test requirement. This used to be a bit of a manufacturing nightmare in the past, when each agency in each country required different test parameters. By the way, it is also interesting to note that the most frequent complaints about Std 950 are to the effect that it's TOO verbose. I don't think we should encourage them to add another 5 pages, just to explain the factory hipot. :-) Cheers, Egon -- RFC822 Header Follows -- Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;6 May 1996 22:33:52 -0400 Received: from mail.ieee.org (actually rab.ieee.org) by ntigate.rich.nt.com with SMTP (PP); Tue, 7 May 1996 02:32:42 + Received: by mail.ieee.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA22000 for emc-pstc-list; Mon, 6 May 1996 19:16:26 -0400 (EDT) List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 06 May 96 19:12:17 EDT From: Egon H. Varju 73132.2...@compuserve.com To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal kazimier_gawrzy...@nmisq2.miss.nt.com Cc: IEEE emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Routine Hipot testing Message-ID: 960506231217_73132._ehj7...@compuserve.com Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Egon H. Varju 73132.2...@compuserve.com X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
Regulatory Approvals for Ch
REGARDINGRegulatory Approvals for Chile From: Kaz Gawrzyjal-ESNÉ All, My thanks to all who have responded with answers; to my inquiry on regulatory approval requirements for market access into Chile. The following is a summary of the response: (Thanks Lori Wilson) Summary: Products can be imported without restrictions as there are no formal import restrictions. For products in question since Homologation is required and safety testing must be done before submitting for homologation,all is required. Product Safety Testing: Testing in labs in Chile is required. While not required, it is recommended that a Chilean Corporation request and hold Safety Certificate. Import Restrictions: Again there are none. Telecommunications: Homologation required. Testing/Review for all products that will connect to national phone network. Specific Regulations for Satellite Receivers: Conditional, In process. Key Agencies: CENET=CHILE-TELEPHONE/REGULATORY AGENCY CEO Mr. Jonny Wolf Address: Anturo Prat 1171 of 304 Saniago Chile 562-556-1535 Home Phone Connections: Standard connection is RS-11. In very limited amounts, other older types are also present. The Compliance Process: Chile has regulations requiring testing and certification. 1) Product Safety - Chile recognizes Safety Certification from other countries, as the basis for their approval. The products are required to be processed/tested in Chile. Our team in Chile reports that enforcement of the regulations is very lax. 1A) Documentation - The following is required for Product Safety submission to a Lab in Chile. A) A Spanish Language Owners/Users Manual and B) Power Supply Schematics. Recommended additional Documentation: ETL,UL,etc. Listing Letter and two (2) samples to be submitted. Timing for the typical product safety test for electronic products requires two/three weeks. 2) Certification of Testing - Only Chilean Corporations may apply for and receive Certificates. Certificates are issued by CENET (Takes 2 to 4 weeks.) They (CENET) will also require a submittal of the Manufacturer's Declaration of Quality, in Spanish. 3) Telecommunications (Homologation) Approval: A) Review/Testing - Any product that will connect to the National Phone System or use radio frequencies must be submitted for Evaluation/Testing and Licensing by the CENET. All products submitted for Evaluation/Testing must first be approved for Product Safety. Telecommunications products with FCC Part 68 approval may be submitted for Review with three (3) copies of the FCC Part 68 report (required to enter the Review Process). Products are also to submitted to the examiner. This review takes about two (2) to four (4) weeks. After this is completed the Review Report or Lab Report is submitted to CENET with an application for License. This takes approximately 20 working days from the receipt of documents for the File Number/Certificate/ 4) General Comment - Chile is a free market, but has a political content beyond the Certification process. Concessions have been granted to private companies to operate cable and cellular systems in Chile. Depending on the company that introduces the product into the Chilean Market, there is a potential for Administrative Review before Certification may be obtained. And yet another question. Does Chile require any power factor correction on equipment tied into the power grid? Is there a specification.? David? Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal Nortel-Safety Eng. 0307...@nt.com
Re: Routine Hipot testing
RERoutine Hipot testing 5/6/96 Kaz-ESN 765-4805 Egon, You may have a point. However, Note 1 of UL 1950 ed. 3, cl. 5.3.2 merely reads: For production test purposes, it is permitted to reduce the duration of the electric strength test to 1 s. Alternative methods of production test are under consideration. The above sub-clause note, in no way details manufacturing and production test requirements, unlike UL 1459 (cl.6.3). Hence, there is much implied in the above note while not much is stated regarding production testing requirements. This is likely due to the complete reliance of such requirements being stated in the report as opposed to being a specified standard requirement. Cheers, Kaz Gawrzyjal Safety Eng-Nortel 0307...@nt.com -- List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 5/6/96 12:12 PM To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal From: Egon H. Varju - E X T E R N A L L Y O R I G I N A T E D M E S S A G E - Kaz, On 1996.5.5 you wrote: I believe that the harmonized, 3rd edition of UL 1950/ CSA C22.2 N0. 950 has pulled the requirement for 100 % hi-pot testing out of the standard. Not to say that this is no longer a requirement. A comment from a UL rep. was that such factory testing is included in the Certification reports (or Follow Up Service Agreements) as a requirement and so the text has been removed from the bi-national standard. Nevertheless, it must still be performed. Actually, the requirement has not been removed from the bi-national standard. See Sub-Clause 5.3.2, Note 1. :-) Egon Varju
Re- Chile info request
REGARDINGRe: Chile info request Hello again Group, My apologies. I've been told that my message has been put out to the world repeatedly, resulting in lots and lots of e-pollution. Something has gone awry with my e-mail (QM). Kaz Gawrzyjal Nortel
