[PSES] Identifying a Product of Multiple Components

[Kunde, Brian]

Please help me to understand the “Marking” of equipment requirements for 
systems made up of multiple components.  I’m going to cross categories for the 
purpose of the examples, so don’t get confused by that.

Example 1:  I buy a PC. It comes in a large box. Inside I get a PC tower, 
mouse, keyboard, speakers with power cube, and maybe a printer with external 
power supply.   Each of the individual pieces I listed has its own Nameplate 
Label with Manufacturer’s name, model, serial, a CE marking, blah blah blah.  
The manual has a page that looks like a Declaration of Conformity and it 
identifies the PC.  The DoC may also have a statement that says something like, 
“includes all options and configurations”.

Questions:  Since each component has its own CE marking, shouldn’t each 
component have its own DOC?  If the model number on the PC and on the provided 
DoC only covers the PC, how are products made up of many EE identified and 
documented for CE?   Should there be another label added with a Model Number 
that encompasses the entire system and that number be listed on the DoC?  And 
if so, how do you know what components are included with that model?


Example 2:  Laboratory equipment system made up many components such as 
analyzers, heaters, sample loaders, ovens, external vacuum pumps, power 
supplies, PCs, monitors, keyboards, mouse, robot arm, measurement equipment, 
all interconnected and sold as a System with integrated software.  Each major 
component has its own Rating Label (Nameplate Label). The manufacturer of the 
System sells it as a Model SuperXYZ. Though this number is advertised and used 
to sell/order the system, the number does not appear anywhere on the product.  
Should it appear on the product? If so, where do you put it? What do you put on 
your DoC? Does the manufacturer of the system have to provide DoCs for every 
component?


Example Last:  In the above example, a USA company designs a builds a small box 
that gets mounted on the back of one of the components purchased from another 
company.  A nameplate label is added to the box with all the normal information 
including “Made in USA”.  However, when the combined product was shipped to 
another country, they were told they couldn’t list the “Made in USA” because 
the larger component it was attached to is made in a different country.   I do 
not understand the issue because the two are separate assemblies; each having 
their own Nameplate label and power cord.

Help me to understand.

Thanks,
The Other Brian

PS: Sorry if I made my examples too wordy. I tend to do that.

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] New EU enforcement regulations touches on all? product regulations/directives.

[Kunde, Brian]

I've never understood why some people think that the solution to people not 
following the rules can be solved by creating more rules.  Studies have shown 
the the vast majority of non-compliances are lack of understanding low risk 
rules and not anything that would really hurt someone.  They put out 100 page 
Directives followed up by 1000 page Guides to explain the 100 page Directives 
and still people do not know what is required for Compliance.  Manufacturers 
have no direct interface with the rules makers. We cannot ask questions or ask 
for clarifications so we know how to do the little things correctly.  Then we 
and our products are judged by third party inspectors who wildly interpret the 
requirements to serve their interests and the manufacturer has no other action 
than to bow to their self proclaimed authority.

One of the documents uses the tirm "interlocutor", which was a new one on me, 
so I looked it up.  "a man in the middle of the line in a minstrel show who 
questions the end men and acts as leader."  Sounds like the Three-Stooges to 
me.  Yuck Yuck.

Last Friday I got an email from Amazon Web Services offering me a job as a 
"Senior Hardware Compliacne Manager".  Now it all makes sense.

Smile people.  Retirement is not that far off.

The Other Brian

From: Lauren Crane [mailto:lauren.cr...@us.tel.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New EU enforcement regulations touches on all? product 
regulations/directives.

Yes, John, it looks like a new type of economic actor is defined to account for 
Amazon type companies, but it also constrains everyone else.

One of the interesting points is a requirement to indicated the REA 
(responsible economic actor) on the product (or in documents etc...). The REA 
has to be an EU person (real or legal).

I'm still digesting it, but given a 2 year transition time frame, confusions of 
what to do with it in the EU are going to nicely get tangled with Brexit 
impacts.

I see a lot of interesting tangles and confusions down the line.

Regards,
-Lauren

From: John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:13 PM
To: TEH EHS Crane, Lauren 
mailto:lauren.cr...@us.tel.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New EU enforcement regulations touches on all? product 
regulations/directives.


It looks like a move to regulate Amazon and similar sources. At present, in the 
UK at least, there is little surveillance of goods ordered in small quantities 
by members of the public, with the exception of medication and some medical 
products.

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-02-14 17:42, Lauren Crane wrote:
Hello Compliance Friends,

Just stumbled across this while reviewing various newsletters in my in-box. 
Seems like it might impose some significant changes in EU compliance 
management. Haven't found an OJ printed version yet. Attached are news release 
and the text linked in the release.

'Hatched dragon' is an internal joke.

Regards,

Lauren Crane
Tokyo Electron

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 

Re: [PSES] A question about FDA language and interlocking devices

[Kunde, Brian]

Doug,

These type of interlock switches are new to me. They are used in industrial 
applications where they protect the user from a very hazardous condition.

These switches usually have what is called a Positive Mechanical Action or 
Certified Direct Opening mechanism which forces a Normally Closed contact OPEN 
when in the SAFE State. In these cases, when the key is removed from the switch 
there is an internal mechanism which forces a NC contact OPEN (removing the 
hazard).  If the contact is stuck closed, then the key cannot be removed from 
the switch.  There are usually other contacts within the switch that can be 
used to monitor the switch to verify its proper function.

If the switch is certified to EN60947-5-1 for the direct opening mechanism, the 
switch will have a symbol that looks like an arrow pointing to the right inside 
a circle.

That is about all I know about these.

The Other Brian


From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:36 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] A question about FDA language and interlocking devices

Colleagues,

I had a question come my way yesterday that I need a little help with. Here’s 
the question:

I have a customer that produces X-ray equipment. The FDA requires that the door 
that gives access to the X-ray source must have an interlock with a ‘knife-edge 
and finger stock’ type connection.  Also the FDA mentions that interlocks 
should be of conventional design. What is understood by “conventional design”?

My reading on this requirement is that any conventional electromechanical 
interlocking device like this:
[Image result for keyed interlock switch images]
will meet the basic requirements as described by the FDA as “knife-edge and 
fingerstock” connection, but I am concerned that this may not be at all what is 
meant.

As always, any guidance you can offer will be welcomed and appreciated!

Best,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Economical operator name & postal address on EEEproducts

[Kunde, Brian]

Scott,

Go to this link:
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/%E2%80%98blue-guide%E2%80%99-implementation-eu-product-rules-0_en

At the bottom of the page, click on “BLUE GUIDE 2016”. It should download the 
document in .pdf format.

Go to page 30 which should be section 3.1 on “MANUFACTURER”.

There is a lot of good information in this document. As I said, the word 
“Manufacturer” is given to the responsible person (natural or legal). As such, 
the Manufacturer has many responsibilities.

“The manufacturer has ultimate responsibility for the conformity of the product 
to the applicable Union harmonisation legislation, whether he designed and 
manufactured the product himself or is considered as a manufacturer because the 
product is placed on the market under his name or trademark.”

“The manufacturer is obliged to understand both the design and construction of 
the product to be able to take the responsibility for the product being in 
compliance with all provisions of the relevant Union harmonisation legislation. 
This applies equally to situations where the manufacturer designs, 
manufactures, packs and labels the product himself, as to situations where some 
or all of these operations are carried out by a subcontractor. The manufacturer 
needs to have the relevant information to demonstrate compliance of the product 
at its disposal.”

“Union harmonisation legislation does not require the manufacturer to be 
established in the European Union. Thus, when placing a product on the Union 
market, the responsibilities of a manufacturer are the same whether he is 
established outside the European Union or in a Member State.”

Under 3.1 subpart 5 regarding the Name and Address on the product, “The single 
contact point may not necessarily be located in the Member State where the 
product is made available on the market;”

Also read the section 3.3 on IMPORTER.  The importer takes on the role of 
Manufacturer (and responsibilities of) when they place a product from a “third 
country” on the EU market.  In some cases, the name and address of the Importer 
should be added to the product in addition to the original third country 
manufacturer.

I also highly recommend reading section 3.2.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.  You 
will find that having a AR is the choice of the Manufacturer and not required 
even for Manufacturers outside of the EU.  The AR is often mistaken as the 
“person responsible for compiling the Technical Documents” as required by some 
Directives such as the Machinery Directive.  The ‘person’ can be anyone and 
does not have to be an AR.

Hope this information was helpful.

The Other Brian

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 4:44 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal address on 
EEEproducts
Importance: Low

Dear Brian,

Thanks for your useful info!  Must the responsible person be in EU/EEA 
countries?  Otherwise the responsible person will fall into the importers or 
authorized resprentatives who is in EU/EEA countries?

Regards,

Scott




Scott,

The short answer to your question is, the name and address of the responsible 
party for placing a product on the EU market is required to be on the products. 
 EU documents often refer to the responsible party as the “Manufacturer” even 
though the responsible party may not have manufactured the product.

Read the “Blue Guide” on the implementation of the EU products rules 2016/C 
272/01 (unless there is a newer version).  It does a good job explaining the 
many possible roles and players under the New Legislative Form.

The Other Brian

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2019 3:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal address on EEE products
Importance: Low

Regarding the name & address on EEE products in EU market, should they be the 
manufacturers, importers or authorized representatives and which regulation 
does call for it?

Thanks and regards,

Scott

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mai

Re: [PSES] [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal address on EEE products

[Kunde, Brian]

Scott,

The short answer to your question is, the name and address of the responsible 
party for placing a product on the EU market is required to be on the products. 
 EU documents often refer to the responsible party as the “Manufacturer” even 
though the responsible party may not have manufactured the product.

Read the “Blue Guide” on the implementation of the EU products rules 2016/C 
272/01 (unless there is a newer version).  It does a good job explaining the 
many possible roles and players under the New Legislative Form.

The Other Brian

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2019 3:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [BULK] [PSES] Economical operator name & postal address on EEE products
Importance: Low

Regarding the name & address on EEE products in EU market, should they be the 
manufacturers, importers or authorized representatives and which regulation 
does call for it?

Thanks and regards,

Scott

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Source for Nameplate Rating Nomenclature

[Kunde, Brian]

What is the Source Document for the Nameplate Voltage, Current, etc. Rating 
Nomenclature (if there is one)?

Examples one might find on a typical electronic equipment;

115/230V~  50/60Hz  8/4A
100-120/220-240V~ 50/60Hz 8/4A

We try to match this information in our User's Manual. However, our Technical 
Writers are telling me that according to International Writing blah blah blah, 
we can no longer use dashes (replace with the work "to"),  and that we have to 
have a space between numbers and the unit indicator.

So here is what they want in the manual;

100 to 120 / 220 to 240 V~  50 / 60 Hz  8 / 4 A


I have no objections to these new rules in the manual, but as far as the 
Nameplate label goes, we are always tighting for space and as you can see the 
"new way" uses up a lot more space than the old way.

So my question is, is there a document, standard, etc. that dictates exactly 
how the Rating should appear on a Nameplate Label/plate?   Is there anything 
wrong or confusing about the Old Way.

Thanks very much for any assistance.

The Other Brian (I hope I don't get kicked off for spoof emails again).

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[Kunde, Brian]

Reference CISPR11/EN55011:2016 version.

If you are an expert at the Radiated Emissions test from 150Khz -30Mhz for 
Class A Group 2 equipment, I could really use your help.

I haven't done this test in over 25 years. I refurbished our Active Loop 
antenna and placed it 10 meters from the EUT.  I believe the data values read 
by our receiver is dBuV/m.  However, the limits as it appears in Table 10 are 
in dBuA/m.  How do I convert?

I have an old 1999 copy of this standard that shows the limits with the exact 
same frequency ranges but the limits are in dBuV/m.  Do I just use these limits 
or do I have to somehow convert the receiver data to dBuA/m.

I know a straight conversion between dBuV/m and dBuA/m can be difficult because 
above 4Mhz we are in the far-field, but below that we are getting into the near 
field. And the impedance calculation can be difficult to obtain.

Am I making too much of this or just take a simple conversion based on the 
differences between the two versions of the standard?

Thanks for the help.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EU representative after Brexit

[Kunde, Brian]

Under the Machinery Directive, the manufacturer must have someone within the EU 
who is authorized to compile the Technical File.  If that person is in the UK, 
I assume you will have to find someone else.  Is that correct?

Brian Kunde
Manager • Compliance Engineering
LECO Corp • Compliance Testing Center

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 9:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU representative after Brexit


I expect so. Due to the uncertainty, if possible move the representative now, 
regardless of the result of Brexit.

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-01-11 14:19, Scott Xe wrote:
Brexit is coming soon.  If the EU representative is now located in the UK, must 
it move to a EU member state after Brexit regardless of a deal or not to 
maintain the continued CE compliance?

Thanks and regards,

Scott
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-4-5 Surge Testing Single plug vs. multiple plug system

[Kunde, Brian]

This makes sense to me.  And I can see where it could save time and money at a 
test lab.

However, we have found many years ago, there is great advantages in performing 
Power Line Immunity Tests beyond what's required for compliance.  The 
real-world is a nasty nasty place for AC Mains and you cannot over test your 
product.  Even if you test-to-failure (beyond Compliance), this is good 
information to have for you will know how your product fails.

You do not want a near lightning strike to take out only your product in a room 
full of equipment or at a customer site with a strange AC waveform that causes 
your product to malfunction while your competitor's product is running fine.

I do some consulting for a popular appliance manufacturer and they design and 
test their products for surge to pass at a level 3 times higher than what is 
required for compliance.  This would not be practical for all products and 
markets but for some this is mandatory.  Something to think about.

Good topic.

The Other Brian

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 10:04 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: IEC 61000-4-5 Surge Testing Single plug vs. multiple plug system

Brian / All

It appear to be common in the UK for for sockets in labs/large areas of 
commercial premises to be fed from different phases of the incoming supply.

If the equipment under test is a distributed system that could be connected to 
different wall sockets, then each device should probably be tested in turn, 
with other parts of the system acting as "support equipment", but if the system 
is collocated with mains leads designed to be ganged to connect to a single 
outlet via PDU, then I would say that combined immunity AND emissions testing 
would be appropriate

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Kunde, Brian mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
Sent: 03 January 2019 14:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-4-5 Surge Testing Single plug vs. multiple plug 
system

Group,

This topic has resurrected a question I have always had about AC Mains Power in 
Europe.  I have always believed that 230Vac in Europe is derived from 3-phase.  
I could see where a home or small business might be powered only by a single 
phase, but wouldn't a large company or factory be powered by 3-phase and to 
which a single room or lab would most likely have receptacles powered by 
different circuits on different phases of the 380V?

Also, surge pulses can be cause by many sources that do not make the surge 
common mode to an entire building, so it is most possible that a "System" can 
see a surge on one power cord and not on all power cords.

Here is the States, our homes are generally powered by Split Phase AC where the 
receptacles within the same room are on different circuits and different 
phases.  In Canada, it is common to have two phases of 208 powering 115V 
receptacles within the same dual receptacle.

Here at work within our lab (in the States), our 230V high powered equipment is 
powered by its own dedicated 230V L-L circuit derived from a 230V 3-phase 
transformer. Each 230V receptacle has its own circuit and which could be on 
different L-L phases. Lower powered 230V equipment is powered off a different 
transformer and all of our 115V receptacles throughout the building is powered 
by one of 3-phases Line to Neutral circuits derived from 208V 3-phase.   It is 
common for adjacent 115V receptacles to be on different phases.   So a typical 
system setup in our work area is almost guaranteed to powered by different 
circuits, different phases, and  different transformers within our company's 
multiple source power system. BTW, we also have lighting powered by 277V 
derived from L-N on our 480V 3-phase power which comes right off the pole.  
This 480V 3-phase powers the entire building including all of our transformers.

Is this type of power distribution not common in larger facilities within 
Europe?

The Other Brian

From: Larry K. Stillings [mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 5:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] IEC 61000-4-5 Surge Testing Single plug vs. multiple plug system

All,

I received the following email from a customer today via their customer 
addressing our application of surge testing. We are testing laboratory 
equipment per IEC/EN 61326-1 and IEC/EN 61326-2-6 and specifically are having 
failures with respect to surge on a system that has multiple power cords. We 
are testing one power cord at a time. Here are their comme

[PSES] Inverters Required on large motors??

[Kunde, Brian]

Greetings.

Is it a requirement in Canada, or any other country, to which industrial 
machines with large AC motors (such as 25hp) must be soft started using a 
Frequency Drive/Inverter?  If this is true, where do I find this ruling?  
Electric Code??

I have heard rumor of this in the past. And recently, we were told by a 
grinding machine manufacturer in Europe that the Canadian version of their 
product is much more expensive because of the required Frequency Drive/Inverter.

Thanks

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] CE non-conformity statistics

[Kunde, Brian]

John,

Exactly!!

Even annex I of the Machinery Directive (EHSR) can only be applied to a 
product. Step 1 is for the manufacturer to make the determination of which 
sections of the EHSR apply to their product and which sections do not by means 
of the Risk Assessment. Only the manufacturer can make this determination, so 
how is a field inspector going to be able to evaluate a product without this 
information?  They just have to do the best they can and false non-compliances 
are going to be the result.

The question is, are these false non-compliances making it into these annual 
reports?  If so, then the numbers may not be as meaningful as one might hope.

Brian Kunde
Manager • Compliance Engineering
LECO Corp • Compliance Testing Center

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 5:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE non-conformity statistics


There's more. The recommended format for EU DoCs, at least for electrical 
safety and EMC asserts conformity with Directives, not standards, and says it 
'applies' standards, not conforms to them:

The object of the declaration described above is in conformity with the 
relevant Union harmonisation legislation:
EMC Directive 2014/30/EU
e.g. Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 2014/35/EU


The following harmonised standards and technical specifications have been 
applied:

Title, Date of standard/specification:
e.g. EN 55014, aregearg + A1:2009 + A2:2011


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-11-02 21:11, John Woodgate wrote:

Your first paragraph states the problem, and 'technical violation - no action' 
is the way it's resolved.

In a DoC, I wouldn't mention 'relevant' at all, particularly now the legal 
profession has got its hooks into the European compliance system. It really 
does look like a 'loophole creator', not only to a rabid regulator. The place 
to assert relevance/irrelevance is in the assessment document, whether for EMC 
or safety.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-11-02 20:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:
John,

I love your example of the Power Supply.  In this case, a “standard” says one 
thing, but the manufacturer did it a different way. The use of Standards to 
show compliance to a Directive is only voluntary.  In a Hazard Driven approach 
to safety, such a drop-dead requirement in a Standard should not be allowed 
unless you only look at standards as a guide to compliance, which they are.  In 
a Risk Assessment, if doing something one way over another would not cause an 
increase risk, then it would be considered compliant.

But what about a Manufacturer’s Declaration of Compliance where they list 
standards? Do they have to abide by each of these standards to the letter to be 
compliant with the Directives? I don’t think so.  Many DoCs state this, 
“conforms with all relevant provisions of the following,” blah blah blah ….  to 
where a list of standards and technical specifications are listed.  But who is 
say what is relevant? The Manufacturer is given that authority in the NLF; not 
the inspector.

This is all in fun and I’m not debating you on this.  The fact is, you can talk 
about “Hazard Driven” approach, or this or that, do lectures, write books, get 
your picture in CE Magazine, but what it all boils down to is making the 
inspectors happy.  Maybe we should call this “Inspector Driven” approach to 
Compliance.  Smile!!  Isn’t that what we do or try to do?

The Other Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 2:53 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE non-conformity statistics


A typical technical non-compliance is incorrect marking of power supply data. 
Different standards have different requirements, and it's easy to mistakenly 
state, for example, the supply current when the standard requires the input 
power to be stated. Yes, the majority of reported violations are minor and 
require no action, except that the manufacturer has to fix the issue for future 
production.

Another case, although I don't know if it would always be rated 'technical' is 
when the offending product is shown to have an unpredictable and random fault, 
which might well be caused by a component failure during early use, so that the 
product was probably compliant when new. I know of a case like that, where a 
ceramic capacitor fractured, which caused weak HF oscillation that was detected 
by an adjacent radio.

The issue of personal interpretations is embedded in the AHJ system and needs a 
total change of approach, which is not probable.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-11-02 18:31

Re: [PSES] CE non-conformity statistics

[Kunde, Brian]

John,

I love your example of the Power Supply.  In this case, a “standard” says one 
thing, but the manufacturer did it a different way. The use of Standards to 
show compliance to a Directive is only voluntary.  In a Hazard Driven approach 
to safety, such a drop-dead requirement in a Standard should not be allowed 
unless you only look at standards as a guide to compliance, which they are.  In 
a Risk Assessment, if doing something one way over another would not cause an 
increase risk, then it would be considered compliant.

But what about a Manufacturer’s Declaration of Compliance where they list 
standards? Do they have to abide by each of these standards to the letter to be 
compliant with the Directives? I don’t think so.  Many DoCs state this, 
“conforms with all relevant provisions of the following,” blah blah blah ….  to 
where a list of standards and technical specifications are listed.  But who is 
say what is relevant? The Manufacturer is given that authority in the NLF; not 
the inspector.

This is all in fun and I’m not debating you on this.  The fact is, you can talk 
about “Hazard Driven” approach, or this or that, do lectures, write books, get 
your picture in CE Magazine, but what it all boils down to is making the 
inspectors happy.  Maybe we should call this “Inspector Driven” approach to 
Compliance.  Smile!!  Isn’t that what we do or try to do?

The Other Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 2:53 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE non-conformity statistics


A typical technical non-compliance is incorrect marking of power supply data. 
Different standards have different requirements, and it's easy to mistakenly 
state, for example, the supply current when the standard requires the input 
power to be stated. Yes, the majority of reported violations are minor and 
require no action, except that the manufacturer has to fix the issue for future 
production.

Another case, although I don't know if it would always be rated 'technical' is 
when the offending product is shown to have an unpredictable and random fault, 
which might well be caused by a component failure during early use, so that the 
product was probably compliant when new. I know of a case like that, where a 
ceramic capacitor fractured, which caused weak HF oscillation that was detected 
by an adjacent radio.

The issue of personal interpretations is embedded in the AHJ system and needs a 
total change of approach, which is not probable.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-11-02 18:31, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Ok, I’ll pile on.

I have never been involved in a market surveillance inspection so I really have 
no right to comment, but I am trying to understand what constitutes itself as a 
Technical Non-Compliance.

Many of my products get inspected post-sale at our customer sites by 
third-party labs or union inspectors doing a “Field Evaluation”. Most 
inspections go very smoothly, but some labs/inspectors write up every little 
thing they don’t understand or cannot test in the field as a “Non-Compliance”.  
Sometimes they have their OWN interpretations of the rules and documentation 
requirements.  Then our customer is placed in the middle as we try to make the 
lab/inspector understand why the product really is compliant.  I’m sure many of 
you have had similar experiences.

When I see market surveillance reports with tens of thousands of 
non-compliances listed but only a few dozen cases where any kind of real 
“action” is taken, the first thing I wonder is how legitimate or serious are 
the bulk of the non-compliances in the first place.  It makes me think that 
maybe the mass majority of these cases are so minor that they simply become 
learning experience for someone and only the rare and more serious 
non-compliances result in fines or legal action.

Am  I the only one who thinks this way?

Don’t get me wrong; I love these types of reports with big numbers. If I want, 
I can use them to scare my superiors into doing what I say.  I might even get 
more budget money to hire more people or get more lab space.  But I really 
would like to know how many of these non-compliances are really bad bad product 
verses barely failed product verses a poor execution of the difficult to 
interpret rules and regulations.

Please don’t beat me up too bad. When I’m bored my mind drifts down dark paths 
of no return.

The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a m

Re: [PSES] CE non-conformity statistics

[Kunde, Brian]

Ok, I’ll pile on.

I have never been involved in a market surveillance inspection so I really have 
no right to comment, but I am trying to understand what constitutes itself as a 
Technical Non-Compliance.

Many of my products get inspected post-sale at our customer sites by 
third-party labs or union inspectors doing a “Field Evaluation”. Most 
inspections go very smoothly, but some labs/inspectors write up every little 
thing they don’t understand or cannot test in the field as a “Non-Compliance”.  
Sometimes they have their OWN interpretations of the rules and documentation 
requirements.  Then our customer is placed in the middle as we try to make the 
lab/inspector understand why the product really is compliant.  I’m sure many of 
you have had similar experiences.

When I see market surveillance reports with tens of thousands of 
non-compliances listed but only a few dozen cases where any kind of real 
“action” is taken, the first thing I wonder is how legitimate or serious are 
the bulk of the non-compliances in the first place.  It makes me think that 
maybe the mass majority of these cases are so minor that they simply become 
learning experience for someone and only the rare and more serious 
non-compliances result in fines or legal action.

Am  I the only one who thinks this way?

Don’t get me wrong; I love these types of reports with big numbers. If I want, 
I can use them to scare my superiors into doing what I say.  I might even get 
more budget money to hire more people or get more lab space.  But I really 
would like to know how many of these non-compliances are really bad bad product 
verses barely failed product verses a poor execution of the difficult to 
interpret rules and regulations.

Please don’t beat me up too bad. When I’m bored my mind drifts down dark paths 
of no return.

The Other Brian

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 7:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE non-conformity statistics

Hi Pete. Yes, it's a sad state of affairs. Our profession needs to do more or 
something different to turn this around.

I wish AdCo could release where these products originated from so we can focus 
our attention on improvements in these regions.

Anybody know of some examples of penalties/fines that have occurred recently?

I'm also surprised there was no cross-border market surveillance of just LVD or 
Machinery.   It appears they are just cherry picking the high profile 
products/categories.

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:01 AM Pete Perkins 
mailto:peperkin...@cs.com>> wrote:
Regan,  Thanx for chasing down these statistics; very 
interesting.  For most of the folks on this forum the most interesting are the 
technical non-conformity issues.  The best/lowest is 14% for EMC and higher 
24%/25% for safety/radio.  Doesn’t speak well for our profession and influence 
on industry.  Yes, there are many others but most of them are Technical File 
paperwork issues.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
p.perk...@ieee.org

From: Regan Arndt mailto:reganar...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:52 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE non-conformity statistics

Thanks Charlie. I checked the latest on the RED. Below is an excerpt on the 
stats. Amazing. Wonder what the penalties were. h..

ADCO RED report to TCAM WG on market surveillance statistics for 2016

2. Results for 2016
Totally, 13,488 R equipment has been inspected by 25 market surveillance 
authorities in 2016: Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, 
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The 
Netherlands and United Kingdom. About 10391 equipment were been found 
non-compliant to the provisions of the R Directive. However, due to the 
fact that not all provisions were checked by all involved market surveillance 
authorities, the effective amount of non compliant equipment may be higher.

Summary of the results: • Overall : 10391 non compliant equipment (13488 
inspected equipment)

  *   Declaration of conformity : 9372 non compliant DoC (13224 inspected 
equipment)
  *   CE marking : 8307 non complaint CE marking (13371 inspected equipment)
  *   Geographical area for use : 3773 not compliances (11750 inspected 
equipment)
  *   Essential requirements : 579 technical non compliances (of 2131 measured 
equipment)
  *   Safety (art.3.1.a): 116 technical non compliances (of 488 measured 
equipment)
  *   EMC (art 3.1.b.): 84 technical non compliances (of 583 measured equipment)
  *   Radio (art.3.2.) : 434 technical non compliances (of 1755 measured 
equipment)
  *   Technical documentation: 276 non 

Re: [PSES] HP 8546A EMI Receiver - Looking for calibration facility

[Kunde, Brian]

We use our 8546A receiver every day and love it.  It is still one of the best 
frequency domain receivers around.

We use AcuCal (recently acquired by Trescal) who has mobile labs that travel 
all over the Americas.  They back right up to our lab door, we hand carry our 
receiver to their 5th wheel trailer/lab, and in about ½ a day it is calibrated 
and back in service.  No wait, no shipper, no packaging, no damage in shipping, 
and at a lower cost of what HP was charging us back in the day.

For us, the mobile labs such as this makes the most sense for test equipment we 
rely on so heavily.

Brian Kunde
Manager * Compliance Engineering
LECO Corp * Compliance Testing Center

From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 11:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] HP 8546A EMI Receiver - Looking for calibration facility

Bob,
You might try Trescal

Bill

From: Sykes, Bob [mailto:bob.sy...@gilbarco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 10:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] HP 8546A EMI Receiver - Looking for calibration facility

Worldly Experts,

I just learned that Keysight has unceremoniously dropped calibration and repair 
support for the 8546A EMI receiver.
It's an old beast, but we like it and use it a lot.  Does anyone still use one 
of these and know of a facility (preferably U.S.) that can calibrate them?

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes





Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the person 
or organization to which it is addressed or was intended to be addressed, and 
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, or responsible for delivering the message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and 
delete the original message immediately . The sender, its subsidiaries and 
affiliates, do 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. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. 

[PSES] Recommondations for Test Equipment

[Kunde, Brian]

Please send replies directly to me if this is a group violation.

In our Safety lab, we do input current tests. We currently use two handheld 
meters; one showing Voltage and the other Current via a current clamp.

We want to replace these two meters with a single piece of test equipment that 
will provide live data measurements via a PC Interface.   It would also be nice 
if it could provide power, power factor, and other such measurements.

We would like it to have a hardy interface, such as Ethernet or old fashion 
serial port (no USB).  We take these measurements in our EMC Lab where USB has 
a hard time surviving.

Labview compatible would be nice. Since we write our own code, we will have to 
have access to the command set.

Any recommendations?  We don’t really need the features and expense of a full 
blown power analyzer. Does anyone make something like this?

Thanks,
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] CB Certificate For Samsung Tablet - Need Contact

[Kunde, Brian]

The power supply is NRTL certified and the battery is NRTL certified. The rest 
of the tablet I assume is limited energy circuit.  Does the tablet require NRTL 
certification?

Brian Kunde
Manager • Compliance Engineering
LECO Corp • Compliance Testing Center

From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CB Certificate For Samsung Tablet - Need Contact

Group,

I'm working with a company that manufacturers exercise equipment.  They use a 
Samsung S3 tablet model SM-T820 as a user interface console.  The machine is 
being investigated at a USA NRTL for North American marks and they need a 
safety mark or report to validate the tablet.  The tablet has no NRTL mark and 
so I'm trying to get a CB Certificate, and also the report as well if possible 
(IEC 60950-1).  There's some form of a 60950-1 report somewhere because it's 
listed on their DoC and they comply with the RED, which mandates a safety 
report for EU.

I've tried several paths as has the company purchasing department to reach 
someone at Samsung to get the safety report but no luck so far.  Does anyone on 
this list have a contact or suggestion as to how I might get to the right 
department or person at Samsung?

Thanks,

Carl


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question

[Kunde, Brian]

I have seen many reports from Field Evaluations where the inspector could not 
determine if a section was a pass or fail, so it was marked down as a FAIL or 
Non-Compliance.  Just because they do not have the equipment in the field to 
make the determination, they put it down as a Non-Compliance (this happens in 
Europe).   I think is should be illegal to call something Non-Compliant unless 
you can prove it is.  Doesn’t the Directives state the Compliance is Assumed 
unless proven otherwise?  (in not so many words).

Also, if a section is Not Applicable, you had to write up a justification 
showing why this section does not apply.  Like I don’t have better things to do.

Remember the good-old-days?  P P P P P P N P P N N P P P and without comments 
on every section.

Brian Kunde
Manager • Compliance Engineering
LECO Corp • Compliance Testing Center

From: John Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 4:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question

Having, over the years (!), seen a few TRF’s, I totally agree with the  1st 
sentence below – absolutely of no use to the “average” engineer in most 
companies, other than the test labs, because the “correct answers” are in the 
eyes of the beholders as there are so many possible interpretations and 
“hidden” questions!

At my last company I had to totally dissect the standard (61010-1, 2nd Ed. 
IIRC) down to the individual phrases of each sentence of each para of each 
Clause of the document in order to be able to ask the question “Not 
applicable”, “Pass” or “Fail”. Even then, early in the analysis process, there 
were inevitably a lot of “To be Determined” (TBD) “answers” that would need a 
lot more investigation and possible testing before the “final” answer to that 
“Not applicable”, “Pass” or “Fail” question could be determined (possibly!) ☹

John E Allen
W. London, UK

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 August 2018 19:06
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question

Interesting,

Seems like the test lab has put together their own criteria. The official TRF 
has this information.


Possible test case verdicts:




- test case does not apply to the test object. :

N/A

- test object does meet the requirement... :

P (Pass)

- test object does not meet the requirement. :

F (Fail)


Best, Doug



On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:01 PM Kevin J Harris 
mailto:kevin.3.har...@jci.com>> wrote:

Hi Doug

The testing templates were for tests found in either IEC 60950 or IEC 62368.

Kevin



From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 1:27 PM
To: Kevin J Harris mailto:kevin.3.har...@jci.com>>
Cc: EMC-PSTC mailto:EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety Test Templates Question

Interesting question/

Can you be more specific on the type of test or the standards involved.  Most 
IEC-based test report forms I use have P, F, NA

Thx, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:21 AM Kevin J Harris 
mailto:kevin.3.har...@jci.com>> wrote:
Hello

On test templates from several laboratories I have noticed where they indicate 
whether or not a particular test was successful or not, that there is an 
arrangement of text such as this

Conforms:Y □N  □
Non-Conforms:  Y □N  □

Is there a technical or legal reason behind this sort of double statement?


Thanks

Kevin

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 

[PSES] Customer Requests for Risk Assessments

[Kunde, Brian]

Our company makes Laboratory Equipment (test and measurement analyzers).

Our company performs a Risk Assessment early in the development stage of all 
new products as so suggested by such documents. We generally use the EN ISO 
12100. Creating this document highlights the possible sources of risks and 
allows our engineers to design products with an inherent design which minimizes 
the risks as much as possible.   Our Risk Assessment becomes a document with a 
lot of detailed information including calculations, test results, detailed 
data, and other design specifications.  Such information is considered highly 
confidential by our company.

On occasion, and in increasing frequency, our company is asked by potential 
customers to provide them with a Risk Assessment Report for our products. 
Sometimes they threaten us such as they will not or cannot consider our 
products unless we provide such documentation.


1.   Why are customers asking for a Risk Assessment?  Where did that 
requirement become from?


2.   Other than the potential loss of a sale, are we obligated to provide 
our customer with a Risk Assessment?  I do not see such a requirement in the 
Directives or Standards we use.


3.   Any of you been receiving similar requests? If so, do you provide a 
Risk Assessment? If so, are you not worried about providing such information?  
Couldn't this information be used against you in court? Is there a fear of 
providing useful information to your competitors?

Part 2:
I have requested a sample of the Risk Assessment our customers are expecting 
our company to provide. The examples documents are for the most part 
meaningless with little real detail about anything.  But, if that is all they 
want to make them happy, we are considering generating such a document just to 
satisfy these requests.  Any comments?

When I ask our customers what information they are looking to gain from the 
Risk Assessment, they tell me they want to know the level of residual risks our 
products might have.  I reply that all residual risks are well documented and 
warned about in the provided User Manual.  However, this doesn't seem to 
satisfy them. They still want a Risk Assessment Report.

So are other companies having to generate a stripped down Risk Assessment with 
no real detail to satisfy these customer requests?  Or is it just us?

Thanks for your input, comments, and suggestions.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

[Kunde, Brian]

Well, if it is your AC Mains and it is that noisy, you may have to use your own 
power source such as a motor generator or a high powered AC power supply.  You 
need to keep your power source as pure as possible for EMC testing.  For this 
reason, our EMC lab is in a completely different building and we have our own 
transformers powering our building from the utility company.  We also have a 
dedicated 75k watt motor generator for 50hz testing.
Do you have access to a Power Line Analyzer?  Sounds like you might have quite 
a mess there.
Good luck.
The Other Brian

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:24 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

Hello Brian.

Yes, I have 2 bulkhead mounted filters; one for the screened room & one for the 
control room.
However; I think the fundamental frequency of the noise may be in the KHz or 
10s of KHz range.

Regards;

Ian


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 26 April 2018 14:12
To: McBurney, Ian 
<ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com<mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

Ian,

Does your screen room have massive line filters on the AC mains coming in?  
This would be a requirement I believe.

Brian

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:08 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

Hello Brian.

If I power the LISN from the wall socket with no load connected, the emissions 
measurements are high.
If I switch off the wall socket, (double pole switch) but leave the LISN supply 
cable plugged in the wall socket the emissions drop considerably.
It is unfortunate that the measurement chamber is within a busy air conditioned 
R building but it is a screened room.

Regards;

Ian


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 26 April 2018 13:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

Ian,

First, are you sure the noise if coming from your AC Mains?   If you are using 
line filters, you need to get some kick butt filters that will give you good 
attenuation down to at least 10khz.

Second, are you sure the signals you are seeing between 150kHz and 400kHz are 
real?  Zero in on one of the signals and do a linearity check. This is done by 
taking a reading, then add attenuation such as a 6 dB attenuator to the input, 
and take another reading, which should be 6 dB less. If not, the problem might 
be a signal much lower in frequency which is throwing off the input stage of 
your receiver/spectrum analyzer.

Check the AC Mains powering your analyzer.  It might be the source of your 
problem.

Hope you figure it out.

The Other Brian

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [BULK] [PSES] Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements
Importance: Low

Dear Colleagues.

I am setting up a mains conducted rf emissions measuring system and am 
experiencing excessive mains noise when connecting the LISN to the 240V wall 
socket. The noise affects my measurements between 150kHz to 400KHz. Beyond that 
and up to 30MHz I am satisfied. Is there a way of filtering out this noise. I 
have tried various EMI mains filter modules but none appear to attenuate enough 
at that frequency band. They are very good at attenuating frequencies beyond 
1MHz. I have tried inserting an isolation transformer before the LISN but this 
appears to distort the measurements.
Can anyone recommend a solution?

Many thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney
Lead Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com<mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>


Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-

Re: [PSES] Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

[Kunde, Brian]

Ian,

Does your screen room have massive line filters on the AC mains coming in?  
This would be a requirement I believe.

Brian

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:08 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

Hello Brian.

If I power the LISN from the wall socket with no load connected, the emissions 
measurements are high.
If I switch off the wall socket, (double pole switch) but leave the LISN supply 
cable plugged in the wall socket the emissions drop considerably.
It is unfortunate that the measurement chamber is within a busy air conditioned 
R building but it is a screened room.

Regards;

Ian


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 26 April 2018 13:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

Ian,

First, are you sure the noise if coming from your AC Mains?   If you are using 
line filters, you need to get some kick butt filters that will give you good 
attenuation down to at least 10khz.

Second, are you sure the signals you are seeing between 150kHz and 400kHz are 
real?  Zero in on one of the signals and do a linearity check. This is done by 
taking a reading, then add attenuation such as a 6 dB attenuator to the input, 
and take another reading, which should be 6 dB less. If not, the problem might 
be a signal much lower in frequency which is throwing off the input stage of 
your receiver/spectrum analyzer.

Check the AC Mains powering your analyzer.  It might be the source of your 
problem.

Hope you figure it out.

The Other Brian

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [BULK] [PSES] Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements
Importance: Low

Dear Colleagues.

I am setting up a mains conducted rf emissions measuring system and am 
experiencing excessive mains noise when connecting the LISN to the 240V wall 
socket. The noise affects my measurements between 150kHz to 400KHz. Beyond that 
and up to 30MHz I am satisfied. Is there a way of filtering out this noise. I 
have tried various EMI mains filter modules but none appear to attenuate enough 
at that frequency band. They are very good at attenuating frequencies beyond 
1MHz. I have tried inserting an isolation transformer before the LISN but this 
appears to distort the measurements.
Can anyone recommend a solution?

Many thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney
Lead Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com<mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>


Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://

Re: [PSES] Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements

[Kunde, Brian]

Ian,

First, are you sure the noise if coming from your AC Mains?   If you are using 
line filters, you need to get some kick butt filters that will give you good 
attenuation down to at least 10khz.

Second, are you sure the signals you are seeing between 150kHz and 400kHz are 
real?  Zero in on one of the signals and do a linearity check. This is done by 
taking a reading, then add attenuation such as a 6 dB attenuator to the input, 
and take another reading, which should be 6 dB less. If not, the problem might 
be a signal much lower in frequency which is throwing off the input stage of 
your receiver/spectrum analyzer.

Check the AC Mains powering your analyzer.  It might be the source of your 
problem.

Hope you figure it out.

The Other Brian

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [BULK] [PSES] Mains Conducted rf emissions measurements
Importance: Low

Dear Colleagues.

I am setting up a mains conducted rf emissions measuring system and am 
experiencing excessive mains noise when connecting the LISN to the 240V wall 
socket. The noise affects my measurements between 150kHz to 400KHz. Beyond that 
and up to 30MHz I am satisfied. Is there a way of filtering out this noise. I 
have tried various EMI mains filter modules but none appear to attenuate enough 
at that frequency band. They are very good at attenuating frequencies beyond 
1MHz. I have tried inserting an isolation transformer before the LISN but this 
appears to distort the measurements.
Can anyone recommend a solution?

Many thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney
Lead Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com


Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [BULK] Re: [PSES] Need a switch

[Kunde, Brian]

I'm picturing a huge knife switch from a Frankenstein movie I saw as a kid.
The Other Brian

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] Need a switch
Importance: Low



Hi Ken:

I interpret your requirement as DPDT, with 3 kV withstand between open contacts 
as well as 3 kV from conductors to accessible parts such as the switch lever.

Tough specs.

Good luck,
Rich



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

Dave,

I’ve never heard this position taken on the machinery directive before.  So are 
you saying that anything “direct driven” or that has “direct drive” would not 
meet the definition of a “machine” and thus, not fall under the Machinery 
Directive?  So a saw blade or fan blade mounted directly on the motor shaft is 
not a machine?

But add a belt, or gear, or some other form of energy transmission, and then 
the product falls under the MD.  Is that what you are saying?

If so, I’ll have to re-evaluate everything I’ve done for the last 10 years.  Oh 
well, what else do I have to do?  ☺

I appreciate your comments.
The Other Brian

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

The pivoting arm operated by human effort would be out of scope of machinery 
definition.  Which leaves just the motor with no real linkage to the blade 
since the blade is screwed directly to the end of the motor shaft.  A 
sophisticated saw perhaps for commercial/industrial use may have a driven arm 
and may use belts/pulleys/gears to drive the blade, would easily fit the 
machinery description.  The same question applies to an inexpensive direct 
drive table saw with no driven parts other than the motor with a blade mounted 
to the end of the shaft vs. a professional grade table saw with a pulleys and 
belt driven blade.

-Dave

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:23 PM
To: Nyffenegger, Dave; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


There is a motor and a blade, which both move and are linked. In a cut-off saw, 
If I have the term right, the whole motor and blade housing swings on a pivot 
at the back of the baseplate.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 21:33, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:
I am surprised a basic cut-off saw would fit the definition of ‘machine’ for 
the MD since cut-off  saws (the one’s I’m thinking of) are basically just a 
motor with a blade mounted directly to the armature and I don’t know that the 
blade is even considered part of the product.  Not really an assembly of linked 
parts at least one of which moves, and which are joined together for a specific 
application.

-Dave

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


IEC 62841 is a multi-part standard with 23 documents. But it's all about 
'hand-held', so unless the 300 lb product is intended for Superman or King 
Kong. they don't apply.

Wiring codes do not specify requirements for load products, except in very 
general terms. Safety requirements for products are in product safety standards.

In Europe, a cut-off saw is a 'machine', so the Machinery Directive applies. 
This influences which safety standard is permitted to be applied to the product.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Most interesting.  Thanks.

From: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:27 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
Importance: Low

IEC TC 116 in in the process of folding the 60745-1 (hand held motor operated 
tool) standards into the 62841 series (Electric motor-operated hand-held tools, 
transportable tools and lawn and garden machinery). See their dashboard at:
http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:30:13397277133783FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:4112,25

My reference was not from a part 2, but actually from section 21.16 of 60745-1:
"

Tools employing liquid systems shall protect the user against the increased 
risk of
shock due to the presence of liquid under conditions of normal use and the 
faults of the liquid
system.
Tools employing liquid systems shall be either:
• of class III construction;
• of class I or class II construction and be provided with a residual current 
device and comply
with 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6; or
• of class I or class II construction and be designed for use in combination 
with an isolating
transformer and comply with 14.4 and 14.5.
"
Section 14.4 describes using a salt water mix to simulate overfilling or 
misassembling and then testing for leakage.

I do not know whether your product falls within scope of 62841; perhaps your 
favorite NRTL could help. Your favorite NRTL might even have someone on the 
committee who could help with a question.

Mike


From: "Brian Kunde" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: msherma...@comca

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

Mike, Thanks. This is good information. And it makes sense when you consider 
the definition of Transportable Tool. If a tool is moved around from job to job 
and plugged in and out there is an increased risk that the PE connection could 
become compromised without the user knowing.  I see this as a similar use of a 
tool as construction use.

In our case, an inspector would not know how the User is going to use a small 
cut-off saw and may classify it as “transportable tool”.  This might be where 
the GFCI requirement came from in the say I’m evaluation.

Thanks so much for the help.
The Other Brian

From: Mike Sherman [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

A copy of what I inadvertently only sent to Brian earlier...


From: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
To: "Brian Kunde" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:58:40 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

I found a copy of 62841-1:2015. In its definition section:
"3.58

transportable tool
tool that has the following characteristics:
a) intended to be taken to various designated working areas. The tool performs 
work on the
material that is either brought to the tool, the tool is mounted to the 
workpiece or the tool is
placed in proximity of the workpiece;
b) intended to be moved by one or two people, with or without simple devices to 
facilitate
transportation, e.g. handles, wheels and the like;
c) used in a stationary position set up on a bench, table, floor or 
incorporating a device that
performs the function of a bench or table, with or without fixing, e.g. fast 
clamping devices,
bolting and the like, or mounted to the workpiece;
d) used under the control of an operator;
e) either the workpiece or the tool is fed or introduced manually;
f) not intended for continuous production or production line use;
g) if mains operated, supplied with a flexible supply cord and plug"



and I also found this

"21.15 Tools employing liquid systems shall protect the user against the 
increased risk of

shock due to the presence of liquid under faults of the liquid system.
Tools employing liquid systems shall be either:
– of class III construction; or
– of class I or class II construction and be provided with a residual current 
device and
comply with 14.3, 14.4 and 14.5; or
– of class I or class II construction and be designed for use in combination 
with an isolating
transformer and comply with 14.3 and 14.4."


From: "Brian Kunde" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:51:07 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

So in this context, what does “transportable” mean?  I always thought it meant 
tools that are used on the move, but I cannot image using a table saw while it 
is moving.
Thanks,
The Other Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:37 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


No, It isn't all about hand-held. The list of Sections dropped below my screen. 
The relevant standard is probably:

IEC 62841-3-1:2014<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/7454>

Edition 1.0 (2014-06-04)

Electric motor-operated hand-held tools, transportable tools and lawn and 
garden machinery - Safety - Part 3-1: Particular requirements for transportable 
table saws



John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:57, John Woodgate wrote:

IEC 62841 is a multi-part standard with 23 documents. But it's all about 
'hand-held', so unless the 300 lb product is intended for Superman or King 
Kong. they don't apply.

Wiring codes do not specify requirements for load products, except in very 
general terms. Safety requirements for products are in product safety standards.

In Europe, a cut-off saw is a 'machine', so the Machinery Directive applies. 
This influences which safety standard is permitted to be applied to the product.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Most interesting.  Thanks.

From: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:27 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
Importance: Low

IEC TC 116 in in the process of folding the 60745-1 (hand held motor operated 
tool) standards into the 62841 series (Electric motor-operated hand-

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

So in this context, what does “transportable” mean?  I always thought it meant 
tools that are used on the move, but I cannot image using a table saw while it 
is moving.
Thanks,
The Other Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:37 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


No, It isn't all about hand-held. The list of Sections dropped below my screen. 
The relevant standard is probably:

IEC 62841-3-1:2014<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/7454>

Edition 1.0 (2014-06-04)

Electric motor-operated hand-held tools, transportable tools and lawn and 
garden machinery - Safety - Part 3-1: Particular requirements for transportable 
table saws



John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:57, John Woodgate wrote:

IEC 62841 is a multi-part standard with 23 documents. But it's all about 
'hand-held', so unless the 300 lb product is intended for Superman or King 
Kong. they don't apply.

Wiring codes do not specify requirements for load products, except in very 
general terms. Safety requirements for products are in product safety standards.

In Europe, a cut-off saw is a 'machine', so the Machinery Directive applies. 
This influences which safety standard is permitted to be applied to the product.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 18:38, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Most interesting.  Thanks.

From: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:27 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
Importance: Low

IEC TC 116 in in the process of folding the 60745-1 (hand held motor operated 
tool) standards into the 62841 series (Electric motor-operated hand-held tools, 
transportable tools and lawn and garden machinery). See their dashboard at:
http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:30:13397277133783FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:4112,25

My reference was not from a part 2, but actually from section 21.16 of 60745-1:
"

Tools employing liquid systems shall protect the user against the increased 
risk of
shock due to the presence of liquid under conditions of normal use and the 
faults of the liquid
system.
Tools employing liquid systems shall be either:
• of class III construction;
• of class I or class II construction and be provided with a residual current 
device and comply
with 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6; or
• of class I or class II construction and be designed for use in combination 
with an isolating
transformer and comply with 14.4 and 14.5.
"
Section 14.4 describes using a salt water mix to simulate overfilling or 
misassembling and then testing for leakage.

I do not know whether your product falls within scope of 62841; perhaps your 
favorite NRTL could help. Your favorite NRTL might even have someone on the 
committee who could help with a question.

Mike


From: "Brian Kunde" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Cc: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:58:25 AM
Subject: RE: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

Mike,

Thanks for your offer. I assume the requirement for RCD is limited to hand-held 
or portable power tools that uses water. This is interesting because I didn’t 
know this was a requirement.

In our case, the cut-off saw we are looking at weighs over 300 lbs. Defiantly 
not hand-held any probably not considered portable (depending on your 
definition).

Do you know if there are similar requirements for non-hand-held electric 
saws/tools?

Thanks,
The Other Brian

From: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

Brian --
I think I've seen a Part 2 standard for 60745-1, as I recall, that required a 
RCD if the tool used water and the water ended up in the wrong place 
electrically. If you'd like a screen shot of the section, I can probably find 
it for you.
Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.


From: "Brian Kunde" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:06:36 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

Where Pete stated, “The Euro systems use of RCDs require this protection in 
many installations (but I’m not familiar with the installation code details)”. 
This “Code” is probably what I am seeking.

Has anyone run across a Code rule 

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

Most interesting.  Thanks.

From: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:27 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE
Importance: Low

IEC TC 116 in in the process of folding the 60745-1 (hand held motor operated 
tool) standards into the 62841 series (Electric motor-operated hand-held tools, 
transportable tools and lawn and garden machinery). See their dashboard at:
http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:30:13397277133783FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:4112,25

My reference was not from a part 2, but actually from section 21.16 of 60745-1:
"

Tools employing liquid systems shall protect the user against the increased 
risk of
shock due to the presence of liquid under conditions of normal use and the 
faults of the liquid
system.
Tools employing liquid systems shall be either:
• of class III construction;
• of class I or class II construction and be provided with a residual current 
device and comply
with 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6; or
• of class I or class II construction and be designed for use in combination 
with an isolating
transformer and comply with 14.4 and 14.5.
"
Section 14.4 describes using a salt water mix to simulate overfilling or 
misassembling and then testing for leakage.

I do not know whether your product falls within scope of 62841; perhaps your 
favorite NRTL could help. Your favorite NRTL might even have someone on the 
committee who could help with a question.

Mike


From: "Brian Kunde" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Cc: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:58:25 AM
Subject: RE: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

Mike,

Thanks for your offer. I assume the requirement for RCD is limited to hand-held 
or portable power tools that uses water. This is interesting because I didn’t 
know this was a requirement.

In our case, the cut-off saw we are looking at weighs over 300 lbs. Defiantly 
not hand-held any probably not considered portable (depending on your 
definition).

Do you know if there are similar requirements for non-hand-held electric 
saws/tools?

Thanks,
The Other Brian

From: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
[mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

Brian --
I think I've seen a Part 2 standard for 60745-1, as I recall, that required a 
RCD if the tool used water and the water ended up in the wrong place 
electrically. If you'd like a screen shot of the section, I can probably find 
it for you.
Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.


From: "Brian Kunde" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:06:36 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

Where Pete stated, “The Euro systems use of RCDs require this protection in 
many installations (but I’m not familiar with the installation code details)”. 
This “Code” is probably what I am seeking.

Has anyone run across a Code rule that requires the Product to employ a RCCB 
within the product?  If the local electrical code requires a RCCB, cannot this 
protection be provided as part of the site protection?  Why burden the cost of 
a product where such a requirement may only be necessary in a small percentage 
of installations?

The main purpose of my question on this topic is cost.  Here in the USA, a GFCI 
receptacle is very inexpensive; costing around $10 at most home stores.  But a 
3-phase RCD Circuit Breaker can cost $300-$400.  On some products, such as a 
tile saw that uses water, this can more than double the cost of the entire 
product.  So knowing when and where they are required is very important.

Thanks again to everyone for your consideration.  From what I have read so far 
on this topic, it is a moving target as electric codes from different states 
and countries are always evolving and the code governing the requirements of 
RCDs and GFCIs are common to change.

Thanks,
Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


You can rely on the recent post in this thread by Pete Perkins.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 15:52, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Thanks for the input everyone.

I know that GFCI protectors in North America will trip between 4-6mA.  Do other 
countries, such as Europe, have the same requirements?
Or are 30mA protectors used in Eu

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

Mike,

Thanks for your offer. I assume the requirement for RCD is limited to hand-held 
or portable power tools that uses water. This is interesting because I didn’t 
know this was a requirement.

In our case, the cut-off saw we are looking at weighs over 300 lbs. Defiantly 
not hand-held any probably not considered portable (depending on your 
definition).

Do you know if there are similar requirements for non-hand-held electric 
saws/tools?

Thanks,
The Other Brian

From: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

Brian --
I think I've seen a Part 2 standard for 60745-1, as I recall, that required a 
RCD if the tool used water and the water ended up in the wrong place 
electrically. If you'd like a screen shot of the section, I can probably find 
it for you.
Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.


From: "Brian Kunde" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>>
To: "EMC-PSTC" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:06:36 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

Where Pete stated, “The Euro systems use of RCDs require this protection in 
many installations (but I’m not familiar with the installation code details)”. 
This “Code” is probably what I am seeking.

Has anyone run across a Code rule that requires the Product to employ a RCCB 
within the product?  If the local electrical code requires a RCCB, cannot this 
protection be provided as part of the site protection?  Why burden the cost of 
a product where such a requirement may only be necessary in a small percentage 
of installations?

The main purpose of my question on this topic is cost.  Here in the USA, a GFCI 
receptacle is very inexpensive; costing around $10 at most home stores.  But a 
3-phase RCD Circuit Breaker can cost $300-$400.  On some products, such as a 
tile saw that uses water, this can more than double the cost of the entire 
product.  So knowing when and where they are required is very important.

Thanks again to everyone for your consideration.  From what I have read so far 
on this topic, it is a moving target as electric codes from different states 
and countries are always evolving and the code governing the requirements of 
RCDs and GFCIs are common to change.

Thanks,
Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


You can rely on the recent post in this thread by Pete Perkins.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 15:52, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Thanks for the input everyone.

I know that GFCI protectors in North America will trip between 4-6mA.  Do other 
countries, such as Europe, have the same requirements?
Or are 30mA protectors used in Europe? If so, does Europe use 30mA ground fault 
protectors because of nuisance tripping even though the studies have shown that 
30mA can be fatal?

These 3-phase cut-off saws that I’m evaluating comes with a power cord, but no 
plug. They can be field wired or a plug could be added and plugged it into a 
receptacle.  The choice is left up to the customer.

The saw uses water but the work environment would not normally be considered a 
“wet location”.  It would not be used in a construction location.

So again, I’m trying to figure out why the saw manufacturer used the expensive 
30mA ground fault breakers in their product.

Thanks,
The Other Brian






LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.b

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

Where Pete stated, “The Euro systems use of RCDs require this protection in 
many installations (but I’m not familiar with the installation code details)”. 
This “Code” is probably what I am seeking.

Has anyone run across a Code rule that requires the Product to employ a RCCB 
within the product?  If the local electrical code requires a RCCB, cannot this 
protection be provided as part of the site protection?  Why burden the cost of 
a product where such a requirement may only be necessary in a small percentage 
of installations?

The main purpose of my question on this topic is cost.  Here in the USA, a GFCI 
receptacle is very inexpensive; costing around $10 at most home stores.  But a 
3-phase RCD Circuit Breaker can cost $300-$400.  On some products, such as a 
tile saw that uses water, this can more than double the cost of the entire 
product.  So knowing when and where they are required is very important.

Thanks again to everyone for your consideration.  From what I have read so far 
on this topic, it is a moving target as electric codes from different states 
and countries are always evolving and the code governing the requirements of 
RCDs and GFCIs are common to change.

Thanks,
Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


You can rely on the recent post in this thread by Pete Perkins.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-01-31 15:52, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Thanks for the input everyone.

I know that GFCI protectors in North America will trip between 4-6mA.  Do other 
countries, such as Europe, have the same requirements?
Or are 30mA protectors used in Europe? If so, does Europe use 30mA ground fault 
protectors because of nuisance tripping even though the studies have shown that 
30mA can be fatal?

These 3-phase cut-off saws that I’m evaluating comes with a power cord, but no 
plug. They can be field wired or a plug could be added and plugged it into a 
receptacle.  The choice is left up to the customer.

The saw uses water but the work environment would not normally be considered a 
“wet location”.  It would not be used in a construction location.

So again, I’m trying to figure out why the saw manufacturer used the expensive 
30mA ground fault breakers in their product.

Thanks,
The Other Brian






LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

Thanks for the input everyone.

I know that GFCI protectors in North America will trip between 4-6mA.  Do other 
countries, such as Europe, have the same requirements?
Or are 30mA protectors used in Europe? If so, does Europe use 30mA ground fault 
protectors because of nuisance tripping even though the studies have shown that 
30mA can be fatal?

These 3-phase cut-off saws that I’m evaluating comes with a power cord, but no 
plug. They can be field wired or a plug could be added and plugged it into a 
receptacle.  The choice is left up to the customer.

The saw uses water but the work environment would not normally be considered a 
“wet location”.  It would not be used in a construction location.

So again, I’m trying to figure out why the saw manufacturer used the expensive 
30mA ground fault breakers in their product.

Thanks,
The Other Brian



From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 6:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE


My understanding isn’t as clear as I would like it to be, so the information I 
am providing is suspect.



I believe that the difference in trip points between North America and Europe 
is due to grounding, wiring and power distribution practices. The power 
distribution systems used in North America allow a trip point of nominally 5 mA 
(4 – 6 mA) without a significant risk of nuisance tripping. However, European 
wiring practices are such that nuisance tripping would be more likely at 5 mA 
and, as such, 30 mA is used as the limit.



Is the 3-phase saw plug connected or field wired? Is it used in a potentially 
wet environment? In North America, portable power distribution units, typically 
used at construction sites, must have protection because it is expected that 
the user will connect power tools that will be used in wet environments. 
However, for a field wired saw installed in a workshop would likely not require 
a GFCI. Much of this comes from the electrical code. Any standards that specify 
the additional protection do so because the code requires it.


Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE



Agreed, and current carry-carrying of PE and bonding of internal parts must 
meet stringent UL/CSA requirements. (not mA!)  It seems to me that 30mA is 
close to lethal, and the GFCI outlets Listed over here are 6mA trip.  (still a 
painful shock)



Ralph McDiarmid

Product Compliance Specialist

Solar Business

Schneider Electric





From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:30 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI vs GFPE



I don't think that is the reason recognized in Europe. The PE circuit has the 
same (or similar) current-carrying capacity as the line circuit(s), so its 
fault-current capacity for 30 s is very large even for a household supply. I 
think the protector is there to prevent fire and to give some protection 
against electric shock, although the latter is compromised so as to prevent 
nuisance-tripping, which would occur if the trip were set at say 5 mA to give 
much better protection.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C332841906ad44ef66eaa08d5683526de%7Cee3303d7fb734b0c8589bcd847f1c277%7C1%7C0%7C636529499853637893=hM9ZJbor9gxzRIIwUYV0KkogbsHqlWIDv%2BCi2VRAr5I%3D=0

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-01-30 22:03, Kunde, Brian wrote:

I’ve recently come to understand that the 30mA Ground-Fault protectors, often 
built into a circuit breaker, is intended to protect the Protective Earth 
(Safety Ground) circuit in the case of a short circuit (opening the circuit 
before the safety ground could be damaged.  It this correct?



Here is my question. I’m evaluating a cut-off saw (5hp) which uses water to 
keep the blade and material cool.  The manufacturer uses a 3-phase 
supplementary circuit breaker which includes the 30mA GFPE option.  This is a 
very expensive part.  When I asked them why they use the GFPE part, they 
couldn’t give me a good answer.



Would such a part be required on a 3-phase motor driven cutoff saw in either 
North America or Europe?  What standard would dictate this?



If the only purpose of a GFPE is to protect the Ground Circuit, on products 
that can handle shorts without damaging the ground circuit, would a GFPE still 
be necessary?



Where are GFPE typically used? What industry?



Please educate me.  This is a new one on me.



Thanks,

Brian



From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@iee

[PSES] GFCI vs GFPE

[Kunde, Brian]

I’ve recently come to understand that the 30mA Ground-Fault protectors, often 
built into a circuit breaker, is intended to protect the Protective Earth 
(Safety Ground) circuit in the case of a short circuit (opening the circuit 
before the safety ground could be damaged.  It this correct?

Here is my question. I’m evaluating a cut-off saw (5hp) which uses water to 
keep the blade and material cool.  The manufacturer uses a 3-phase 
supplementary circuit breaker which includes the 30mA GFPE option.  This is a 
very expensive part.  When I asked them why they use the GFPE part, they 
couldn’t give me a good answer.

Would such a part be required on a 3-phase motor driven cutoff saw in either 
North America or Europe?  What standard would dictate this?

If the only purpose of a GFPE is to protect the Ground Circuit, on products 
that can handle shorts without damaging the ground circuit, would a GFPE still 
be necessary?

Where are GFPE typically used? What industry?

Please educate me.  This is a new one on me.

Thanks,
Brian

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:48 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] JOB POSTING - ONTARIO, CANADA

PLEASE CONTACT TED TYCZKA DIRECTLY

A very notable, “high-profile” client who is seeking a Safety & Services 
Sales/Business Development Professional - to join their Machine Services 
Division - the focus of the role is to spearhead/lead the sale of Engineering 
Services related to “functional safety.”

The company sells safety training (workshops), machine assessment/audits, 
engineering design per CSA and/or TUV Safety requirements (“Regulatory 
Compliance”).  The company also sells Remediation and Repair Services (of 
industrial machines) together with Service Contracts ... to customers in the 
aerospace, automotive, forestry, food & beverage, as well as, the packaging 
sectors.

The Safety & Services/Business Development Professional can work from a home 
office - anywhere in Ontario. A Bachelor of Science in Mechanical or Electrical 
Engineering, together with the sale of Machine Safeguard devices and the 
application of these, would be desired ... together, with some exposure to 
Industrial Automation and perhaps Robotics. The key is to have some knowledge 
of safety components, safety scanners, switches, controllers, etc. as well as 
machine building experience.

The employer (a very reputable, Global entity/brand) ... who provide a very 
competitive base salary, lucrative annual bonus/incentive program vs. results, 
plus monthly car allowance, Benefits, Matching RRSP + (Training, Career 
Opportunities and upward mobility).

They are good people, seek an ambitious self-starter who can cover sales from 
the “shop floor” level to the “C Suite” (Boardroom). The company have 
established Sales Reps across Canada ... who can work with the Safety & 
Services Sales Specialist ... this role requires “consultative and solutions 
oriented selling ability.

I will ensure absolute confidentiality. Nice opportunity with a great 
organization and strong, capable leadership. Thanks.

Kind professional regards,
Ted Tyczka

President
Golden Mile Management – Consulting Services
2630 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario M1K 2S3
Tel: (416) 266 - 4434
Email: t...@gmmcs.com
Website: www.gmmcs.com
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

[PSES] CI Software Flicker/Harmonics

[Kunde, Brian]

It will be difficult for me to ask what I want without insulting California 
Instruments (Emetek), so I apologize in advance if I fail.  For those of you 
who owns a CI CTS Series for doing Harmonic and Flicker emissions testing, you 
can sympathize.

Our CTS system is currently running off of a Windows XP computer, which is no 
longer supported by MS. So our IT guys/gals are pressuring me to upgrade. I 
contacted CI and found out that my current hardware/software will not run on 
anything newer than XP.  I will once again have to update my A/D card and cable 
and software to THEIR latest which will only run on 32bit Windows 7.

So it is going to cost me $5K-$8KUSD to "upgrade" to CI's latest that will ONLY 
work on a 12 year old operating system and which is due to be unsupported in 
only a few years.

So here is my request. Does anyone out there have another solution that makes 
better sense?  How about a modern A/D system that is compatible with the CI 
PACS and 3rd party software that will run on the latest PC and operating system 
(Win 10)??

Has anyone attempted to write their own software to do harmonics and flicker?  
It seems complicated from reading the standard. Is there a document or paper 
that describes how the data is collected and what math has to be applied to do 
the test?

Is there a 3rd party solution that replaces the CI PACS system but where I 
could still use the CT power supply?

I apologize for my ignorance on this topic. We purchased this "turn-key" system 
about 15 years ago and since it works we never had a reason to become experts 
on how the test results are actually calculated and presented.

Thanks to all for any advice.

The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Pilot rating

[Kunde, Brian]

UL does not have a sense of humor that we are aware of.

TOB

From: Jon Keeble [mailto:j...@wattwatchers.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 4:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pilot rating

We are getting a somewhat innovative product through UL at the moment.
So there has been quite a lot of discussion and feedback from UL.
But when UL said they thought my little board needed a pilot rating I really 
thought they were joking.

Jon Keeble

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 8:31 AM, > 
wrote:
I looked at the subject line and thought about something completely unrelated – 
pilot ratings.  I have a PP-ASEL IA.  Private Pilot – Airplane, Single Engine, 
Land  Instrument Airplane.    And you?

Ghery S. Pettit

From: Jon Keeble 
[mailto:j...@wattwatchers.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 12:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Pilot rating

I am using a Panasonic AQH3213A PhotoMOS optical isolator to control a small 
contactor.

At 110VAC the contactor coil draws 30mArms.
The coil contacts are wired to a PCB via a terminal block plug and socket.

On the PCB is a series 10ohm fusible resistor, and a SMBJ400AC bidirectional 
zener.

When the switch opens at peak current (42mA) there is 0.1J of energy in the 
coil that gets absorbed by the zener.

The zener
* clamps at a voltage way below the voltage rating of the optoMOS switch.
* is rated at 600W for 8.3msec and is subject to only 13W for a similar period.

The UL test engineer says that the optoMOS should be "pilot duty" rated (the 
part I am using does have this rating).

Does anyone know what triggers the requirement for a "pilot duty" rating?
Is this defined in a standard somewhere?

This useful link identifies "contact rating codes"
https://na.industrial.panasonic.com/blog/what-pilot-duty-rating-how-it-obtained

The lowest rating E300 is for 110V 1.8A (make) 0.3A (break)

Technically speaking, my switch is not connected to the contactor .. there is a 
two-component network in between
Does UL have the capacity or procedures in place to understand and accept a 
circtuit analysis that shows my circuit as safe?

Jon Keeble

Wattwatchers.



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

Re: [PSES] EAC Mark in Russia

[Kunde, Brian]

Thanks to all who have posted on this subject. It has been most helpful.  We 
are starting to get the "Big Picture".

We have looked over the "TRs" and our type of products are not listed as 
requiring mandatory testing, so for years our products has breezed right in. 
But recently, Russia want DoCs from a Russia lab on everything.

They just performed EMC testing on a motor driven "prep machine for laboratory 
equipment" which has no high frequency components at all (which normally 
wouldn't require any EMC testing).  It cost more to get the DoC testing done 
then what the entire product sold for.

If we cannot work with Russia and find a more reasonable way of doing business 
we might be forced to stop doing business with them all together. I hope it 
don't come to that but that is the situation we are in.  But then again, maybe 
that is what they want.

Thanks again for your comments.

The Other Brian

From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 5:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EAC Mark in Russia


If so, it would not be the first time governments have used existing 
regulations to erect trade barriers.

Cortland Richmond

2017 5:45 PM, John Allen wrote:

Probably due to Putin's desire to promote (by any means - including 
regulation!) for everything to be done in Russia, not elsewhere!

John E Allen
W. London, UK

From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 December 2017 22:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] EAC Mark in Russia

Brian,

I occasionally do work for a very large ITE product company with a worldwide 
presence and so I've been involved in international certs for a few of their 
products.  This year we learned that Russia started to reject all EAC certs not 
issued by a Russian national lab.  The other CU nation's certs were being 
rejected.  I believe that Belarus has been working on legal action against 
Russia with the position that Russia is violating agreements.  But I had to 
obtain a 2nd EAC cert from a Russian lab so that this company could resume 
their exports to Russia.  The big-name labs with global market access groups 
that I spoke with are aware of this.  This was the status as of mid-summer.

Best regards,

Carl
On 11/29/2017 2:25 PM, Kunde, Brian wrote:
Greetings.

I would love to hear your story about dealing with the EAC mark and shipping 
products to Russia. Though most all countries have laws, acts, or directives on 
the books, most are not enforced across the board, yet focuses primarily on 
mass produced consumer electronics, computers, etc.. Individual or custom built 
equipment, such as scientific/laboratory equipment generally gets in such 
countries without much trouble.

However, our department has been asked to looking into the current status of 
the EAC marking and what it takes to get single built instruments into Russia.  
Any information on this would be helpful.

We have talked to a couple 3rd party labs and of course they want the entire 
gambit including full certification testing for Safety, EMC, and RoHS by an 
accredited lab and a full certification program with factory inspections, the 
works, blah blah blah.  This approach is totally out of the question for the 
few products that we sell into this market.  Let's be reasonable here.

So far we haven't had any issues (unless we include a PC in the shipment) but 
if things are changing we would like to stay on top of things.

I would love to hear from you.  Thanks for all comments and stories.

The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org

[PSES] EAC Mark in Russia

[Kunde, Brian]

Greetings.

I would love to hear your story about dealing with the EAC mark and shipping 
products to Russia. Though most all countries have laws, acts, or directives on 
the books, most are not enforced across the board, yet focuses primarily on 
mass produced consumer electronics, computers, etc.. Individual or custom built 
equipment, such as scientific/laboratory equipment generally gets in such 
countries without much trouble.

However, our department has been asked to looking into the current status of 
the EAC marking and what it takes to get single built instruments into Russia.  
Any information on this would be helpful.

We have talked to a couple 3rd party labs and of course they want the entire 
gambit including full certification testing for Safety, EMC, and RoHS by an 
accredited lab and a full certification program with factory inspections, the 
works, blah blah blah.  This approach is totally out of the question for the 
few products that we sell into this market.  Let's be reasonable here.

So far we haven't had any issues (unless we include a PC in the shipment) but 
if things are changing we would like to stay on top of things.

I would love to hear from you.  Thanks for all comments and stories.

The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Use of LED Spots in EMC Chambers [General Use]

[Kunde, Brian]

We just had our metal halide light fixtures replaced with LED fixtures in our 
large 10 meter Semi Anechoic Chamber and they are GREAT!!!  I have requested 
the Make and Model Number information from our Maintenance Department which 
I'll pass on when I get it. This is a holiday weekend for us so most are on 
vacation right now.

Anyway, every two to three years we had to have our metal halide bulbs changed 
because they would start arcing and messing up our Radiated Emissions results. 
We have a local rep. for All-Phase Electric who helps our maintenance 
department choose new energy saving light fixture technologies for our company. 
The rep. would bring in samples of the newest light fixtures and we would test 
them in our chamber for Emissions. Most were absolutely terrible due to noise 
from the internal switching power supplies. So I didn't have much hope when he 
dropped off the latest sample of an LED array light fixture for us to try out 
this past summer.

It was amazing!! Initially, we only picked up a little hump between 100Mhz and 
200Mhz where our noise floor is the lowest. The LED Light has an interface 
(about 2ft of wire coming out of a strain relief) for a Dimming Feature which 
we are not going to use. This pigtail wire was radiating a little and a little 
was coming off the power cord. So the Dimmer pigtail can be cut off if not 
needed or I just bundled it real short and put a cable tie around it.  I also 
put two snap-on ferrite beads on the power cord and all detectible emissions 
were gone.  Simple fixes.

I took the new LED fixture apart and found it be well built and well shielded. 
Inside, I found a MeanWell power supply completely encased in a metal chassis. 
I think the fixture is waterproof and could be used outside.  In any case, I 
was impressed.

When we installed the new lights, I had the two farthest from the antenna 
installed first. Then we ran a baseline and all we saw was noise-floor. Then we 
installed the remaining six with the same results. I was concerned about the 
fixture that is directly over the antenna which gets close when raised to 4 
meter off the floor, but again, nothing but noise floor.

Needless to say we have been very happy with these new lights. The only issue 
is that LED lights are very directional and shines mostly straight down. On one 
half of our chamber where the light fixtures are mounted a little farther 
apart, there is a shadow on the floor right in the down the middle, which is no 
big deal.

Like I said, when I get the model information, I'll pass it on.

Happy Holidays and God Bless.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) [mailto:andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 7:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Use of LED Spots in EMC Chambers [General Use]

Hi all.

Has anyone had experience with using LED Spot lamps in EMC Chambers?
What types/manufacturers would be recommended?

Would appreciate help in trying to solve someone's problems with noise during 
radiated emissions.
Test Facility has just had all their chambers converted to LED Spots and they 
are suffering broadband noise issues.

Regards
Andy




 Andrew Price
 Land & Naval Defence Electronics Division
 Prinicpal Environmental Engineer (EMC)

 Leonardo MW Ltd
 Sigma House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon SS14 3EL, UK
 Tel  EMC LAB : +44 (0)1268 883308
 Mobile: +44 (0)7507 854888
 
andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com
 leonardocomapany.com
HELICOPTERS / AERONAUTICS / ELECTRONICS, DEFENCE AND SECURITY SYSTEMS / SPACE

* Please consider the environment before printing this email.





This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and 
may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it 
from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its 
contents to any other person.


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list 

Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

[Kunde, Brian]

One last quick question, if I may, while we are all up on the NEC.

Just to confirm, the 80% rule only applies to 15A, 20A, and 30A branch 
circuits. 40A and 50A branch circuits do not have the 80% rule, even in a 
multiple-outlet configuration? I know these larger circuits are generally 
dedicated circuits, but that is how the rules read in the NEC 210.23(C). Unless 
I’m missing something.

Thanks bunches.
The Other Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:57 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13


Yes, of course quite a thin conductor will carry enough current to operate the 
protection, because it doesn't have time to get seriously hot.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-10-11 19:35, Kunde, Brian wrote:

I know I started this thread, so I'm going to circuit back via another 
direction.



The NEC allows a product with an 18 awg power cord (rated 10 amps), a 15 amp 
plug, and C13 IEC connector (15 amp) to be plugged into a 15 amp branch 
circuit. OH, you can also plug it into a 20 amp branch circuit because the 
receptacles will accept a 15 amp plug. So what protects the freakishly small 18 
awg power cord from bursting into flames in an overload condition?  Must be the 
OverCurrent Protection device in the product itself. Correct?



So back to original questions, can I use a power cord with a 20 amp plug (NEMA 
5-20P), 12 awg wire, and 15 amp IEC C13 connector on a product that draws 15 
amps and has a double pole 15 amp OCPD?  With the same logic above, the OCP 
device is protecting the power cord.



Would you allow this?  Then again, your you allow a 18awg power cord to be used 
on a 15 amp circuit?  The NEC says it is ok.



Thanks,

The Other Brian



-Original Message-

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:30 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13



Had a condo  with  a smallish through-the-wall A/C unit with NEMA 5-15P plug.  
In the room on one side of the unit was a dedicated 20A single outlet for the 
A/C unit.  In the room on the other side easily within reach of the cord was a 
standard duplex outlet on the room circuit.  Guess which one the A/C was 
plugged into?



-Dave



-Original Message-

From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:04 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13



Ralph, Ted et al,



Dunno how many times I have had this conversation with the project 
engineer who wants to use the full rated current from the duplex outlet (and 
not leave any for the other user who plugs into that outlet - which gives rise 
to the 80% rule) - except if they want to specify in the installation that the 
user must have an expensive electrician install a special dedicated outlet 
(only one plug available to the user on that CB controlled circuit); which 
gives rise to the marketing folks nixing the idea.  :>)Carry on! As you 
were doing...



:>) br,  Pete



Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 Tigard, 
ORe  97281-3427



503/452-1201



p.perk...@ieee.org<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>



-Original Message-

From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:05 AM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13



Sounds like an example of the 125% rule for continuous (>3hr) current.  (20/16)



Ralph McDiarmid

Product Compliance

Engineering

Solar Business

Schneider Electric





From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 5:50 AM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13



NFPA 70 allows 20 A connectors to be used at 20 A under a number of 
circumstances. The derating issue only applies in certain cases. Just changing 
the rating doesn’t resolve the issue as it would eliminate already accepted 
safe use of the connectors at their full rating.



Ted Eckert

Microsoft Corporation



The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]

Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:21 PM

To: Ted Eckert 
<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com><mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>; 
mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13



Yes, it could be difficult to change to respecting the rated

Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

[Kunde, Brian]

andards would 
need to be updated?

It is a poor analogy, but think about switching sides that you drive on the 
road. Sweden switched on September 3, 1967. Street signs, traffic signals and 
road markings all had to be changed. Headlights had to be adjusted or re-aimed. 
For quite a while, there was a mix of left-hand and right-hand drive cars. It 
was a massive undertaking for a country with fewer people than either London or 
New York City.

Changing the way branch circuits are rated in the U.S. could be done, but it 
would be an extremely complicated undertaking. The risks of a mismatch of 
circuits, circuit protection and loads would be significant for a long time. I 
suspect that by the time the technology evolved to the point where the 
requirement could be eliminated, it was too late and eliminating it would 
result in too much expense and rework.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 12:49 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

Well, yes, because the IEC tends to believe that rated values are realistic and 
do not need to be adjusted downwards. I suspect that at some point in the 
distant past (maybe even nearly 100 years ago), some connectors in wide use 
were found to overheat at rated current, so the 'derating rule' was brought in, 
and no-one has challenged it since.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cb9a5abba70d24e2f093e08d51018031b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636432617679408094=jNpj%2FFhCHx9ir37o7Xf5GxovOe2h0nU9FIZnbo5mItE%3D=0
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-10-10 20:12, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
The NEC (NFPA 70) talks about “continuous currents” and when to apply the 
all-too-familiar 125% rule.  Canadian Electric Code (CSA part I) has same 
requirement.  The IEC seems to have avoided it.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
D  604-422-2622

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 8:31 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

It is my understanding that according to the US National Electric Code, 15 amp 
receptacle are derated to 12 amps max., and 20 amp receptacles are derated to 
16 amps.

IEC 60320 C13 connectors are rated 15 amps in North America. Do I derate them 
as well or can I draw 15 amps continuous from the C13 connector?

So here is the big question:

If I have a power cord with a NEMA-5-20P at one end, IEC 60320 C13 at the other 
end, and 14awg cordage (rated 18A), can I use/ship this power cord with a 
product rated 15 amps?

Thanks to all.
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail 

Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

[Kunde, Brian]

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=02%7C01%7CTed.Eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7C6f5a4a13ae97469548f108d510703247%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636432996434092831=vbIPUaUZRYojTmRGRu9LrQO4Emqy7f8wN1OY8mY%2BQFg%3D=0
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-10-10 21:57, Ted Eckert wrote:
The various clauses of NFPA 70 are reviewed, challenged, debated, argued and 
rewritten. I don’t think the clause in question remains because nobody has 
challenged it. Part of the issue is that the electrical infrastructure in the 
U.S. has been developed around this rule. If affects circuit breaker trip 
curves, conduit fill, wire sizes and rating and many other aspects of a 
building’s electrical system. If the rule were changed, would there be problems 
switching over? Would you have overheating in older structures where circuit 
breakers were replaced without updating wiring? Wold there be other effects of 
mixing 80% and 100% rated components? How many U.S. national standards would 
need to be updated?

It is a poor analogy, but think about switching sides that you drive on the 
road. Sweden switched on September 3, 1967. Street signs, traffic signals and 
road markings all had to be changed. Headlights had to be adjusted or re-aimed. 
For quite a while, there was a mix of left-hand and right-hand drive cars. It 
was a massive undertaking for a country with fewer people than either London or 
New York City.

Changing the way branch circuits are rated in the U.S. could be done, but it 
would be an extremely complicated undertaking. The risks of a mismatch of 
circuits, circuit protection and loads would be significant for a long time. I 
suspect that by the time the technology evolved to the point where the 
requirement could be eliminated, it was too late and eliminating it would 
result in too much expense and rework.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 12:49 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

Well, yes, because the IEC tends to believe that rated values are realistic and 
do not need to be adjusted downwards. I suspect that at some point in the 
distant past (maybe even nearly 100 years ago), some connectors in wide use 
were found to overheat at rated current, so the 'derating rule' was brought in, 
and no-one has challenged it since.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cb9a5abba70d24e2f093e08d51018031b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636432617679408094=jNpj%2FFhCHx9ir37o7Xf5GxovOe2h0nU9FIZnbo5mItE%3D=0
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-10-10 20:12, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
The NEC (NFPA 70) talks about “continuous currents” and when to apply the 
all-too-familiar 125% rule.  Canadian Electric Code (CSA part I) has same 
requirement.  The IEC seems to have avoided it.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
D  604-422-2622

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 8:31 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

It is my understanding that according to the US National Electric Code, 15 amp 
receptacle are derated to 12 amps max., and 20 amp receptacles are derated to 
16 amps.

IEC 60320 C13 connectors are rated 15 amps in North America. Do I derate them 
as well or can I draw 15 amps continuous from the C13 connector?

So here is the big question:

If I have a power cord with a NEMA-5-20P at one end, IEC 60320 C13 at the other 
end, and 14awg cordage (rated 18A), can I use/ship this power cord with a 
product rated 15 amps?

Thanks to all.
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Can

Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

[Kunde, Brian]

https://www.stayonline.com/detail.aspx?id=11844

The power cord above is as I described in my original email. It too is UL/cUL 
listed. It is listed as a 15 amp power cord powered by a 20 amp branch circuit 
and 18 amp conductor (cordage).  Can this power cord power a device rated 15 
amps?  If not, why not?

Thanks,
Brian

From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 1:57 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

Brian, et al,

Oh yes, strange combinations…  The referenced combo is safety 
certified on the mfgrs spec sheet; really strange, wot was the test lab 
thinking?.   Wot kind of a product would appear with a 50A/125V/250V plug on it 
such that one would need an adapter to use it on a 15A/120V circuit?  Would an 
Electrical Inspector really accept such?  It would really raise a lot of 
questions; wouldn’t you like to be a ‘mouse-in-the-corner’ listening to such.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

p.perk...@ieee.org<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 9:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

Hello Brian,

This falls under the issue of “continuous” vs. “non-continuous” loads. NFPA 70, 
section 210.19 is one of the clauses that sets the requirement for the 80% 
derating. However, it states: “Where a branch circuit supplies continuous loads 
or any combination of continuous and noncontinuous loads, the minimum 
branch-circuit conductor size shall have an allowable ampacity not less than 
the noncontinuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load.”

“Continuous” is a load intended to be used for 3 hours or more. A hairdryer or 
microwave are not “continuous”. (If they are, you either have too many dogs and 
need to stop walking them in the rain or you like cooking food until it tastes 
like charcoal.)

The problem is that a detachable cord with an appliance coupler could be used 
with any product. Unless it has a built-in timer, you have no way of 
guaranteeing that it won’t be used with a product that draws current for less 
than 3 hours. There may be “non-continuous” loads with an appliance coupler and 
rated for 15 A. As such, I would expect such a detachable cord to need to be 
rated for at least 15 A.

A cord with a NEMA 5-20P would then be prohibited from having a C13 connector 
at the other end. It would need a C19 instead.

That being said, for some specialty industries, you can find some strange 
combinations of plugs and receptacles.
http://www.marinco.com/en/s15-504

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 8:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

It is my understanding that according to the US National Electric Code, 15 amp 
receptacle are derated to 12 amps max., and 20 amp receptacles are derated to 
16 amps.

IEC 60320 C13 connectors are rated 15 amps in North America. Do I derate them 
as well or can I draw 15 amps continuous from the C13 connector?

So here is the big question:

If I have a power cord with a NEMA-5-20P at one end, IEC 60320 C13 at the other 
end, and 14awg cordage (rated 18A), can I use/ship this power cord with a 
product rated 15 amps?

Thanks to all.
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Ccd07d70741384ef672a708d50f2ad7c1%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636431599042974081=KPn0zexfjGkIaute9FWGP4vvV00uCRcuq6GtjQwrsoc%3D=0>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Ccd07d70741384ef672a708d50f2ad7c1%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636431599042974081=q%2FDeWz1bT6EE9ZzNJ6pCeXkg

[PSES] NEMA 5-20P with IEC 60320 C13

[Kunde, Brian]

It is my understanding that according to the US National Electric Code, 15 amp 
receptacle are derated to 12 amps max., and 20 amp receptacles are derated to 
16 amps.

IEC 60320 C13 connectors are rated 15 amps in North America. Do I derate them 
as well or can I draw 15 amps continuous from the C13 connector?

So here is the big question:

If I have a power cord with a NEMA-5-20P at one end, IEC 60320 C13 at the other 
end, and 14awg cordage (rated 18A), can I use/ship this power cord with a 
product rated 15 amps?

Thanks to all.
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Class A Group 2 Registration??

[Kunde, Brian]

Our company makes an instrument that has uses an RF Isolator Power Amp and 
induction coil to heat up a small metal sample for analysis purposes (Lab 
Equipment).

By definition within the IEC/EN 55011 standard, this equipment would be 
classified as Class A Group 2. (hang in there; it’ll get more interesting)

However, because we shield the amp and coil so well, we do not need to take 
advantage of the relaxed Emissions Limits for Group 2 or use the ISM 
Frequencies.  The Instrument passes the Class A Group 1 requirements, so that 
is how we record it and claim compliance to within our documentation.  (almost 
there)

Every now and then, when we ship one of these instruments to another country 
(most currently, Russia), they recognized the instrument as a Group 2 product 
by nature of what it is. They Demand that we provide them with information 
regarding the RF Frequencies and Radiated Power Levels the instruments 
generates.  This appears to be some kind of Registration so the authorities 
know where the Group 2 product is located and what frequency it may emit high 
levels at.

(Finally, my question)
Is there a common way of providing the required information for Class A Group 2 
products?  Can anyone supply me with an example report or form that we can 
complete and have translated into different languages? (in this case, it has to 
be in Russian). Is there a better way of handling these requests regarding 
Group 2 products?

Thanks to all.
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [BULK] Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Kunde, Brian]

Regan,

I do not recall a case where a manufacturer completely removed a certification, 
but I have seen the following scenarios:


1.   Where a certification will change, such as from the separate UL  and 
CSA marks to a joined cULus or cCSAus mark. I’ve also seen marks change from 
one agency to another like TUV:SUD to VDE or TUV Rheinland, etc..


2.   Suppliers will notify us of a change in the standard that a part is 
evaluated to or the test levels in which a part is specified for. One example I 
recall is an opto-isolator where the manufacturer re-specified the dielectric 
strength of the part due to a change in the standard they use.  This flagged 
our R department to re-evaluate the part in the application.


3.   The most common and recent change we had to deal with is where a 
supplier first claims their parts to be RoHS-EU compliant. This is usually done 
without any change to the part number. For us, how do we separate old stock 
(where RoHS is questionable) from new stock? We had to make sure we used up old 
stock prior to our declarations of RoHS or purge old stock parts to insure we 
are using RoHS compliant parts.

I hope this was helpful.

The Other Brian

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:48 AM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency 
approvals
Importance: Low

Thanks Brian. That's great you do this.
Can you share any examples of where they have removed agencies but still 
retained the same part #?


On Sep 22, 2017 5:43 AM, "Kunde, Brian" 
<brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>> wrote:
We address this possible issue in two ways.


1.   We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.).

2.   The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.

3.   Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.

Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.

The Other Brian

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com<mailto:reganar...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

Greetings everyone,

My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.

I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the 
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to standards 
harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for the sake of cost 
reduction) on components without changing their respective part number. Or even 
worse, continue to advertise that the component is approved but in reality, it 
is not.

Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share?

P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples 
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.

Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)

Cheers!
Regan
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rule

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Kunde, Brian]

We address this possible issue in two ways.


1.   We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.).


2.   The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.


3.   Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.

Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.

The Other Brian

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

Greetings everyone,

My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.

I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the 
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to standards 
harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for the sake of cost 
reduction) on components without changing their respective part number. Or even 
worse, continue to advertise that the component is approved but in reality, it 
is not.

Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share?

P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples 
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.

Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)

Cheers!
Regan
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] power strip details

[Kunde, Brian]

John,

I think surge suppression on power strips is more of a Marketing Gimmick than 
anything. We all know that in a real world surge event, the device that fires 
first will take the brunt of the hit, and may not survive a second hit. Power 
strips have become a throw-away item but maybe it is better than nothing.

The built in surge suppression in your $3000 computer will easily protect your 
$5 power strip. But your computer may not survive more than one hit.

The Other Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 9:10 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] power strip details

Is this surge suppression a) effective, b) necessary? I have seen comments that 
suggest 'No' for both a) and b).

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 1:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details

This is slightly off topic but you might find this interesting.  People are too 
smart for their own good.

When Yanks travel to Europe, they bring along their phone chargers, computer 
chargers, notepad chargers, razer chargers, etc., all of which will operate at 
either 115Vac or 230Vac these days. So, instead of buying a bunch of plug 
adaptors, the logical thing to do is to buy one plug adaptor, put it on a North 
American power strip, and plug all their Tech into the strip. Smart, right?

Well, most North American power strips have built in Surge suppression and as 
soon as they get to Europe and plug it in, BAM!! SMOKE!!!

I know two people who have done this.

Enjoy your weekend.

The Other Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 8:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details

Yes, the marking on these is not well-formatted. The three numbers are 
*independent* limits, the 3680 W being 16 A at 230 V, but the strip could be 
used on supplies up to 250 V as long as neither of the other limits was 
exceeded.

Better would be 'Maximum ratings: 16 A, 250 V, 3680 W'

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty

From: Don Gies [mailto:ddg...@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 1:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details

Pete,

Before last year's TC108 meeting in Frankfurt, I purchased a German Schucko 
European Power Strip from Amazon.  It had 3 AC receptacles and 2 USB outputs.
 Its ratings are:
"Maximum Charge: 3680W,16A/250V~"

Don Gies
ddg...@verizon.net<mailto:ddg...@verizon.net>
(732) 207-7828

From: John Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details

Unlike the US/Canada (etc), there is no derating factor for UK mains wall 
outlets. A 13A wall outlet can be loaded at 13A, and a twin/duplex 13A outlet 
can be loaded at 13A per outlet because the "diversity factor" principle is 
applied, i.e. it is highly unlikely in practice that both 13A outlets will be 
actually be fully loaded at the same time!

Murphy's Law may however apply at times in that both outlets could 
simultaneously be loaded at 13A - and so it is to be hoped that the wall outlet 
in question is on a UK "ring main" circuit protected by a 32A breaker, and not 
a spur/radial/branch circuit protected by a 16A breaker!

For a power strip plugged into one of those outlets, there is a (generally, as 
John W said) a 13A fuse in the plug, and so the max cumulative continuous load 
for the sockets in the strip is also 13A - unless, of course, the mfr has 
decided to give it an overall lower current rating, fitted a lower-rated fuse 
AND marked the plug with that rating. BTW: I have also occasionally seen 7A 
fuses (the fuse standard is BS1362, but, AFAIK, that only shows a few 
"standard" ratings, and not some of those which are actually sold - such as 
those listed here http://cpc.farnell.com/search?st=plug%20top%20fuse)

I believe that the standard for such UK power strips is probably BS 
5733:2010+A1:2014 "General requirements for electrical accessories. 
Specification" - but don't have a copy and so can't comment in detail on what 
it requires.

John Allen
W.London, UK



From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 15 September 2017 07:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto

Re: [PSES] power strip details

[Kunde, Brian]

This is slightly off topic but you might find this interesting.  People are too 
smart for their own good.

When Yanks travel to Europe, they bring along their phone chargers, computer 
chargers, notepad chargers, razer chargers, etc., all of which will operate at 
either 115Vac or 230Vac these days. So, instead of buying a bunch of plug 
adaptors, the logical thing to do is to buy one plug adaptor, put it on a North 
American power strip, and plug all their Tech into the strip. Smart, right?

Well, most North American power strips have built in Surge suppression and as 
soon as they get to Europe and plug it in, BAM!! SMOKE!!!

I know two people who have done this.

Enjoy your weekend.

The Other Brian

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 8:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details

Yes, the marking on these is not well-formatted. The three numbers are 
*independent* limits, the 3680 W being 16 A at 230 V, but the strip could be 
used on supplies up to 250 V as long as neither of the other limits was 
exceeded.

Better would be 'Maximum ratings: 16 A, 250 V, 3680 W'

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty

From: Don Gies [mailto:ddg...@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 1:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details

Pete,

Before last year's TC108 meeting in Frankfurt, I purchased a German Schucko 
European Power Strip from Amazon.  It had 3 AC receptacles and 2 USB outputs.
 Its ratings are:
"Maximum Charge: 3680W,16A/250V~"

Don Gies
ddg...@verizon.net
(732) 207-7828

From: John Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details

Unlike the US/Canada (etc), there is no derating factor for UK mains wall 
outlets. A 13A wall outlet can be loaded at 13A, and a twin/duplex 13A outlet 
can be loaded at 13A per outlet because the "diversity factor" principle is 
applied, i.e. it is highly unlikely in practice that both 13A outlets will be 
actually be fully loaded at the same time!

Murphy's Law may however apply at times in that both outlets could 
simultaneously be loaded at 13A - and so it is to be hoped that the wall outlet 
in question is on a UK "ring main" circuit protected by a 32A breaker, and not 
a spur/radial/branch circuit protected by a 16A breaker!

For a power strip plugged into one of those outlets, there is a (generally, as 
John W said) a 13A fuse in the plug, and so the max cumulative continuous load 
for the sockets in the strip is also 13A - unless, of course, the mfr has 
decided to give it an overall lower current rating, fitted a lower-rated fuse 
AND marked the plug with that rating. BTW: I have also occasionally seen 7A 
fuses (the fuse standard is BS1362, but, AFAIK, that only shows a few 
"standard" ratings, and not some of those which are actually sold - such as 
those listed here http://cpc.farnell.com/search?st=plug%20top%20fuse)

I believe that the standard for such UK power strips is probably BS 
5733:2010+A1:2014 "General requirements for electrical accessories. 
Specification" - but don't have a copy and so can't comment in detail on what 
it requires.

John Allen
W.London, UK



From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 15 September 2017 07:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] power strip details

UK household power strips are rated at 13 A and include a 13 A fuse. Other 
fuses, normally used in plugs, are 3 A, 5 A and 10 A. I have seen a 1 A fuse, 
but they are very rare.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty

From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 5:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] power strip details

Esteemed colleagues,

Here in North America a domestic or commercial multi-outlet 
power strip would be cord connected thru a duplex outlet protected by a 15A (or 
sometimes 20A) circuit breaker.  The max load allowed in the circuit by the US 
NEC would be (80% of 15A) 12A for the total load (or 80% of 20A) 16A on the 20A 
breaker.   Note that the US NEC requires that any device plugged into a duplex 
outlet must not use the full load capacity of the circuit - 20% must be left 
for the other outlet's load.

Trying to understand the loading basis for a Euro power strip.  
Is the usual protection a 10A breaker? And 

Re: [PSES] Another benefit of Time Domain EMI receivers

[Kunde, Brian]

Have you ever priced out one of these?  Ouch!!

The Other Brian

From: Rob Oglesbee [mailto:rogles...@radianresearch.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Another benefit of Time Domain EMI receivers

I've had experience with them at a private test lab, and it makes going to 
those test labs that are still stuck in the 1990's an excruciating experience.

Rob

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:08 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Another benefit of Time Domain EMI receivers

They are not required by any standard of which I am aware. They are 
specifically allowed for in CISPR 16-1-1, and also MIL-STD-461G, as noted.  
They are, in my opinion, the wave of the future, due to increased speed and 
better representation of broadband signals.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: John Woodgate >
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:38:34 +0100
To: 'Ken Javor' 
>, 
>
Subject: RE: [PSES] Another benefit of Time Domain EMI receivers

Do many test houses have these broadband receivers? Are they required for any 
tests specified in standards (military or civilian)?


With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
  J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England

Beware averages! They hide or discard data, and may distort it (them?).


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: 14 August 2017 15:29
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Another benefit of Time Domain EMI receivers

Not a question to the group, a fable - a story with a lesson learned.

Was at the IEEE EMC Show south of DC this past week, and stuck around to attend 
a Friday afternoon session (!)  One of the presentations concerned a test in 
which I had played a part, and it reminded me of something interesting that 
happened there.  A lot of you will not have attended, and of those of you who 
did, perhaps not all had the fortitude to stick it out until the final hours.  
And, I had made a mental note to disseminate this information post-test, and 
then promptly forgot, as is my wont these days.

There was a spacecraft integration test where they decided for 
budget/schedule/risk reduction reasons not to move it into a SAC for the EMC 
portion, but leave it in a high bay, clean room facility where the balance of 
the testing occurred.  The entire facility is just a few miles from a major 
airport, and it being an industrial plant, there are many mobile radios in use, 
and those sorts of intermittent transmissions being the most difficult to pin 
down as ambients, we decided to do an rf survey of the clean room facility and 
determined that we needed an rf tent to meet our ambient requirements.

We were using one of these newer EMI receivers which had the capability to look 
at large portions of the spectrum at once, as opposed to tuning and dwelling 
frequency-by-frequency.  Using that capability, we could look at the entire 
launch vehicle command-destruct band (uhf, a 60 MHz wide band just above 400 
MHz) and also, separately, over the entire required spectrum at S-band.  S-band 
had to be monitored to ensure payload transmitter compatibility with some 
launch site communication links operating at close to the same frequency.  The 
command-destruct band was monitored to ensure that unintentional emissions from 
the spacecraft as a payload did not interfere with reception of that emergency 
command, in the event the launch had to be terminated after lift-off.

The first rf test was ensuring that the spacecraft didn't emit excessively in 
the command-destruct band.  When the tent was up, we noticed that from time to 
time the entire noise floor jumped up above our limit, and then settled down.  
Some of the less experienced engineers took this to be an intentional radio 
transmission, but as we were looking at a 60 MHz + wide spectrum, this clearly 
wasn't the answer.  It had to be a broadband event, and it turned out to be 
either people brushing against the tent and depositing charge which then flowed 
all over, and/or the ventilation in the facility blowing over the tent and 
causing the material to bow and ripple like a sail, with the same undesirable 
ESD end result.  We dealt with these problems by tying down that which could be 
tied down to avoid flapping in the breeze, and cordoning off the tent and 
placing "rf test in progress" signs around the periphery. People being people, 
even trained engineers and technicians, they completely ignored the roped off 
area and signs, so that in addition to the restricted 

[PSES] 230V 3-phase in Europe

[Kunde, Brian]

Greetings.

Sorry if this is a stupid question (I’ve asked more than I’m allowed, I’m 
sure), but in Europe, is there 230 volt 3-phase (230 volt line to line)?  I 
thought 230 volt single phase was derived from 380V 3-phase (230V from Line to 
Neutral).

I see a 230V 3-phase saw with a CE marking and I was wondering if this product 
can actually be used in Europe.

Thanks for any info.  Don’t beat up the yank too much.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Quasipeak definition

[Kunde, Brian]

I have a Classic 1948 John Deere "M" tractor. I cannot measure the battery 
voltage (to see if the generator is charging the battery) while the engine is 
running because the emissions from the ignition is so bad it causes by DMM to 
malfunction.

The Other Brian

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 3:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] Quasipeak definition
Importance: Low

Yeah, I have to fix the ignition in my '69 right now.  Maybe I'll replace the 
condenser while I'm at it.
-Dave

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 2:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Quasipeak definition

True enough, but there are still automobiles out there with old, noisy, 
ignition systems.  Heard an old VW Beetle go by lately?  And to think, someone 
built an OATS near a freeway years ago.  What were they thinking?

Fortunately, the ignition system in the plane I'm flying to dinner later this 
afternoon is well suppressed.  We still use AM radios in airplanes for 
communications.

Ghery S. Pettit

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 11:34 AM
To: 'Ghery S. Pettit'; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Quasipeak definition

Do we have any products these days that produce such emissions?  I'm not sure 
that a 10 kHz repetition rate ever occurred anyway. For an ignition system, 
3000 RPM and 4 four-stroke cylinders only gives 600 Hz.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: 31 July 2017 19:16
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Quasipeak definition

The QP detector was designed in the 1930s to simulate the response of the human 
ear to impulsive interference.  The classic example at the time was the 
interference from ignition systems in automobiles to AM broadcast receivers, 
both in the car and nearby.  A single click is well filtered by the ear and 
brain, but as the repetition rate goes up the perceived annoyance and 
interference goes up.  By the time the repetition rate has reached 10 kHz the 
ear/brain combination is really annoyed and the quasi-peak detector and a peak 
detector respond about the same.

Hope this helps.

Ghery S. Pettit


From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 7:35 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Quasipeak definition

How would you define the Quasipeak detector to somebody that is not EMC 
knowledgeable.


Sincerely,

Dieter Paasche
Senior Product Developer, Electrical
CHRISTIE
809 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y7
Phone: 519-744-8005 ext.7211
www.christiedigital.com

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential.  Any 
unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  If you have 
received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail 
or telephone and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and 
records.

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 

Re: [PSES] CE Compliance [General Use]

[Kunde, Brian]

I stand corrected.  I use “shall” in our warning statements in our User’s 
Manual but our Tech Pub people always changes it to “must”. They have their 
reasons and I’m tired of fighting them on this.  But you are absolutely right 
on this. Hee hee.
The Other Brian

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] CE Compliance [General Use]

>“but can lead to”, means it does not have to lead to, otherwise it would say, 
>“but must lead to”.

I think it would say “Shall lead to” 

The phrase is
“This web-address does not necessarily need to directly refer to the document 
but can lead to a specific Internet address (URL) where the DoC’s are 
maintained”
So, if you don’t provide a direct link to the document, then you can provide a 
link to the page where they are listed – the guide is saying that you don’t 
have to provide a specific URL for each individual DoC, but equally you are not 
meant to just put “Declarations are available from 
www.ourcompany.com<http://www.ourcompany.com>”

This requirement is not new as it was in the R Directive, and plenty of 
companies have been providing a single page for years.

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 20 June 2017 21:00
To: Charlie Blackham 
<char...@sulisconsultants.com<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: [PSES] CE Compliance [General Use]

“but can lead to”, means it does not have to lead to, otherwise it would say, 
“but must lead to”.

Some interpret the Machinery Directive, which has similar requirements for the 
DoC, to mean that each individual product built must have a unique DoC that 
lists the product’s specific serial number (or some other unique way of 
identifying it). So if you built a million products, you would have a million 
different DoCs on file.   This is not practical.

So if you literally do what the Directive say, you will have an officer of your 
company sitting at the end of every production line with a stack of DoC, 
filling in the model and serial number for each product, signing and dating 
each, then making a photo copy of each placing one in the box and one in a file 
cabinet. Or scan the DoC and place an electronic copy on your Corporate Website 
with some type of search utility so people can find that one and only one DoC 
for their specific product.

Yes, I’m being absurd on purpose.  But this interpretation does meet the 
requirements, does it not?

My advice is to find a practical way of providing the DoC to your customers.

The Other Brian

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:29 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: [PSES] CE Compliance [General Use]


Brian



Quoting from the RED 
Guide<http://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/23321/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf>:



The simplified DoC shall indicate the web-address where the complete DoC can be 
found. This web-address does not necessarily need to directly refer to the 
document but can lead to a specific Internet address (URL) where the DoC’s are 
maintained by the manufacturer enabling a simple identification or search for 
the relevant DoC. Even if the simplified DoC refers only to RED, the complete 
DoC located on Internet has to refer to all applicable legislation to the radio 
equipment



This option is allowed as an alternative to shipping a full DoC with the actual 
product, so the full DoC should be readily available and you should not have to 
request it.



Regards

Charlie


Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247



-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 20 June 2017 20:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Compliance [General Use]



" it shall contain the exact internet address where the full text of the EU 
declaration of conformity can be obtained"



Can I interpret the above to mean that the website only has to include 
instructions on how to obtain the full DcC and not necessarily a direct link to 
the electronic copy of the DoC itself?



For instance, we have a link on our corporate website where a person can 
Request the DoC. Doesn't that meet the r

Re: [PSES] FCC part 18

[Kunde, Brian]

Because terminology gets tossed around by different organizations, standards, 
directives, etc., without clear definition, let me see if I understand this 
correctly.

First of all, the FCC statement identifies a type of product; in this case 
"Test Equipment".  This can be anything that tests or measures something, 
right? From a free DMM from Harbor Freight to a million dollar Mass 
Spectrometer (and beyond), these are all considered test equipment.

The FCC also identifies three types of locations or environments; commercial, 
medical, and industrial.  There are many more; some are grouped within these 
three, some get lost in the miss-mash.  For instance, our company makes 
"Laboratory Equipment"; which is of course, equipment that is used in a 
laboratory environment where the employees are trained to work safety in an 
environment where added hazards are often present. A laboratory is usually part 
of or sets within  a commercial, medical, or industrial environment, but in 
rare occasions, a mass spectrometer might end up in a residential environment, 
such as Batman's cave. But don't worry about those 'rare' occasions because I'm 
sure Batman is breaking all kinds of zoning and safety laws.

The FCC is most concerned about the "Residential" environment. Most anything 
that could be used in this environment must comply with part 15 class B.  For 
instance, a Digital Multi-meter can be used almost anywhere, in any 
environment, including residential. So if your product can likely be used in 
residential areas, then it should be part 15 class B.

All-in-all you should consider that if you make something that is considered 
Electrical Equipment (EE), you should at least have it verified to meet the 
part 15 class A limits, so your product will play well with other EE. A quick 
verification test goes a long way in knowing if your product is going to cause 
trouble once in the field.  Also keep in mind that many safety standards 
require products to meet some kind of emissions and/or immunity tests, so look 
beyond just what the FCC is requiring.

I hope this was somewhat helpful.

The Other Brian

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] FCC part 18
Importance: Low

Yes, I recall we have had this discussion before with the same answer.

-Dave

From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 6:16 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC part 18

Dieter,
The statement in 15.103 refers to Industrial test equipment, Commercial test 
equipment, and Medical test equipment.  I am confident of this because I sent 
the very same question in an inquiry to the FCC in November of 2015.

FCC inquiry response: "It is an exemption for demonstrating compliance for the 
digital logic contained in test equipment exclusively used in commercial, 
medical and industrial situations, not commercial equipment."

Bill Stumpf - Lab / Technical Manager
D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.
166 South Carter Street
Genoa City WI 53128
Ph: 262-279-0210



From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC part 18

Dear group,

In FCC part 15.103 does the term "test equipment" refer to the medical 
equipment only or to the industrial and commercial equipment as well.

(c) A digital device used exclusively as industrial, commercial, or medical 
test equipment

Means if I have an industrial or commercial digital device (e.g cash register 
or industrial computer?) that is not for testing, would it have to comply with 
FCC part 15?.


Sincerely,

Dieter Paasche
Senior Product Developer, Electrical
CHRISTIE
809 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y7
Phone: 519-744-8005 ext.7211
www.christiedigital.com

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential.  Any 
unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  If you have 
received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail 
or telephone and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and 
records.

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Kunde, Brian]

You are absolutely right.

In my example, we have an instrument that has a multi-tap power stepdown 
transformer inside. The instrument will function at any voltage within the 
range but if you want the most power at your line voltage you will want to 
correctly set the taps on the transformer.  But I can see that this fact does 
not necessarily need to be conveyed in the Rating of the device. We clearly 
describe this in our manuals.

We typically just use the nominal Voltage rating of 230V; however, in the 
States we often get customers who want to know if the device can be connected 
to 208V Line-Line derived from 3-phase.  All of our newer instruments will but 
our older ones might not.  So then our Engineering, Service and Marketing 
groups wants to somehow display this fact on the newer instruments.   So 
recently, different design teams have used different methods to display the 
voltage rating and operational range. It is my goal to try and find some 
consistency in how our rating labels are printed.

It’s is so funny to me how our company seems to spend more time on the simple 
issues. And we are not even talking about the Current rating, the 80% rule on 
pluggable equipment, how some inspectors want to see an “Average Current” or 
“Max. Continuous Current” rating on the instrument, or where some standards 
allow you to include an additional current rating in “brackets” that represent 
current levels higher than 10% of the rated current that occurs within the 
first minute of operation.  Crazy man.

Thanks for all the good information. Most helpful and informative discussion.

The Other Brian

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:10 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

Actually this looks redundant to me. The 100-115-120/208-220-230-240 can be 
expressed as 100-120/208-240.  This is because the dash character indicates a 
range and the slash character indicates a selectable value.  In quasi boolean 
fashion, this could be explained as (from 100 to 120) OR (from 208 to 240).

One more point for the sake of clarity, the ±10% tolerance for a range is based 
on the end limits or a range.  In your example above, -10% of 100V thru +10% of 
120V and -10% of 208V thru +10% of 240V which translates into 90 thru 132 an 
187.2 thru 264. This would not be included on a rating label however.

In my experience ±10% is standard operating conditions (SOC) when not otherwise 
specified.  This has been expanded on occasion in product design proposals 
where the customer has specified +10% / -15% as a preliminary step toward 
mitigating voltage dips and sags.

All the best, doug




On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kunde, Brian 
<brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>> wrote:
Is something like this allowed?

100-115-120/208-220-230-240

Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something 
different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the device or 
is the manual good enough?

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate 
[mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com<mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com>]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

These runes differ in meaning:

I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.

85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and expect 
no problem.

100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant 
standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid 
[mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com<mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>]
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to see 
if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way of 
non-compliance with a criterion in the standard.

I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.   I 
would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at rated 
power, at highest rated ambient .  One corner of the "performance envelope" if 
you will.  And then, do I test the latter at 100V -10%   ?

And, I don't think that compliance with a standard proves a product safe; only 
that it complies with a specific set of criteria.  Product safety is hard to 
define, much harder to accurately assess, even with use of the AFMEA and FTA 
t

Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

[Kunde, Brian]

Is something like this allowed?

100-115-120/208-220-230-240

Will a ±10% tolerance always be assumed? If your tolerance was something 
different, such as -15%/+10%, does this information have to be on the device or 
is the manual good enough?

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

These runes differ in meaning:

I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.

85-264 means any voltage within that range. You could put in 165 V and expect 
no problem.

100/120/208/230/240 means only those voltages, with whatever the relevant 
standard says about tolerances. 165 V would not work for this product.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 8:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

I don't know, but I suppose it could be addressed by an "abnormal test" to see 
if UUT fails in a way which then renders it potentially unsafe by way of 
non-compliance with a criterion in the standard.

I have seen products rated 85-264V and others rated 100/120/208/230/240.   I 
would expect the first one to pass thermal test criteria at 85V, at rated 
power, at highest rated ambient .  One corner of the "performance envelope" if 
you will.  And then, do I test the latter at 100V -10%   ?

And, I don't think that compliance with a standard proves a product safe; only 
that it complies with a specific set of criteria.  Product safety is hard to 
define, much harder to accurately assess, even with use of the AFMEA and FTA 
tools, which are subjective so it seems to me.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification

Supposedly, since the ratings are specified in the standard, they must involve 
safety if not done according to the standard.  So, what is the safety issue if 
the ratings are not in accordance with the standard?  What is the injury?

What is the safety issue if the applied voltage is less than or more than the 
marked ratings but still within the nominal from the electric power utility?  
Again, what is the injury?

Rich


> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate
> [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 9:11 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> There are in fact two IEC resources, Electropedia, which has all the
> formal definitions produced by TC1 and Glossary, which has a selection
> of terms, culled from many standards, that have not been adopted by
> TC1.
>
> http://www.electropedia.org/?ref=extfooter
>
> http://std.iec.ch/glossary?ref=extfooter
>
> Neither can be comprehensive at one instant, because new terms are
> being added all the time.
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid
> [mailto:Ralph.McDiarmid@SCHNEIDER-
> ELECTRIC.COM]
> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:42 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> Pete, I wonder if the onus to define the terminology like “rated
> voltage” should really be on the technical committees, not academia.
> I know that is some standards, terms like "disconnect" and "trip" are
> loosely defined.  I wonder if there should be one IEC document, which
> could serve as a reference to all others for terminology.  I think
> there is one, but it is likely not comprehensive.
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>
>
>
> From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc- requ...@ieee.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 10:20 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Voltage Rating vs Voltage Specification
>
> All,
>
>Yes, the consultant or safety engineers
> dream/nightmare.  We have to realize that the glass is half empty for
> most of the world and we have an ongoing opportunity to strike them
> across the knuckles with a ruler (as the nuns did in primary school)
> and begin the teaching mode.
>
>As PT Barnum (the American circus
> entrepreneur) once said (and quoted often) ‘There is a fool born every
> minute’.
>
>If the technical schools provided all of this detailed
> training we wouldn’t have anything to do.
>

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Kunde, Brian]

Dave hit the nail on the head. In our type of products and market, we 
manufacturer many different products (50 or more families of products), but in 
very low quantity. Fifty of one model per year is a lot to us where some models 
we might not sell even one.  We build to order one unit at a time. And we have 
products that have been "in production" for over 30 years.

We have talked to many NRTL labs about a certification program but they all say 
the same thing; it makes no sense with the low quantity we produce. They 
consider our products "Custom" and we can provide a Test Report from our 
internal safety lab (we have a very nice facility). Some OSHA inspectors are OK 
with it, some are not. Same with AHJs. Some are ok, some require a label from 
an NRTL. Most government organizations, universities, and government 
contractors require NRTL marks on products these days. We do offer this through 
a local NRTL lab in the form of a Field Evaluation. No problem with these 
inspections.

Where we run into trouble is with products that are inspected in the field. 
Customers will hire NRTLs to do field evaluations on location on new products 
or sometimes on products that have been in service for years, and some 
inspectors, not knowing what it is they are looking at, will inspect it to some 
standard or set of rules they pulled out of a hat.  That is why I ask so many 
questions about Criteria.

Nine out of ten inspections go fine. And most of those who have issues are 
happy with an explanation or a little information from us. But it is those 
stubborn close minded inspectors who won't budge that will send me to an early 
grave.  These are the inspectors we are constantly trying to understand and 
design our products to satisfy to minimize the problems and costs.

I know we will never be able to make everyone happy. But the more information 
we have the better things get.

Thanks so much for your comments and advise. It is very helpful.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:09 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

The preceding may not have completely addressed the question.  You are probably 
looking to identify what standards to apply while designing the product before 
an NRTL has a chance to evaluate and determine what they think is the 
appropriate standard(s).   This is where experience and a working relationship 
with the NRTL comes in handy.  We often design to a few different standards 
when possible.  If there are conflicts, well then we have to make a judgment 
call.  With some prior history we know what standards the NRTL has used on 
similar product.  We can also get preliminary input from the NRTL on what 
standards they would apply.  In particular during a preliminary quote cycle 
with basic product description the standards to be used for certification will 
have been identified in the NRTL certification quotes.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Kunde, Brian'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Brian,

I assume you're asking about US requirements and the inspectors you are asking 
about are local AHJs or OSHA.  So OSHA and perhaps the AHJs have a basic rule 
that all equipment used in the workplace is NRTL approved/listed except for 
custom built equipment that can be certified as safe by the manufacturer on the 
basis of test data.   I don't know if or how the exception may apply with local 
AHJs, no experience with that one.

The first thing the local electrical/building/OSHA inspector is going to look 
for is the NRTL mark.  They see that they are usually happy and done.  That 
pushes your question off to the NRTL who gets to evaluate the product and 
determine what standards to apply.  Basically the same procedure for a NRTL lab 
certified product or NRTL field inspected/marked product.  If you don't have a 
listing of field inspection mark, well then you're going to be up for 
challenges with the local inspectors.  The various standards have their own 
scope definitions and the NRTL is going to review to determine which 
standard(s) are most appropriate.  In some cases it may not be simply black and 
white and it may be possible for the NRTL to choose between this standard or 
that standard.  I have run into this on several occasions.  The NRTLs cannot 
use NFPA 79 as a UL listing standard but they do use it as a reference standard 
alongside of a primary listing standard.  Typically they will refer to it for 
anything that qualifies as machinery.

For large industrial equipment  which has a "industrial control panel(s)" 
driving external motors and such, i.e. a system of multiple large components 
rather than a single self-contained product in a "box" , you may get away wi

Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Kunde, Brian]

I never studied the VSA, but ships built for the Federation had panels in 
hallways that could be removed without a tool with high voltage plasma coils 
and flux capacitors behind them. And kids lived aboard these ships. Open 
Jeffares tubes without locked doorways where common. Space stations appeared to 
have locks on grain storage bins, but it didn't keep out domesticated pets 
(Tribbles). And there was that "one room" aboard the submarine Sea View that 
when anyone entered, we all knew that someone was going to get electrocuted. I 
guess the future makes no more sense than the present.

I am interested in the criteria inspectors use to decide if a product should 
meet these requirements or not. Or is it completely voluntary. I would imagine 
if NECA, NEMA and NFPA 79 is involved then inspectors are going to require 
following what they say.

Here is an example of what I'm looking for. You have two cut-off saws; one is 
about the size of a lunchbox, sits on a table, has a 1/8hp motor, and cuts 1/8" 
steel rods into 1 gram samples to be analyzed for carbon/sulfur content. The 
other is huge, weighs 1000lbs, floor mounted, 3-phase power, has a 35hp motor, 
and can cut an engine block into slabs for hardness testing and metallurgical 
analysis. Technically both do the same function. Both are considered "prep 
machines for analytical analysis". So then both can be considered "laboratory 
equipment" even though the big one is more messy and makes a lot more noise.  
Neither is marketed or sold for any other purpose even though they could be 
used to cut many things for many reasons.

Now let's say there are 10 more saws of different sizes and hp that fit between 
the two I mentioned above. At what point (criteria) do we apply the NFPA 79 and 
the like? At what point will inspectors expect to see a different set of design 
rules applied, or again, is it all voluntary how you design a product?

Thanks for the help.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

Agree vehemently, but also codified per NECA 1-2015, and the various 
workmanship standards of the Vulcan Science Academy. UL508A does not do much 
for 'workmanship', just materials and construction and performance. And do not 
want to see a safety standard that tells me stuff has to be built pretty.

Brian


From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

I think those types of products are engineered once, and then built and 
serviced for decades.  Overly neat designs lend themselves to less problems in 
production and service over the years, even when the original designers are no 
longer available to help.  I don't think there are any criteria which require 
that type of construction (aside from tradition).  It's like asking why every 
facilities engineer has a large keyring, a pocket protector containing no less 
than three writing instruments, and a AA mini Maglite on their belt.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Kunde, Brian <brian_ku...@lecotc.com> wrote:
I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large metal 
electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside the 
components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in these 
gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a small 
tag.

Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
product must follow these construction rules?

Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for the 
“greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle creativity, 
invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.

Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
The Other Brian


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail t

[PSES] E-Box Layout on Factory Machines

[Kunde, Brian]

I notice that most industrial factory machinery is designed with a large metal 
electronic box with a hinged door and some kind of keyed lock. Inside the 
components are DIN mounted and the wiring is all dressed very neatly in these 
gray plastic cable runs with snap-on lids. Every wire is labeled with a small 
tag.

Why are these machines so similar in design?  Even among different 
manufacturers, they look similar.  Is there a standard or standards that 
dictate exactly how this is done?  What criteria is used to determine if your 
product must follow these construction rules?

Seems strange to me that they are so similar and if required to be that way, 
then standards and/or governments are dictating design. Even if it was for the 
“greater-good”, I thought that was a no-no.  Dictate design, stifle creativity, 
invite those who would take advantage for financial gain.

Just curious.  I’m most interested in the criteria question, though.
The Other Brian


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment

[Kunde, Brian]

I’ve said this before, but laboratory equipment is the Redheaded Stepchild of 
Regulatory Compliance. It’s like the powers-to-be didn’t know what to do with 
us so the latest move was to toss us in the mix with Industrial Machinery. But 
the MD is not a good marriage. Our users are not the same. The environment is 
not the same.

Laboratory Equipment is not new. It’s been around for hundreds of years.  
Scientists, engineers, technicians, chemists, etc. perform tests on materials 
using fire, heat, ovens, ice, liquid nitrogen, electricity (ever see a 
Frankenstein Movie), sharp tools, glass containers, chemicals, solvents, 
flammable liquids, plasma, lasers, tools and machines that cut, grind, polish, 
crush, vibrate, pulverize, burn, ionize, liquefy, vaporize, and nebulize 
materials for scientific analysis.  The users of such equipment are trained and 
educated to work in such an environment without getting hurt.

Take the average person off the street, put them in a laboratory, and they will 
most likely get injured or be dead before lunch.  Put the same person in an 
Industrial factory, give them 10 minutes of instruction, and they can run a 
press for 20 years without losing a finger. Why, because the safety rules and 
training of Users are completely different.

Most of you work in an EMC, Product Safety, Engineering, or R Laboratory so 
you should know what I’m talking about. You know by personal experience that 
there are hazards you are exposed to everyday that are just part of the job.  
Bring an OSHA or Union Inspector through your lab and they’ll probably shut you 
down (unless they are knowledgeable in such matters, which most are not).

Ultimately, manufacturers of laboratory equipment needs some kind of 
representation in Europe. But because of the small volumes we deal with, we are 
mostly small companies who just do not have the resources.  We must rely on 
consultants, 3rd party labs, and discussion groups, like this one, for advice 
on what to do.

But our greatest burden is dealing with inspectors at our customer site who 
doesn’t know what a Thermographic Analyzer is so they review it as a an 
Industrial Factory machine under the MD and write up a list of non-compliances. 
And though we have to work through dozens of these every year costing us 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in manpower, we have never had to make a 
mechanical change to even one of our instruments. They have all been resolved 
through educating inspectors and providing information and test results they 
cannot perform in the field.  Who pays for this?

Many believe that if we declared to the LVD instead of the MD, that our 
products would be looked upon differently from inspectors and they wouldn’t be 
forced to try and apply the EHSR of the MD to products that just don’t fit. All 
I know for sure is that before the 2006 version of the MD, life was good. I 
dream of better days.

The Other Brian


From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment

All,

   Well letting it stew longer usually makes the soup thicker.

   The mfgrs of semi processing equipment worked to get 
clarification hoping to use 61010 as the basis for the electrical portion of 
their CE certification but using the needed machinery standards for mechanical 
hazards.  This would allow a full CE cert invoking both the MD and the LVD.  
The EU fathers, however, didn’t want to go that direction so another part of 
60204  has been developed to with cover these units – done in parallel the TC66 
efforts to develop their -2-120 machinery standard covering the needed 
mechanical req’mts.

   So it appears that those folks have two paths to full 
certification and could invoke both the MD and the LVD in their Declaration 
(which, it seems, is most pleasing to low level approval folks who have to 
accept the Declaration and don’t want to  spend too much time deciding if all 
the necessary things have been covered.

   The nightmare is spreading, equipment is getting more complex 
and larger so the boundaries are being stretched or broken down.  Hopefully, 
the system will get some sense and work to allow any combo of technical 
requirements to show compliance – electrical requirements for the LVD and 
mechanical requirements for the MD.  We’ve done  that many times in the past 
and it has worked well technically.  o

   I vote for watering the soup and not serve stew.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

p.perk...@ieee.org

From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for 

Re: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment

[Kunde, Brian]

Michael,

That sounds great.

I have emails from the TUV:Rheinland inspector who presented his position on 
the Cut-off Saw he evaluated to why it should be declared under the LVD and not 
the MD. I can send you those emails if you think that would be helpful.

Looking forward to hearing more from you. Sorry if do not always use the 
correct wording or terminology. We are a relatively small company and don’t 
have people sitting on committees or attending meetings on these topics. We 
must rely on others, such as what consultants tell us, what we read in 
publications, from test reports and what test labs tell us, field inspectors, 
what our customers expect, and what our competitors are doing.  When these 
sources start doing things that are different from what we are doing, it is my 
job to try and figure out why.

Thanks so much for your help with this.

Brian


From: loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:23 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: AW: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment

Second comment: on 8th of May, 2017 I have a meeting with the responsible 
market surveillance authority in Baden-Wuerttemberg regarding our experiences, 
“blooper” and open questions of manufacturers/importers. If you like I can 
discuss  your “story/experiences” with these officials because one of the 
participants is the German representative for the MD in Brussels.

Michael

Von: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. März 2017 20:19
An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Betreff: [PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment

Sorry to say, this issue has once again reared its ugly head. I appreciate any 
and all input.

History: For many many years, laboratory equipment fell under the Low Voltage 
Directive (LVD), even products with moving parts. It was specifically excluded 
from the Machinery Directive (MD). The Safety Standard for Laboratory Equipment 
EN 61010-1 is harmonized to the LVD.  Life was good.

Then a new version of the MD was released which did not exclude Laboratory 
Equipment. Many of the EHSR from annex I did not apply and there were no 
harmonized standards specific to laboratory equipment. So the same set of 
safety rules that apply to Industrial/Factory Machinery must somehow be applied 
to Carbon Analyzers, Calorimeters, Hardness Testers, and Mass Spectrometers. 
Life sucks.

BUT then the New Safety Standards EN 61010-1 3rd Ed. was released which 
included hazards from Moving Parts and referenced a Risk Assessment for any 
hazards not covered by the standard.  The standard now covered all hazardous 
conditions associated with Laboratory Equipment including moving parts, 
electrical, chemical, hot/cold temperatures, radiation, pressurized fluids, 
everything. AND THEN the new LVD was released which was aligned with the NLF.  
Can Life be Good Again?

The Topper:  Recently we have been contacted by two different Notified Bodies 
in Europe which has informed us that we should be using the LVD and not the MD. 
 When I asked for a reason why they basically said what I just typed above.  
One NB lab in Italy just performed a Safety Evaluation on one of our Cut-Off 
Saws (considered a prep machine for scientific analysis) and they evaluated it 
to the EN 61010-1:2010 and the LVD.  When I questioned this and inquired about 
the MD, they argued that the LVD and EN 61010-1 NOW covers all hazards assessed 
within the product and the MD would not be the appropriate Directive.

We have also started to see several of our business partners (companies we work 
with to produce buy/sell options and laboratory peripherals with moving parts 
like sample loaders)  declaring compliance to the LVD instead of the MD.  As 
first I tried to correct them but then they sent us test reports from NB labs 
in Europe evaluating their products to the LVD.  Whodathunkit?

However, I checked with the TUV:SUD lab we use here in the states and they are 
still saying that the MD is the correct directive to use.  Ok, now I’m 
officially confused.

So, has it officially changed? Or is it changing? Can manufacturers of 
laboratory equipment go back to declaring compliance to the LVD even if their 
products have moving parts?  Has anyone seen any official new releases, 
articles, decisions, on this topic?  Does anyone want to research and write an 
Article on this topic?

Is there an official authority who can once and for all settle this topic of 
continuing conflict, nightmares, and ulcers?

Thanks for your time.
The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product 

[PSES] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment

[Kunde, Brian]

Sorry to say, this issue has once again reared its ugly head. I appreciate any 
and all input.

History: For many many years, laboratory equipment fell under the Low Voltage 
Directive (LVD), even products with moving parts. It was specifically excluded 
from the Machinery Directive (MD). The Safety Standard for Laboratory Equipment 
EN 61010-1 is harmonized to the LVD.  Life was good.

Then a new version of the MD was released which did not exclude Laboratory 
Equipment. Many of the EHSR from annex I did not apply and there were no 
harmonized standards specific to laboratory equipment. So the same set of 
safety rules that apply to Industrial/Factory Machinery must somehow be applied 
to Carbon Analyzers, Calorimeters, Hardness Testers, and Mass Spectrometers. 
Life sucks.

BUT then the New Safety Standards EN 61010-1 3rd Ed. was released which 
included hazards from Moving Parts and referenced a Risk Assessment for any 
hazards not covered by the standard.  The standard now covered all hazardous 
conditions associated with Laboratory Equipment including moving parts, 
electrical, chemical, hot/cold temperatures, radiation, pressurized fluids, 
everything. AND THEN the new LVD was released which was aligned with the NLF.  
Can Life be Good Again?

The Topper:  Recently we have been contacted by two different Notified Bodies 
in Europe which has informed us that we should be using the LVD and not the MD. 
 When I asked for a reason why they basically said what I just typed above.  
One NB lab in Italy just performed a Safety Evaluation on one of our Cut-Off 
Saws (considered a prep machine for scientific analysis) and they evaluated it 
to the EN 61010-1:2010 and the LVD.  When I questioned this and inquired about 
the MD, they argued that the LVD and EN 61010-1 NOW covers all hazards assessed 
within the product and the MD would not be the appropriate Directive.

We have also started to see several of our business partners (companies we work 
with to produce buy/sell options and laboratory peripherals with moving parts 
like sample loaders)  declaring compliance to the LVD instead of the MD.  As 
first I tried to correct them but then they sent us test reports from NB labs 
in Europe evaluating their products to the LVD.  Whodathunkit?

However, I checked with the TUV:SUD lab we use here in the states and they are 
still saying that the MD is the correct directive to use.  Ok, now I’m 
officially confused.

So, has it officially changed? Or is it changing? Can manufacturers of 
laboratory equipment go back to declaring compliance to the LVD even if their 
products have moving parts?  Has anyone seen any official new releases, 
articles, decisions, on this topic?  Does anyone want to research and write an 
Article on this topic?

Is there an official authority who can once and for all settle this topic of 
continuing conflict, nightmares, and ulcers?

Thanks for your time.
The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Moter Overload Protection with Supplemental Protector

[Kunde, Brian]

Greetings experts.

This question applies to both North America rules (NEC) keeping in mind the 
rest of the world including Europe BUT my example will be for a 115Vac 60hz 
device.

My example product is used in the Workplace but not typically in an industrial 
environment (if that matters). It's not a home appliance or power tool.

Consider an End Product powered by 115Vac 60hz from a standard 16AWG power cord 
with a NEMA-5-15 plug, from a 15 amp receptacle (15 amp Branch Circuit).  
Within this product is a 1/2 hp motor with an Full-Load Amp (FLA) rating of 5 
amp. The motor can run continuous in this application. The motor does not have 
integrated over temperature protection.

Scenario 1: If this was a single phase AC motor, we would have to provide 
Overload Protection. According to the NEC, a fuse or circuit breaker no larger 
than 6.25 amp (FLA x 125%) can be used (lets ignore start up current for now).  
Can this Overload Protector be a "Supplemental Protector" (UL 1077 circuit 
breaker) or does it have to be a UL 489 circuit breaker or some other type of 
device?

Scenario 2: If an Inverter, Frequency Drive, PWM Motor Controller, etc. is used 
to drive an AC or PWM DC motor (1/2hp), the Branch Circuit is not stressed by 
Motor Start currents since the motor is soft started. So for example, if we 
have a 1/2hp 90Vdc motor that is driven by a PWM controller, can the Overload 
Protector be a Supplemental Protector?  If not, what does it have to be and why?

Scenario 3: If the inverter, frequency drive, PWN motor controller, etc. 
provides Overload Protection for the motor, do we even need to add an 
additional Overload protector?  Can we use a single Supplemental protector for 
the entire product and not worry about the motor? In this scenario, I assume 
the motor controller would have to be Listed by a safety agency and 
specifically call out the overload protection feature in the datasheet.


What other concerns might I need to know about? I'm trying to make sense of the 
NEC article 430 but it doesn't seem to address motors driven by Motor 
Controllers. Can I assume that when a motor is driven by a Motor Controller 
(inverter, freq. drive, PWM, etc.) that the NEC 430 does not apply because the 
motor is not being directly powered by a Branch Circuit?

Thanks to all in advance.
The Other Brian






LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Authorised Representative in EU

[Kunde, Brian]

A quick question.

A manufacturer established outside the EU placing product on the market in the 
EU can but does not have to have an authorized representative within the EU.?  
Is this a correct statement?

AND;
The Machinery Directive requires the name and address of the person authorized 
to compile the technical file be established in the EU and listed on the EU 
DoC. But this  person is not referred to as the "authorized representative", 
even though it may be the same person.  This "person" appears to have no 
responsibilities other than compiling and making available the technical file 
to Authorities within the Member States.   Is this also True?

Confirm that the EMC and LVD directives do not require the person responsible 
for compiling the technical file to be within the EU.?  So if true, the EU DoC 
from a manufacturer outside the EU declaring only to the EMC and LVD does not 
have to list any "person" from within the EU.? Is this true?

It appears that sometimes these two responsibilities get confused.  Or, maybe 
it has been confusing only to me.

Thanks

The Other Brian


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Fittings for Fiberglass Tubing

[Kunde, Brian]

Antenna Masts, RF Tables,  and many other such products used for EMC Testing is 
commonly made from that Green Structural Fiberglass Square Tubing. I can find 
sources to buy the tubing itself (I'm using the 2 inch OD material with 1/4 
inch thick walls) but I cannot find any company that makes Fittings, such as 
90s or Tees, etc..

Does anyone know a company that sells non-conductive Fittings for the 2 inch 
fiberglass Square Tubing?

Thanks,

The Other Brian





LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ROHS vs. Safety critical products (SIL, etc)

[Kunde, Brian]

Amund,

I don't think you can apply Exemptions to the RoHS directive across the 
definition of "Safety Critical Products" unless your product clearly falls 
within the exempt equipment called out in Article 2 paragraph 4. Parts of your 
product or components can fall under numerous exemptions defined in the 
Annexes. You will need to do an exhausted study of these requirements. If some 
of the components used in your product falls under any of these exemptions you 
should probably maintain documentation to supply your Conformity Assessment.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 8:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ROHS vs. Safety critical products (SIL, etc)

ROHS mention some exemption of products in the latest directive (Article
2 in 2011/64/EU).
What about so called "Safety critical products", such as IEC61508 certified 
products ... are they outside the ROHS scope? I do not think so, but I have 
heard rumors that it might be outside, so I want to check out with you guys.

Any comment?

#Amund

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EM Severity Levels

[Kunde, Brian]

Doug,

Sounds like there is a piece of the puzzle missing.

For instance, the EN 61326-1 calls out Surge Immunity according to IEC61000-4-5 
Level 3.  The IEC 61000-4-5 calls out Level 3 to be 2KV.  So unless your first 
standard calls out the Basic standard then you would not know what “Level 3 “ 
means.

The Other Brian

From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 7:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EM Severity Levels

John,

It does, but it fails to indicate which standard the severity levels are based 
upon. Otherwise I wouldn’t be asking this question.

Doug Nix
d...@mac.com

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known" -- Carl Sagan



On 21-Dec-16, at 07:32, John Allen 
> wrote:

PS: Does not “your” standard have a list of all the referenced standards to 
which you need to refer, as that might answer your question?

John E Allen

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 21 December 2016 12:25
To: 'Douglas Nix'; 
'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: [PSES] EM Severity Levels

Doug

I think we do need to know the standard in question, and the edition, as the 
pass/fail criteria for each of the Levels 1, 2 & 3 can vary from standard to 
standard.

John E Allen
W. London, UK

From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com]
Sent: 21 December 2016 12:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EM Severity Levels

Fellow listers,

I recently ran into the following text in an EN standard:

“...unit should be tolerable for EMC severity level 3…”

I am trying to track down which IEC standard in the IEC 61000 series defines 
EMC severity levels. If you know which standard this is please let me know.

To all who celebrate Christmas, Merry Christmas! If you celebrate in other ways 
at this time of year, may the joys of the season be yours!

Doug Nix
d...@mac.com
(519) 729-5704


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  

Re: [PSES] Questions on ESD testing for ECSS-E-ST-20-07C-Rev17

[Kunde, Brian]

Why Re-invent the wheel?  Why not just buy an ESD Gun/Generator and be done 
with it?
The Other Brian

From: Li Di [mailto:li...@conorthtech.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Questions on ESD testing for ECSS-E-ST-20-07C-Rev17

Hi Dear. All,

I have several questions on ESD testing for ECSS-E-ST-20-07C-Rev17. In the 
setion 5.4.12.3 of this standard, it describes the ESD testing setup. It is my 
first time to use this standard so that I can't under some requirements 
completely. In this section, it shows the definition of deamping resistor, 
spark gap, high-voltage capacitor and choke resistor. As I understand, I need 
to set up the testing ciruit with these specified components. The ESD generator 
shall be same as IEC 61000-4-2. The damping resistor is 47 ohms. The 
high-voltage capacitor is 50pF. The choke resistor is 10k ohms. My question is 
below.
1. How to make the spark gap? It is not defined in the standard.
2. If the circuit must be set up alone, is there any other requirement? Or if 
there is any such test tool on shelf?
3. What is the meaning of such configuration?

Thanks a lot for any input.


Best regards,



Li Di
Conorth Technologies Co., Ltd.
---
Address: Room 212, Building C, No.15 Baiziwan Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing
Tel (Fax): 0086-10-60530811 (Office)
Mobile: 0086-13701332910
Email: li...@conorthtech.com
Website: www.conorthtech.com
--
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Positive Mechanical Action Interlock Switches

[Kunde, Brian]

Experts,

I have seen Interlock circuits using "interlock switches" (as specified by 
their manufacture), on doors, panels, and guards with hazards behind them that 
were NOT "Positive Mechanical Action" (PMA) switches. (Also known as Direct 
Contact, Forced Break, Direct opening action, Positive open action, 
Positive-mode operation, etc.).

So I'm confused. When do you have to use a PMA switch (sensor) and when it is 
ok not to?

Then there are Non-Contact switches such as Magnetic Interlock Switches. Are 
these PMA? I do not see how. But I see magnetic switches used as Safety 
Interlock Switches also.

What if you use two switches (double fault required)? Can you get away from PMA 
switches?


Also, I cannot see how a PMA switch (sensor) can be used on a removable guard 
or panel. I see examples of a cam with a notch used on hinges of doors, but how 
are they used on a panel or guard? It seems to me as if it is impossible.


Also, as many of you know, our company makes Laboratory Equipment (Test & 
Measurement) which has a Family Standard of EN 61010-1. It says nothing about 
PMA switches. Only that a Single Fault is Unlikely to occur.  Products with 
moving parts fall under the Machinery Directive in Europe but the EN 61010-1 
Safety Standard is not Harmonized (It is harmonized to the LVD).  A major 
problem I often have is with inspectors who try to apply Industrial Machinery 
standards to our products as if it is a factory machine run by uneducated 
employees.  They expect us to use expensive Sensors, Switches, PLCs, Control 
logic, etc. like what you would use in an industrial machine.  It is difficult 
to explain to inspectors that operators of our equipment are trained and 
expected to have access to hazards that would not be allowed in a factory 
environment.

Now I'm rambling.  Sorry.

Thanks to all for any explanation or guidance you can provide.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Placing on the Market

[Kunde, Brian]

Greetings Experts.

I'm really really really sorry to ask this question, but I must know without a 
doubt of how the EU law interprets "Placing on the Market". Yes, I have read 
many documents, websites, and guides.  I thought I had a good understanding of 
this but I am not confident to the point to where I could be fired if I'm 
wrong. I like it here.   Here is my scenario:

Widget (we'll call it "Cool-Thing") meets the current CE requirements and has 
been sold in Europe for years. Production is busy building and supplying 
product to our affiliates in Europe. Shelves and warehouses are full and 
everyone is happy happy.

But, in July 2017, the product Cool-Thing must also meet RoHS.  We are working 
hard to insure Cool-Thing is RoHS compliant by July 2017. But right now, we 
have no idea if we are going to hit that date or not. If not, we need to know 
where the cut-off is.

When July 23rd, 2017 arrives, we could have non-compliant product at different 
stages in the distribution chain such as:


1.   In different stages of being built but not sold to a specific customer.

2.   Sold to a specific customer but manufacturing is not yet complete.

3.   Completely built but not yet shipped.

4.   In transit to our affiliates in Europe.

5.   In Europe at affiliate's warehouses or on store shelves waiting to be 
sold.

6.   Sold and waiting to be shipped to the End User.

7.   In transit to the End User.

8.   At the End User but not yet put into service.

The RoHS Directive says that product Placed on the Market from July 23rd, 2017 
must be RoHS compliant to be CE compliant.  But the definition of "Placed on 
the Market" is where I'm fuzzy.  Some say that "placing on the market" means 
the product has to be completely manufactured and "Offered" to some person or 
company in Europe, such as our affiliates.  What exactly does that mean?  Are 
products manufacturer and in the distribution chain prior to July 23, 2017 ok 
to sell after July 23rd, 2017 even though they are not RoHS compliant?

I assume that when CE requirements change in Europe, that unsold product on 
store shelves or in warehouses are not just thrown away.  Where exactly is the 
cutoff?

Thanks for any advice and clarifications.

The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Internal point of coupling

[Kunde, Brian]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. It was most helpful.

I struggle with this in North America all the time. We have "Service" circuits 
which powers "Feeder" circuits which generally (but not always) feed "Branch" 
panels which powers Electrical Equipment (EE) with internal "Supplementary" 
over-current protection. But sometimes our customer will locate a piece of EE 
in an industrial area where it could be powered by a Feeder circuit. In that 
case, the EE must have an internal Branch circuit breaker (or so rated 
Over-current protection).  We go round and round with our customers and 
inspectors explaining that the customer must provide the Branch Circuit and 
protection devices external to our EE.

I have no idea how this is dealt with in Europe and other countries.  Our 
foreign affiliates handle this but I have a notion that it is simpler in Europe 
than North America; but I may be wrong.

Thanks again for the ed-u-ma-cation.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 9:49 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Internal point of coupling

I'm not a power engineer, and I've had to learn their little ways, so perhaps I 
can explain.

You have a dozen machines in one building. They are all connected to a busbar 
in that building, and from the busbar a cable runs to the power transformer 
feeding the whole site. That busbar is an IPC. It's significance for EMC is 
that if one machine causes voltage disturbances at the busbar due to large 
currents during start-up, or, as in the case I am writing about, injects 
currents at harmonics of the power frequency, other machines connected to that 
same busbar may be adversely affected.

Machines in other buildings are somewhat protected from those effects by the 
impedances of the cables from the buildings to the transformer.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 2:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Internal point of coupling

This thread has tickled my interest. I have never heard of the term IPC used in 
this way nor do I understand the definition. Can someone provide context and 
give an example of how it would be used?  When the definition refers to 
"network", is this the AC Mains network? And why is the Point of Coupling a 
significant point of concern?
Thanks.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Andre Gomes Videira [mailto:ago...@weg.net]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 7:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RES: [PSES] Internal point of coupling

Hello John,

The definition is in IEC 61000-2-4.

IEC 61800-3, which is the EMC standard for PDS, states that the IPC is defined 
in IEC 61000-2-4 as "In-Plant Point of Coupling".

>From IEC 61000-2-4, item 3.1.7:
IPC - "point on a network inside a system or an installation, electrically 
nearest to a particular load, at which other loads are, or could be, connected.
 Note: The IPC is usually the point for which electromagnetic 
compatibility is to be considered"


André Gomes Videira
Laboratório de Ensaios e Certificações
Telefone: + 55 47 3276-7613 | Skype: agvideira WEG Drives & Controls - 
Automação Ltda.
www.weg.net

-Mensagem original-
De: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira,
18 de novembro de 2016 08:59
Para: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Assunto: [PSES] Internal point of coupling

I am looking for a definition (preferably formal) of 'Internal point of 
coupling' for a proposed IEC Technical Report. It is not in Electropedia and is 
mentioned (as IPC) In IEC 61000-2-6 without definition. I am told that it might 
be defined in one of the IEC 61800 series standards, but there are several of 
them.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <

Re: [PSES] Internal point of coupling

[Kunde, Brian]

This thread has tickled my interest. I have never heard of the term IPC used in 
this way nor do I understand the definition. Can someone provide context and 
give an example of how it would be used?  When the definition refers to 
"network", is this the AC Mains network? And why is the Point of Coupling a 
significant point of concern?
Thanks.
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Andre Gomes Videira [mailto:ago...@weg.net]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 7:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RES: [PSES] Internal point of coupling

Hello John,

The definition is in IEC 61000-2-4.

IEC 61800-3, which is the EMC standard for PDS, states that the IPC is defined 
in IEC 61000-2-4 as "In-Plant Point of Coupling".

>From IEC 61000-2-4, item 3.1.7:
IPC - "point on a network inside a system or an installation, electrically 
nearest to a particular load, at which other loads are, or could be, connected.
 Note: The IPC is usually the point for which electromagnetic 
compatibility is to be considered"


André Gomes Videira
Laboratório de Ensaios e Certificações
Telefone: + 55 47 3276-7613 | Skype: agvideira WEG Drives & Controls - 
Automação Ltda.
www.weg.net

-Mensagem original-
De: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 18 
de novembro de 2016 08:59
Para: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Assunto: [PSES] Internal point of coupling

I am looking for a definition (preferably formal) of 'Internal point of 
coupling' for a proposed IEC Technical Report. It is not in Electropedia and is 
mentioned (as IPC) In IEC 61000-2-6 without definition. I am told that it might 
be defined in one of the IEC 61800 series standards, but there are several of 
them.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Clique http://disclaimer.weg.net/; target=_blank>aqui  caso 
voc no seja o destinatrio deste email, ou desejar conhecer 
nossa poltica de privacidade.
Click http://disclaimer.weg.net/; target=_blank>here  if you are 
not the intended recipient, or in case you want to know our privacy policy.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Re: [PSES] Bulk Current Injection

[Kunde, Brian]

Three things to keep in mind with the 61000-4-6 Conducted Immunity test when 
using clamps;


1.   There two types of clamps; The Current Clamp which must be grounded 
via the BNC connector and a short strap to the Reference Ground Plane, and The 
EM clamp which most commercially available models have grounding pads on the 
bottom which touches the Reference ground plane; so with these the ground strap 
is not needed.


2.   The entire Test Setup must not be directly grounded to Earth or the 
Ground Reference Plane. The entire EUT is slightly floating off of ground 
through the impedance created by the CDNs and placed on 10cm platforms above 
the GRP.


3.   There must always be at least TWO coupling devices in the test setup 
(see reason below).  You must provide a loop or return path for the energy you 
are injecting.

If you are testing an EUT with no I/O and only one port with a CDN attached, 
then you must add a second CDN (CDN-M1) to the chassis ground of the EUT to the 
Ground Plane. If the EUT has a dedicated ground earth terminal, you can connect 
a CDN-M1 from it to the Ground Plane.

If the EUT does not have a ground (Class 2 device or all plastic chassis) then 
you can wrap the EUT in aluminum foil and connect it to the ground plane via a 
CDN-M1.

The only setup picture in the standard that really shows this configuration in 
Figure F.2. Note without the CDN-M1 the EUT would only have one CDN attached. 
Like I said before; you must have at least two CDN devices in the test setup.


It would be most difficult to do in an In-Situ setup for the 4-6 test. If you 
cannot keep the EUT from shorting directly to ground, either directly or 
through one of the EUTs, then you cannot do the test. The Standard does not 
give a test setup for in-situ testing.

See section 7.7 when using a clamp where you cannot met the common mode 
impedance requirements:

“When using clamp injection, and the common mode impedance requirements cannot 
be met
at the AE side, it is necessary that the common mode impedance of the AE be 
less than or
equal to the common mode impedance of the EUT port being tested. If not, 
measures shall be
taken (e.g. by using a CDN-M1 or 150 : resistor from the AE to ground) at the 
AE port to
satisfy this condition and to prevent resonances”

I hope this was helpful.
The Other Brian




From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 10:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Bulk Current Injection

Are you using the 2013 edition of IEC 61000-4-6?  It's certainly a bit 
confusing. Figure 5 shows the strap without any qualification about its use, 
but Figure 14 says 'if needed'.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: David [mailto:00fdec74198b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 12:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Bulk Current Injection

All,

I’m trying to learn more about Bulk current injection. I’ve read Javor’s Field 
to Wire Coupling papers, as well as -4-6, ISO 11452-4, SAE J1113-4, and CS114.

I’m primarily interested in grounding, and the differences between -4-6 and the 
rest.

-4-6 requires that the injection probe or clamp is grounded with a short ground 
strap. MIL STD, ISO, and SAE don’t do so. I would assume it’s due to the 
difference between a test simulating commercial AC powered equipment versus 
vehicle mounted equipment. I’d like a more thorough understanding of why.

Also, if I do not ground the BCI probe during -4-6, say during an in situ test 
on an elevated cable, what would the result be? An under test, over test, or 
unknown? For large equipment would it make sense to tie it to the chassis?

David
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >
-

Re: [PSES] [BULK] RE: [PSES] AC Mains Outlet fuses or daul pole breaker??

[Kunde, Brian]

Richard,

Thanks for the file. As usual, it clearly explains the conditions and solutions.

Our products can be powered by any 230Vrms power system not requiring a 
grounded neutral and the polarity can be changed, we can use dual pole breakers 
to avoid the potential hazard to service personnel.  This has been our 
company's practice for over 20 years but I wasn't sure where the concern came 
from. Now I have a better understanding.

Thanks again.
The Other Brian



From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [BULK] RE: [PSES] AC Mains Outlet fuses or daul pole breaker??
Importance: Low



Hi Brian:

In 1998, I wrote a column, Technically Speaking, in the Product Safety 
Newsletter that addresses this topic.  See attached.

(Since the listserver does not accept attachments, subscribers should e-mail a 
request to me.)

Best regards,
Rich


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 7:38 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] AC Mains Outlet fuses or daul pole breaker??

Greetings Experts.

If we send 230Vrms out of a product to power an external device through an IEC 
Outlet connector and we need to provide Overcurrent Protection for this port 
internal to our device, can I use two fuses or do I have to use a double pole 
circuit breaker?

Since our product can be used in a 220-230 Vrms power system which cannot 
guarantee polarity on the plug (such as Europe) or that the neutral will be 
grounded (some North American power systems for example), we have to have 
over-current protection on BOTH sides of the line (all current carrying 
conductors).

But when we supply power externally to another device, it is possible that one 
fuse could open and the other side of the line is HOT to Earth. Someone working 
on the external device could put a meter across the line as see there is no 
voltage and assume the AC mains is OFF not knowing that one side of the line it 
still HOT to Earth. This could cause a hazardous condition.

SO, this is the reason for my question. If our device supplies power externally 
to another device, can we use fuses which could cause the hazardous condition I 
explained above, OR must we use a Double Pole Circuit Breaker which opens all 
HOT conductors simultaneously? If I must use a breaker, what standard or rule 
dictates this requirement?

OR is this even a scenario we have to be concerned about?  Since the external 
device has a warning label to disconnect power cord before servicing, is this 
even something to be concerned about?

BTW, my product is Laboratory Equipment (UL/IEC 61010-1) to sell on a worldwide 
market.

Thanks,
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.i

Re: [PSES] Where have the leak proof batteries gone ?

[Kunde, Brian]

I know what you mean. In those aluminum case flashlights (Maglite type) when 
the batteries go bad not only do they leak but Puff Up (enlarge in size). Then 
it becomes nearly impossible to remove the batteries without destroying the 
entire flashlight. The flashlights with the AA size batteries we have to drill 
out the old batteries. What a mess.

If there was a brand that wouldn't do that I would definitely buy them.

Thanks for sharing your story.

The Other Brian

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 3:20 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Where have the leak proof batteries gone ?


Slightly  off-topic may be but.

Since a number of years, professional (penlite and other size) batteries

used in test en measurement equipment in my office

(notably those of Duracell (Procell)) seem not

to be leak proof anymore.

In my younger years  (and that is not that long ago) batteries

where sold as leak-proof, an important sales argument.

Is this something of the old days, or is it not

opportune anymore to build quality penlites?

I have recently been cleaning for thousands of euro's

of equipment that after an extended period of no-use

(say 1-2 years) had there battery equipment full of

liquid and white powder.

A spare 9V (new) battery of the forenamed brand

(laying around in my service suitcase) literally exploded

in side.

My Fluke portable power analyser had to be  thoroughly cleaned

after its batteries gave up.

The problem seems worst for batteries that do not

actually get used, but empty over time.

Any recommendations for a reliable brand available

world wide ?

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen

Approvals manager




+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment

+ Independent Consultancy Services

+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking

 according to EC-directives:

- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC

- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC

- Medical Devices 93/42/EC

- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing

+ Education

Web:www.cetest.nl (English)

Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26

---

This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information

that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights

and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.

Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not

limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or

distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated

recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,

please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and

delete the material from any computer.

Thank you for your co-operation.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: 

[PSES] AC Mains Outlet fuses or daul pole breaker??

[Kunde, Brian]

Greetings Experts.

If we send 230Vrms out of a product to power an external device through an IEC 
Outlet connector and we need to provide Overcurrent Protection for this port 
internal to our device, can I use two fuses or do I have to use a double pole 
circuit breaker?

Since our product can be used in a 220-230 Vrms power system which cannot 
guarantee polarity on the plug (such as Europe) or that the neutral will be 
grounded (some North American power systems for example), we have to have 
over-current protection on BOTH sides of the line (all current carrying 
conductors).

But when we supply power externally to another device, it is possible that one 
fuse could open and the other side of the line is HOT to Earth. Someone working 
on the external device could put a meter across the line as see there is no 
voltage and assume the AC mains is OFF not knowing that one side of the line it 
still HOT to Earth. This could cause a hazardous condition.

SO, this is the reason for my question. If our device supplies power externally 
to another device, can we use fuses which could cause the hazardous condition I 
explained above, OR must we use a Double Pole Circuit Breaker which opens all 
HOT conductors simultaneously? If I must use a breaker, what standard or rule 
dictates this requirement?

OR is this even a scenario we have to be concerned about?  Since the external 
device has a warning label to disconnect power cord before servicing, is this 
even something to be concerned about?

BTW, my product is Laboratory Equipment (UL/IEC 61010-1) to sell on a worldwide 
market.

Thanks,
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Authorised Representative

[Kunde, Brian]

John,

In reference to what?  The name and address displayed on the EE?, the 
responsible party within the EU?, information appearing on the DoC?

I've always understood that an Authorized Representative within the EU was 
required for manufacturers outside the EU; and I thought this was a 
requirements for most all Directives (I'm not familiar with all of them).

The Other Brian

From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Authorised Representative


Hi,



I always thought an Authorized Representative was required for Machinery but 
option for other Directives.  I searched Machinery and LVD and only see 
manufacturer "or" authorised representative.



If I'm wrong please point me to the particular section of the Directive.

Thanks,



John







John Allen | President | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.

Your Outsourced Compliance Department(r)

http://www.productsafetyinc.com

630-238-0188
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

[Kunde, Brian]

John,

One transformer I’m currently looking at has the following specs:

Input = 80-300V (230V Nom) 50/60hz
Output = (@ 230V input) 2 x 5.0V @ 0.0025A
Output Power = 0.025 VA
Insulation Class “F” (155ºC).

I don’t currently have a sample transformer to measure the primary impedance.

It would be nice if the manufacturer would provide information on how to 
properly protect this device.  Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:54 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

This is why small transformers that don't need a fuse were developed. They have 
a special type of coated wire for the primary winding, which goes quietly 
open-circuit if it gets too hot. However, I suppose your product standard might 
not allow them.

The limits based on load current are technically  indefensible, but that may 
not help. The right way to determine what fuse you want is to take account of 
the worst-case inrush current, which occurs when the core is left fully 
magnetized at switch-off and the supply is switched on at the point where it is 
trying to magnetize it further. The current is then limited only by the DC 
resistance of the primary winding, and you need to look at the fuse I^2T curves 
to select one (usually it needs a T-type) that doesn't fail on inrush but does 
fail on about 1.5 times the full-load current of the transformer.

That is most unlikely to be the 1.1 mA you mention (32 mA being 3000% of it).  
I doubt you can get a transformer rated at less than about 1.5 VA, which with 
120 V input means a full-load primary current of  12.5 mA. I measured one like 
that and the primary resistance is 600 ohms, so the inrush current could be 200 
mA. That means that you need a fuse that will pass 200 mA for at least half a 
cycle of 60 Hz, while breaking within an acceptable time at, say,  2 x 12.5 mA. 
It may indeed be difficult to find one, but at least you know what the 
component is actually required to do.

I suspect that you can find a fuse that works for a 3 VA transformer; 1.5 VA is 
very extreme.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 3:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

Greeting Experts.

I often run into issues with safety inspectors during Field Evaluations 
regarding overcurrent protection of small transformers that are not thermally 
protected.

These small transformers can draw such small amounts of current on both the 
primary and secondary, that finding a fuse within 300% (250%) of the primary or 
167% of the secondary max load current is impossible.

Even if we use the smallest fuse we can find (Littelfuse 218 series is 0.032A), 
this value can be over 3000% of the load current.

Even if we provide thermal test data to an inspector, they will reply that our 
data is worthless to them as they only accept data from their own lab or other 
NRTLs.

So am I missing something here?  The NEC says I can use the next highest common 
fuse value. Is this acceptable even if the value is exceeds 1000% of the load 
current?

Has anyone ran across this issue with inspectors?  How best do we protect small 
transformers and meet the electric codes?

Thanks in advance.
The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

[PSES] Low current Transformer OC Protection

[Kunde, Brian]

Greeting Experts.

I often run into issues with safety inspectors during Field Evaluations 
regarding overcurrent protection of small transformers that are not thermally 
protected.

These small transformers can draw such small amounts of current on both the 
primary and secondary, that finding a fuse within 300% (250%) of the primary or 
167% of the secondary max load current is impossible.

Even if we use the smallest fuse we can find (Littelfuse 218 series is 0.032A), 
this value can be over 3000% of the load current.

Even if we provide thermal test data to an inspector, they will reply that our 
data is worthless to them as they only accept data from their own lab or other 
NRTLs.

So am I missing something here?  The NEC says I can use the next highest common 
fuse value. Is this acceptable even if the value is exceeds 1000% of the load 
current?

Has anyone ran across this issue with inspectors?  How best do we protect small 
transformers and meet the electric codes?

Thanks in advance.
The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

[Kunde, Brian]

Thanks to all for the good advice. It was more helpful than you can imagine.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 1:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

How components are used cannot be controlled by manufacturer, so your due 
diligence is to ship each unit with conditions of acceptability and 
install/operate instructions that are scoped per the standards that would apply 
to the component and to the end-use equipment. Carefully control what is on 
your website and what your sales peoples say to customer.

If a buyer or designer asks you about a use not within the nameplate ratings or 
instructions, the legally correct response is the unit has been assessed for 
use at the following operating conditions... blah.

There are other things that can be said or done, but your risk increases. Do 
not offer 'probably will' advice unless you have empirical test data supporting 
those operating conditions; and never admit that you have test data for 
operations outside of the unit's ratings.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

Dear experts,

Can AC brushless motors (in this case 230V~ 3-phase 3hp motors) that are rated 
"60HZ" be used in products going to countries that have 50HZ power?  I believe 
the motors will run a little slower which will not affect the function of the 
product, but is there a safety issue with this?  The motors are thermally, 
overload, and short circuit protected.  They are "intermittent use" and not 
likely to overheat.

As a rule, we only market and sell such products to countries with 60hz power. 
However, a North America company might purchase one and ship it to one of their 
international locations with 50hz power without our knowledge. Do we need to be 
concerned about this?

Of course, this fact has our sales force wondering if it is OK to market and 
sell 60hz motor driven products in countries with 50hz.  I really don't know. I 
cannot see a safety issue but one can say that the motor would be used in a way 
it is not intended to be used resulting in a higher risk if something did 
happening.

Any opinions on this?

Thanks,
The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. 

[PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

[Kunde, Brian]

Dear experts,

Can AC brushless motors (in this case 230V~ 3-phase 3hp motors) that are rated 
"60HZ" be used in products going to countries that have 50HZ power?  I believe 
the motors will run a little slower which will not affect the function of the 
product, but is there a safety issue with this?  The motors are thermally, 
overload, and short circuit protected.  They are "intermittent use" and not 
likely to overheat.

As a rule, we only market and sell such products to countries with 60hz power. 
However, a North America company might purchase one and ship it to one of their 
international locations with 50hz power without our knowledge. Do we need to be 
concerned about this?

Of course, this fact has our sales force wondering if it is OK to market and 
sell 60hz motor driven products in countries with 50hz.  I really don't know. I 
cannot see a safety issue but one can say that the motor would be used in a way 
it is not intended to be used resulting in a higher risk if something did 
happening.

Any opinions on this?

Thanks,
The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Connection to ac mains with split end line cord

[Kunde, Brian]

This is a question that goes back to the beginning of time; or at least the 35 
years I’ve been on the job. And I’ve never heard a good reason for either side 
of the argument. You don’t want unqualified people trying to wire a Plug onto a 
power cord and you don’t want to ship a plug that will most likely be removed 
and thrown away (added cost).

For 115VAC common consumer products in North America drawing less than 12 amps 
and plugging into a common receptacle, yes, I can see that a complete power 
cord with plug would be required as well as convenient to your customer. But 
for higher current devices and/or equipment racks where the User can choose the 
voltage/current range, there can be literally dozens of different AC Mains 
sources that can power these devices; each requiring a different type of plug.

We have a similar scenario coming up.  A device that has a universal AC Mains 
input of 100VAC (30 amps) to 240VAC ±10% (15 amps).  In North America alone, it 
can be powered by a 115VAC single phase, 230VAC single phase, 208VAC Line-Line, 
208VAC Line-N (115VAC), 240V split-phase, etc. and in a NEMA blade or NEMA 
twist-lock or IEC 60309 type receptacle. The Current rating is dependent on the 
voltage.  We have no way of knowing what our Customer has as a Mains Supply. So 
the plug used is determined by the AC source and provided receptacle and 
installed by our company’s qualified installers or by a local electrician or 
other qualified person.  If the customer wants to permanently wire the device 
in according to local electrical codes, our captive power cord and strain 
relief can be used or removed and conduit can be used. But this is all decided 
on by our customer; not by the manufacturer.  So, in this scenario, we would 
like to ship the product with a captive power cord and no plug.

But we have been told what has been said here; that a product has to ship with 
a plug. So we ship with a 30 amp twistlock plug (our plug of choice) but we 
know most of the time it will be removed and thrown away or tossed into some 
electrician’s tool box at a cost of $20US or more.  The only one benefitting by 
this rule is the plug manufacturers (IMHO).

If someone has clarification on this or a nice justifiable way NOT to ship 
plugs on a flexible power cord, please let me know.

Thanks and regards,
The Other Brian


From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Connection to ac mains with split end line cord

Hi Ken,

With short delay, Thank you.

So on short, if flexible cord is used, cord must have a plug, if wiring 
terminals are used, cord must be put in conduits.

Do you know the background of this requirement? Is this applicable even if unit 
is used in a computer room with raised floor?

Best regards,
Bostjan

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 6:52 PM
To: Boštjan Glavič >
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Connection to ac mains with split end line cord

Hi Bostjan!

NEC (NFPA 70) has an Article 645 which covers "Information technology 
equipment" rooms.  This article states, among other things, that flexible 
linecords must have a 'plug cap'.
People sometimes mistakenly stop their analysis there, stating either that the 
intended installation location is not an "ITE room" or that the local Authority 
Having Jurisdisction has waived that requirement.

However, 60950-1 has D1 deviations and Annex NAE makes specific reference to 
the fact that equipment must comply with the requirements in article 645 of 
NFPA 70.  Therefore, ITE (regardless of what the intended installation location 
is or what the AHJ says) Listed to 60950 must comply by having a plug on the 
end of the flexible line cord (which also must be <14' long after exiting the 
cabinet, by the way).

Some will attempt to work around this by declaring the mains branch circuit 
breaker box as another piece of ITE and then declaring the flexible linecord as 
'interconnecting cable' but this is not legitimate either.

The only accepted method of providing stripped power leads that meets the 
requirements of 60950-1 and the NEC is to provide the equipment with wiring 
terminals and provision for mounting of conduit.

-Ken A

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Boštjan Glavič 
> wrote:
Dear experts,

Can you help me with below item. I do not have experiences with NEC/CEC. Some 
people told me that only ATMs are allowed to be connected to mains without the 
plug, but i think this is strange requirement.

Customer has an IT equipment cabinet (IEC 60950-1) with built-in power supply 
rack (shelf) with several modular power supplies. Power of such cabinet is 
rated round 200 kVA. The power supply rack is provided with two special (UL 
1977) input connectors. 

[PSES] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

[Kunde, Brian]

I seek advice and opinions from fellow safety minded people.

Our typical product has a metal chassis which is constructed as a Fire 
Enclosure (laboratory equipment 61010-1). On the back is a cutout for a cooling 
fan/blower mounted in the cutout. The fan is 24Vdc, certified by several safety 
agencies, and has a finger guard.  This is typical configuration on most 
electronics.

Now, our customers want us to install an externally changeable Air Filter on 
the outside surface of our instrument where the fan is mounted to filter dust 
particles from the incoming air. We already perform Blocked Vent and Stalled 
Fan tests to insure no hazards are caused from the rise in internal 
temperatures.

But what type of Fault Testing or Risk assessment needs to be done regarding 
the filter?  With the filter removed, the instrument passes the construction 
requirements for a Fire Enclosure. But with the filter installed and because of 
its close proximity to the fan/blower;

1.does this filter have to meet Flammability requirements? Does the 
filters have to be certified (expensive)? UL 94 HF-1?, UL 94 HF-2?, UL 900?  
How are these ratings/certifications viewed outside of North America?  Will 
they have to meet local requirements??


2.   If the fan/blower is certified and limited energy circuit does the 
filter have to have any kind of rating or certification? In other words, with a 
certified fan/blower, do I have to consider the fault condition of the fan 
failing in a way where it could catch the filter on fire?


3.   How is a fault and/or risk assessment performed on an air filter?


4.   Are we responsible to consider the hazards from a burning filter when 
it is dirty? How would we know what type of contaminates might collect in a 
filter?


5.   If the filter we provide is UL 94 HF-1 and UL 900 rated/certified, 
what would stop our customer from replacing it with whatever filter they 
wanted? Are we responsible to include a warning label and statements in the 
manual regarding this?  Example, "Use only Air Filter part number XYZ".


6.   Any other suggestions or issues that we are not considering?

Thanks in advance. Have a nice day.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] ant control

[Kunde, Brian]

Boric Acid is also very deadly to bees. In fact, bees can take the powder back 
to the hive in which it can kill off in just a few days. Most anything that is 
going to kill an ant is also going to kill bees and other insects. That’s why 
they prefer you use ant bait in little cans with holes in them so the ants can 
get to the bait but bees are too big to fit through the holes.

The other Brian

From: Curtis McNamara [mailto:mcnam...@umn.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 5:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ant control

John W said:

"Bifenthrin has been banned in Europe since mid-2011. It is a pyrethroid and is 
probably toxic to bees."
Yes, very toxic to bees.
"Bifenthrin is highly toxic to fish and small aquatic organisms. It's also very 
highly toxic to bees."
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/bifgen.html#wildlife
Curt
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Fire ants

[Kunde, Brian]

I believe it is Boric acid you want; not Borax, which is a salt of Boric Acid.

I learned years ago that there are two types of ants; some like sweet, some 
like fat. So I made two different mixtures. One with boric acid and powdered 
sugar and the other with boric acid and bacon grease. I put the mixtures on 
coffee can lids and set them outside near my back patio (where I was having ant 
trouble). Sure enough, I found different types of ants preferred sweet (like 
carpenter ants) and others preferred the fat (like little piss ants). Within a 
few days I noticed a reduction in the number of ants but it never seemed to 
completely eradicate them.

But then a couple years ago I found out about a relatively safe insecticide 
used by a company called "Mosquito Squad" called Bifen IT. Also known as 
Bifenthrin. With all the viruses going around that can be transmitted by 
Mosquitos, I purchased some Bifen, mixed it with water per the instructions and 
sprayed it around my house, lawn and bushes.  It works pretty good to reduce 
the number of mosquitos but one unexpected bonus is no more Ants!! I mean, not 
a one.  It also kills ticks which carry Lime Disease in our area. This is the 
best insecticide I have used. It has a low toxicity to earthworms, birds and 
mammals,  but don't use it near fish ponds (can kill fish).

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 1:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fire ants

Ant bait:  our local garden guy recommends a home brew mixture of equal parts 
powdered sugar, powdered dry yeast and Borax - ask at your drug store (not 
Boraxo the hand cleaner).  Scatter it where you see the ants and they carry it 
back to the nest to feed the young; evidently the ants can't separate the good 
from the bad.  We like it because it can be applied directly to any surface, is 
not a messy application and is easily cleaned up when the ants are gone.

We've used it several times and it seems to work really well.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 Tigard, 
ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

p.perk...@ieee.org

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fire ants

Liquid Ant Bait. Ants consume the liquid and return to the nest where they pass 
on the bait to the rest of the colony.

-Original Message-
From: Sundstrom, Mike [mailto:mike.sundst...@garmin.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fire ants

What is Terro?

Thanks,

Michael Sundstrom
Garmin Compliance Engineer
2-2606
(913) 440-1540
KB5UKT

"We call it theory when we know much about something but nothing works,
and practice when everything works but nobody knows why."  -- Albert 
Einstein

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fire ants

Two to three years to evolve a resistant strain. Then what? Plutonium?

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 1:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fire ants

Just keep some Terro inside the electrical boxes.  Can't imagine the wildlife 
peoples having  an issue with that, not they would ever know.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of 
the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be Garmin 
confidential and/or Garmin legally privileged. If you have received this email 
in error, 

Re: [PSES] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts

[Kunde, Brian]

I assumed it had something to do with the old Wall Warts that was basically a 
transformer. In an overload condition, these transformers can reach 
temperatures exceeding 100ºC. You don’t want the plastic case to soften, warp, 
or open up and expose hazardous voltages, or worst.
The Other Brian

From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts

Hi group,

Does any-one know the reason/background of the ball pressure test of 
thermoplastic parts (IEC60950-1, clause 4.5.5) and the chosen temperature of 
125C.
This test is performed - for example – on the plastic parts of a direct plug-in 
power supply as these parts “carry” the mains power supply pins. I can’t 
imagine a situation there that requires such a test and certainly not at 125C.
Thanks for your feedback!

Best regards
Kris Carpentier
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [BULK] Re: [PSES] Fire requirements in standards

[Kunde, Brian]

IBM Ken,

My main interest at this time is with the fire enclosure. Our products fall 
under the 61010-1, and it’s been years since I have read 60950, but I can see 
where improvements in the constructional requirements in a fire enclosure could 
be made.  It seems our mechanical engineers sometimes struggle to understand 
the requirements of Fire Enclosure, RF Enclosure, Limit Access for electric 
shock, etc.. 61010-1 always seems to be lagging so I was hoping to learn as 
much about future improvements as I can to give more time to train our 
engineers.

Thanks,
The Other Brian

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:32 AM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] Fire requirements in standards
Importance: Low

Hi Brian; Do you mean specifically the changes to the fire enclosure 
requirements or the overall differences between 60950 and 62368?  If it's the 
latter, ECMA TR/106 might be helpful (but be forewarned, this document compares 
60950 to the 1st edition of 62368).  The best part is that it's free!  
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-TR/ECMA%20TR-106.pdf

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Kunde, Brian 
<brian_ku...@lecotc.com<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>> wrote:
This subject is very interesting to me. If I wanted to know more, is getting a 
copy of 62368-1 worth reading or will I have to wait for the proposed changes 
to 60950-1 to come out, or what do you recommend?  Are the proposed changes 
quite large or can they be summarized? What are the weak areas of the current 
construction requirements?  I would like to inform our mechanical people as 
soon as possible of changes like these.
Regards,
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org<mailto:ri...@ieee.org>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Fire requirements in standards

> During last TC 108 meeting there was no real
consensus
> about this topic. Also there was an issue raised
that fire
> enclosure of some product will fail requirement
of new
> standard while it was OK for IEC 60950-1 and
they will
> make a proposal to change the requirement in the standard.

This is true.  A new standard implies that some aspects of the old standard are 
inadequate.

62368-1 is better at preventing fires and preventing escape of fires than 
60950-1.  Changing back to 60950-1 means continued fire incidents.  I have said 
many times that fire is our biggest problem.  See the weekly recall list from 
In Compliance magazine.


Best regards,
Rich

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy que

Re: [PSES] Fire requirements in standards

[Kunde, Brian]

This subject is very interesting to me. If I wanted to know more, is getting a 
copy of 62368-1 worth reading or will I have to wait for the proposed changes 
to 60950-1 to come out, or what do you recommend?  Are the proposed changes 
quite large or can they be summarized? What are the weak areas of the current 
construction requirements?  I would like to inform our mechanical people as 
soon as possible of changes like these.
Regards,
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Fire requirements in standards

> During last TC 108 meeting there was no real
consensus
> about this topic. Also there was an issue raised
that fire
> enclosure of some product will fail requirement
of new
> standard while it was OK for IEC 60950-1 and
they will
> make a proposal to change the requirement in the standard.

This is true.  A new standard implies that some aspects of the old standard are 
inadequate.

62368-1 is better at preventing fires and preventing escape of fires than 
60950-1.  Changing back to 60950-1 means continued fire incidents.  I have said 
many times that fire is our biggest problem.  See the weekly recall list from 
In Compliance magazine.


Best regards,
Rich

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EMO vs EPO

[Kunde, Brian]

When I was in High School Shop Class, there were electrical boxes hanging from 
cords down from the ceiling all around the room with large red buttons. 
Pressing any of these buttons would turn power off to every piece of machinery 
and to all work benches in the room (lights would stay on).  That way if you 
saw someone from across the room about to do something stupid, being hurt, 
electrocuted, caught in a machine, etc., you could hit the nearest red bottom 
and it would shut everything down.  I wonder if this method is still used 
today. That was 40 years ago.

The Other Brian

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 4:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMO vs EPO

My rather amateur opinion would be that an EMERGENCY STOP should be a rapid 
cessation to a safe state, but not necessarily an EMERGENCY POWER OFF. I could 
imagine a process being stopped but power being maintained to continue to 
monitor, cool, brake to stop or lock in place, something on the order of “I’m 
not going to do anything further, but I won’t let anything get worse or loose” 
condition.

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMO vs EPO

All,

Is there an official fine point distinction between Emergency Off (EMO), 
Emergency Power Off (EPO) and Emergency Stop or are they all equivalent and 
interchangeable terms?

To my thinking, if there is a distinction, it would seem that Emergency Stop is 
related to mechanical hazards or moving parts, EPO is related to electrical 
hazards and EMO would be a general "catch all" acronym for any type of hazard 
whether mechanical, electrical, radiation, chemical, etc.

Thanks!  Doug



--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: 

Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 vs 18

[Kunde, Brian]

John,

You are right, as always, regarding the requirements. With the additional 
clarification provided by you and Brian in a later email, I can see where Part 
18 would be similar to CISPR11 Group 2.

So is a product classified by what it is or by how it performs for EMC Testing?

Example, if our  Class A Group 2  product (by definition) meets the emissions 
requirements of Class A Group 1, can we claim it as a Group 1 instrument or is 
it always Group 2 if it meets the definition of Group 2?

Another example which comes up often. A Class-A device (which would never be 
used in Residential Environment) but meets the Class-B emissions requirements; 
can you claim this as a Class-B device in the Manual?  So is the 
Class-A/Class-B distinction determined by what the product is and how it is 
used, marketed, and sold, OR by how it performed during EMC testing?

Thanks,
The Other Brian



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 5:39 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] FCC Part 15 vs 18

How different are the requirements? Can you economically comply with both, so 
you can stop worrying?

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England We live in exiting times


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC Part 15 vs 18

This has always confused me. My company makes Laboratory Equipment (Analytical 
Test Equipment) which we have always categorized as ISM Equipment (Industrial, 
Scientific, Medical).  But both FCC Part 15 and 18 references ISM equipment.

By nature of what our products are or the category of product they are, would 
it be correct to say they fall under FCC Part 18??

Or, to fall under FCC Part 18, does our products have to intentionally generate 
and use RF directly in its function (such as CISPR11 Group 2)? Do you have to 
use the ISM frequencies to be part 18?


Now, CISPR11 is for ISM products, but Group 2 is used only on products where RF 
is used as part of its function to test a sample. But Group 1 products are 
still ISM products even if it does not intentionally generate RF of any kind.

To add to my confusion, looking at other test equipment in our EMC lab, some 
have FCC statements in the manual for Part 15, others for part 18. Yet I cannot 
distinguish a clear reason for one or the other.

So for the FCC, how do you draw the line between Part 15 and Part 18 for ISM 
Equipment?

Thanks to all.

The Other Brian


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] FCC Part 15 vs 18

[Kunde, Brian]

This has always confused me. My company makes Laboratory Equipment (Analytical 
Test Equipment) which we have always categorized as ISM Equipment (Industrial, 
Scientific, Medical).  But both FCC Part 15 and 18 references ISM equipment.

By nature of what our products are or the category of product they are, would 
it be correct to say they fall under FCC Part 18??

Or, to fall under FCC Part 18, does our products have to intentionally generate 
and use RF directly in its function (such as CISPR11 Group 2)? Do you have to 
use the ISM frequencies to be part 18?


Now, CISPR11 is for ISM products, but Group 2 is used only on products where RF 
is used as part of its function to test a sample. But Group 1 products are 
still ISM products even if it does not intentionally generate RF of any kind.

To add to my confusion, looking at other test equipment in our EMC lab, some 
have FCC statements in the manual for Part 15, others for part 18. Yet I cannot 
distinguish a clear reason for one or the other.

So for the FCC, how do you draw the line between Part 15 and Part 18 for ISM 
Equipment?

Thanks to all.

The Other Brian


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] insulated wires

[Kunde, Brian]

Rich,

Can you test to determine the rating of a conductor, connector, contact, etc. 
within our application?

I once had a connector we wanted to use in a fairly high current application. 
The connector manufacture didn't specify a total current rating on the 
connector but a rating on a single connector pin. Then we had to de-rate for 
multiple pins and ambient temp and after all that calculating we were about an 
amp short of our fault current (49 amps calculated, 50 amp fault current).

So we contacted the connector manufacturer and they said it would be ok. We ask 
how they determined that, and they told us they rate their connectors based on 
a 35ºC rise in temperature. So they suggested we test our application by 
running up the current to just before the OverCurrent Protection device trips, 
hold in that condition for up to 4 hours, and see what the temperature rise is. 
If it is 35ºC or less, it is ok.

Is this the method used by wire companies as well? Is this a common test to use 
in those cases where the rating is unknown or difficult to calculate? Are there 
better test methods?

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] insulated wires

Insulated wires, like any other component, must be used within their ratings.  
Voltage, temperature, ampacity, etc.  And, if the equipment is to be certified, 
the wire must be certified.

These days, most wire is surface printed with its ratings and certifications.

A typical PVC wire that is used in 60950 products is UL Style 1007 or 1028.  
One source of information about wire is:

http://www.standard-wire.com/downloads/swc_catalog
.pdf


Rich


> -Original Message-
> From: Amund Westin [mailto:amund@WESTIN- EMISSION.NO]
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 5:46 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] insulated wires
>
> Looking for requirements for single insulated
wires (UL,
> IEC, etc.) used
> inside an IEC60950-1 product (230VAC).
> Any tips where I should start looking?
>
> B.regards
> Amund
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] insulated wires

[Kunde, Brian]

Try the US National Electric Code table 310-17 for single conductor insulated 
wire in free air at 30ºC ambient (hook up wire). Keep in mind that you have to 
de-rate the values in this chart for bundling (NEC table 310-15-(b)(2)(a)) and 
temperatures (NEC table 690-31(c))above 30ºC.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 8:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] insulated wires

Looking for requirements for single insulated wires (UL, IEC, etc.) used inside 
an IEC60950-1 product (230VAC).
Any tips where I should start looking?

B.regards
Amund

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] US Source for "RCM" Labels

[Kunde, Brian]

Can anyone give me a label source in North America for the ACMA Regulatory 
Compliance Mark "RCM" label? I assumed by now the new symbol/label would be a 
common thing and I could buy it over the counter. Our normal sources for such 
labels want to do it as a custom label at 10 times the cost.

You can reply direct to me if you feel it best.

Best regards and thanks in advance.

The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Kunde, Brian]

Ralph,

This might be true but that is not how we saw it way back when. The 240VA 
"Energy Hazard" was not a consideration for the protection against Fire but a 
limit value for accessible parts by the User. We still today consider 
accessible circuits, regardless of the voltage, to be "Hazardous Live" if the 
circuit exceeds 240VA. This requirement is not specifically called out in our 
working safety standard (IEC/EN 61010-1 for Laboratory Equipment) but we still 
take this condition under consideration especially with products that exposes 
the user to high currents at low voltages such as Electrode Furnaces (similar 
to a welder).

In Tempest Computers which fell under the IEC950, the hard drives had to be 
made removable so they could be easily taken with during an invasion or 
destroyed in a giant shredder machine. The opening in the front of the computer 
gave the User access to a small backplane card and the data and power 
connectors for the hard drive. The backplane had to be limited to less than 
240VA if the User could touch it.  Fire was a completely different evaluation.

My step dad was working on a car a got his metal watch band between the starter 
solenoid and the chassis. It instantly welded his watch to the car and turned 
the band into a glowing red hot heating element within a second. He was able to 
break it loose and get the watch off but not before he was badly burned. Almost 
required skin grafts. However, according to most safety standards, 12 volts at 
high current is NOT considered hazardous live and does not limit access to 
Users. Yes, it is a fire hazard but I don't think that is where the 240VA 
requirement comes from.

Like the watch band, I have heard where people have reached inside of a piece 
of electronic gear and shorted out a circuit with their wedding ring. If this 
condition is possible, I believe the circuit would have to be limited to 240VA.

This is my recollection of where 240VA came from and how it was used. I do not 
have any current documented support for it use today. But we still consider it 
for circuits accessible to the User to determine an Energy Hazard.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 4:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy rates, 100VA and 240VA, 
used across quite a number of standards, and the units are wrong.  Should be 
Watts.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

EN 60950-1:2006  2.5  uses 100 VA for LPS and is also referenced for fire 
enclosure requirements in section 4.7.2.1.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid 
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Could you point at "most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer 
(e.g. 240W)" standard?
IEC/EN/UL 62368-1?
IEC/EN/UL 60950-1?

Thank you,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for 

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

[Kunde, Brian]

Back in my computer days, IEC 950 clause 1.2.8.7 defined a "Hazardous Energy 
Level" as "A stored energy level of 20 J or more, or an available continuous 
power level of 240 VA or more, at a potential of 2 V or more."

Ever since, we refer to 240VA or more as an "Energy Hazard" and take that into 
consideration as part of our Risk Assessment even though it is not called out 
specifically in the IEC/EN 61010-1 (the safety standard we use at my present 
place of employment).

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Chuck,

A poor choice of words on my part.  I should have written, "in most of the 
standards I have worked in".   Those include CSA107.1, UL1741, UL1012, and 
IEC62109-1

The 240VA (I think they meant 240W) must have come from some base standard as a 
normative reference.  I don't know what is special about that number, but some 
committee somewhere may have concluded that power (rate of energy) below that 
threshold was unlike to be a source of ignition.  I've seen 30V and 8A used to 
define an energy limited, extra-low voltage circuit. (UL calls that a Class 2 I 
think).   The product of 8A and 30V gives 240VA as a third criterion.   I'm not 
sure it's that simple though.

Regards,

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric





*Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Ralph McDiarmid 
Subject: RE: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi Ralph,

I live in the IEC/EN/UL 60065 standard world.

Could you point at "most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer 
(e.g. 240W)" standard?
IEC/EN/UL 62368-1?
IEC/EN/UL 60950-1?

Thank you,

Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse and needs a FMEA and maybe a 
Fault Tree analysis too, if a hazard is the anticipated result.

Getting back to this HB enclosure discussion earlier in this discussion thread, 
I see that most standards appear to limit rate of energy transfer (e.g. 240W) 
and may also place limit on available current.   The expectation is, I think, 
that a power-limited device cannot ignite something.  I assume there is lots of 
history that assumption.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric



-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

Hi John:


Thanks for your additional comments.

> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards committees envisage
> are not "the real deal"

In my opinion, this is the case.

> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the standards?

Of course, counterfeit and non-complying products are in the marketplace.  Some 
of these do catch fire.

My interest is the cause of fires in products which comply with the standards.  
The "In Compliance" reports do identify the counterfeit products, but these 
seem to be in the minority.

Fires occur under fault conditions.  Not following instructions is a sort-of 
fault condition, but rarely the cause of a fire.


Rich

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__

[PSES] EU RoHS Exempt Components

[Kunde, Brian]

I have a EU RoHS compliant product but it contains a component that is RoHS 
Compliant under one of the Exemptions found in Annex III of 2011/65/EU. Am I 
required to Declare this Exemption somehow to the public, on the DoC, in our 
Manual, or only document this information in our Technical File?

Thank you.

The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] NFC Near Field Communication Devices

[Kunde, Brian]

Thanks to everyone who replied.
The Other Brian

From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 10:06 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] NFC Near Field Communication Devices

Hi Brian,

Which geographical region are you interested in?

USA...  FCC Certification to FCC 15.225
Test lab must presently be listed with FCC, but will require a recognised 
accreditation very soon.
Unlicensed transmitter, but certification is required.

Canada...   ISED Certification to RSS-210
Test lab must be listed with ISED.
Unlicensed transmitter, but certification is required.

Europe...   R Directive.   Harmonised Standards exist.
Lab accreditation is not mandatory for R testing.
Unlicensed transmitter.

Japan...   Most likely it is under the low power exemption limit thingy.


I hope this helps.


Michael.



From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 04 May 2016 21:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] NFC Near Field Communication Devices

What can you tell a newb like me about NFC?  It operates in the ISM frequency 
of 13.56Mhz. If we incorporate it into a product, does it require testing by a 
certified or accredited lab?  It is globally accepted without licenses and 
certifications?

Thanks,
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] NFC Near Field Communication Devices

[Kunde, Brian]

What can you tell a newb like me about NFC?  It operates in the ISM frequency 
of 13.56Mhz. If we incorporate it into a product, does it require testing by a 
certified or accredited lab?  It is globally accepted without licenses and 
certifications?

Thanks,
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Pre-Amp mounted to antenna

[Kunde, Brian]

I'm sorry to hear your story.  A company I once worked for was screwed over by 
a government controlled Foreign company so I know what you are talking about.

I thought 9913 coax is RG-8, or is RG8/U different than RG-8.  In any case, we 
use 3/4" Heliax cable on our 10M site which runs from penetration to ground 
floor. Then RG8U from there on each end. The Heliax helps a lot to reduce our 
cable losses. But we still have about 6 meter of flex cable at the antenna end.

You are not the only one who mentioned making new correction factors an issue.  
We do all our own correction factors on amps, cables, attenuators, etc.. We 
wrote a simply Labview program to factor out the setup and generates the 
correction factors in a comma delimited file that gets read in by our Test 
Software which programs it directly into our receiver. It would take no more 
than 30 minutes to set it up and run that test. I generate a combined 
correction factor for the pre-amp and coax from the antenna to the receiver. 
Not a big deal.

Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I have been downloading Datasheets all day. 
Getting some really good ideas.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 3:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pre-Amp mounted to antenna

On 3/16/2016 1:16 PM, Kunde, Brian wrote:
> We currently have a 22dB pre-amp which is fine for class A levels but
> a close to 10dB+ above the noise floor near 1Ghz for class B. Moving
> the amp to the antenna should gain us several dB due to cable loss.
Back in the '90's, I spent some of my own funds to buy 9913 to replace
RG-8 on my employer's 10-meter OATS. It helped get the noise floor below the 
limit line up in the high VHF frequencies, and putting the 8447D at the antenna 
helped even more.

In any event, I got slapped down when they decided not to make new correction 
factor tables, and though they kept the 9913, we put the 8447 back in the 
control shack with an attenuator ahead of it to prevent overload from the 
higher ambient signals that reached the control room.

That test site went away when they closed the Fountain Valley manufacturing 
facility, so I reeled up the coax and took it home with me.  After the Koreans 
took over, I resigned to find work elsewhere; many of my coworkers did the same 
thing in the next year or two, and AST Research went bankrupt as American 
workers met and fled from Korean management. C'est la vie.  Call it another 
page in the history of American high-tech industry.

Cortland Richmond

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Pre-Amp mounted to antenna

[Kunde, Brian]

We have a Biconlog. We currently have a 22dB pre-amp which is fine for class A 
levels but a close to 10dB+ above the noise floor near 1Ghz for class B. Moving 
the amp to the antenna should gain us several dB due to cable loss. We are also 
considering upgrading to a 40dB pre-amp. Any issues with doing that?

In my original email I mentioned the desire of powering the pre-amp through the 
coax. Any issues with powering the pre-amp with a second dedicated coax just to 
supply dc power from a linear power supply?

Thanks for the input.

The Other Brian

From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:47 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Pre-Amp mounted to antenna

What antenna are you using? The gain you are seeking seems a little low..

Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042...@vtext.com<mailto:3032042...@vtext.com>
(e) charles.gra...@echostar.com<mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com>
(e2) chasgra...@gmail.com<mailto:chasgra...@gmail.com>

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Pre-Amp mounted to antenna

Greetings.

I'm looking for a low noise Pre-Amp for Radiated Emissions 30Mhz to 1Ghz (or 
higher) with a gain of 20-30dB; but here's the catch. I want it to mount 
directly to the "N" connector on my BiLog Antenna and be powered by a 
downstream Power Supply box that sends DC down the coax. Just like how TV 
Antenna pre-amps work.

Does anyone know of a turn-key over the counter product like this that is 
available?

I know such a design can have great benefits and be plagued with troubles such 
as reflections so I know it has to be done right and done well.

Any information would be most helpful.

Thanks in advance.

The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

[PSES] Pre-Amp mounted to antenna

[Kunde, Brian]

Greetings.

I'm looking for a low noise Pre-Amp for Radiated Emissions 30Mhz to 1Ghz (or 
higher) with a gain of 20-30dB; but here's the catch. I want it to mount 
directly to the "N" connector on my BiLog Antenna and be powered by a 
downstream Power Supply box that sends DC down the coax. Just like how TV 
Antenna pre-amps work.

Does anyone know of a turn-key over the counter product like this that is 
available?

I know such a design can have great benefits and be plagued with troubles such 
as reflections so I know it has to be done right and done well.

Any information would be most helpful.

Thanks in advance.

The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Insulation testing

[Kunde, Brian]

Keep this in mind. The US NEC allows power cords to be made from 18AWG wire 
even though they can be plugged into a 20 amp circuit.

Protective bonding Test at 40 amps for 4 minutes will melt the insulation of 
18AWG wire.

Even internal 18AWG hookup wire used as the Protective bonding conductor 
(Green/Yellow insulation) will melt during the 40 amp bond test at 4 minutes.

So we switched to 16AWG power cords (minimum size) and all internal Protective 
bonding conductors are at a minimum 14AWG. Just to be on the safe side.

Canada has some rule about the Protective bonding conductor cannot be smaller 
than the current carrying conductors in the power cord. And since standard PC 
type power cords (NEMA plug to IEC connector) can come in 18AWG, 16AWG, or 
14AWG, we use 14AWG internal protective bonding conductors to meet Canada's 
requirements no matter what size power cord is used with our equipment.

The Other Brian


-Original Message-
From: Rodney Davis [mailto:rodney.da...@mitel.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 3:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Insulation testing

Yes in Canada and USA the line current is deemed to be 20 amps therefore 2 
times = 40 Amps.

in the old days the branch was considered 15A. This changed (really guessing 
here so please no arguments) 8 years ago.

Rodney Davis - Canada

From: Brian O'Connell 
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 3:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Insulation testing

Correct -> CSA No. 0.4 specifies 40A test level.

Brian


From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 11:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Insulation testing

I've always thought the Canada requirement was 40 amps for 2 minutes.
Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.

Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App

-- Original Message --

From: Richard Nute
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: March 3, 2016 at 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Insulation testing


Hi Ralph:


It seems that the standards are treating functional ground connections (those 
that do not pass a bonding impedance test) as a 0th fault, not a single fault.  
 For the bonding impedance test (fault current), what would be the test 
current?  Would it be twice the rating of the mains over-current protection?  
(e.g.  2 x 15A breaker rating)

I don't know what a "0th" fault is.

A functional earth must be double- or reinforced-insulated from the mains (or 
any other voltage exceeding ELV).  This is because (if only basic insulation 
between the mains and the functional earth conductor) a fault of the basic 
insulation may allow the full current of the mains to flow in the functional 
earth conductors, which may not be able to carry this current.  If the 
functional earth conductor should open, mains voltage will appear on the 
remaining functional earth circuits and may cause a severe electric shock.

If the fault of basic insulation results in a zero-impedance to earth, the 
current is set by the source impedance and lasts until the overcurrent device 
operates.

Overcurrent devices take time to operate.  For most overcurrent devices, the 
time to operate depends on the magnitude of the fault current.  Most 
overcurrent devices are rated either 1 or 2 minutes at twice rated current.  
So, the worst case is 2 minutes at 2x rated current.

In the USA, on 15-amp and 20-amp circuits, the fault current is taken as 25 
amps for 1 minute.  In Canada, the fault current is taken as 30 amps for 2 
minutes.  (Most constructions will pass both tests.)


Best regards,
Rich

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

NOTE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential and/or 
protected by legal privilege. Any unauthorized review, use, copy, disclosure or 
distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify Mitel immediately and 

Re: [PSES] Source for Quality Video Cables

[Kunde, Brian]

A quick trip in the "Way Back" machine brings me back to the early PC days. To 
get parallel printers to pass the FCC class B requirements we had to use a very 
expensive cable purchased directly from IBM which had double shielded cable and 
heavy metal back shells. The cost was something like $50 which was a lot of 
money for a cable.

However, you could go to the local electronic store at the time and buy a 
printer cable made up of ribbon cable with crimp on D-sub on one end and a 
Centronics connector on the other for like $5. I think the only people who 
bought the $50 cable was EMC labs.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 4:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Source for Quality Video Cables

On 3/2/2016 11:54 AM, IBM Ken wrote:
> perhaps you could enclose the whole cable in a tubular copper braid
> (or mylar-foil tape) and try to solder to the shield of the DVI
> connectors

Around 1987, my late brother, who was a free-lance C-language consultant, 
bought an extremely high resolution 27 inch, black-and-white (okay, orange and 
white) monitor. That way he could see several pages of code at the same time.

Unfortunately, it interfered with the television reception of another resident 
on the 18th floor. I was working in EMC at the time, and took my ICOM R–7000 
receiver over with an inductive probe.  The noise was coming from the video 
cable.

I did precisely what Ken suggests; I took a few feet of the shield from a piece 
of RG-8 cable slit down the side, slid it over the cable, made sure the braid 
overlapped across the slit and wrapped it tightly in electrical tape. Then I 
used tie-wraps to ensure the shield made good contact to the EMC back shells on 
the connectors. Problem solved!

 From the "For What It's Worth Department": I think modern monitors are 
quieter.  It was a *BIG* CRT – and Class A to boot.

Cortland Richmond

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: