RE: Verifying functionality of the equipment for Production Safety Testing
Paul, There will always be some small current flowing during a hipot test. If there isn't any current flowing, it's probably because you're circuit is open somewhere (probably the test jig, or the hipot tester's leads). To prevent this problem from going undetected some manufacturers began to include an adjustable minimum current detection circuit. An alarm sounds if the set minimum current is not detected while the equipment is in test mode. I think QuadTech and Kikusui both sell equipment with minimum current detection. A nice feature, but I sometimes wonder how reliable it is. If this is manufacturing's only reason for purchasing a new hipot tester, you might suggest that they just buy a calibrated resistor. Before performing the hipot test, check the hipot tester using the resistor. That way you can be check both the voltage across the test points, and the correct function of the current monitor in the hipot tester. Additionally, if you check the hipot equipment before each equipment test you can justify longer periods between hipot calibrations. This can save you quite a bit of pocket change. A good resistor has high reliability and can calibrated much more cheaply. This isn't too practical for high volume production line testing, but can work pretty well for some machinery manufacturers. Even if you are doing high volume, you can still reasonably use this approach by testing at the beginning and at the end of a lot (kind of a drag if you have a problem with the last unit though). Matt Folks, My manufacturing contacts have asked for a lead on a supplier of test equipment that I can use to be able to test the Hi pot lead for it not to be open. If you run the Hi Pot test holding the lead in the air it will pass . We need a way to test that the lead is not open . The Test requirement (as far as I know) is to verify functionality of the equipment before testing. Best Regards, Paul J. Smith, Teradyne Kevin Harris harr...@dscltd.com on 09/25/2000 01:39:29 PM Please respond to Kevin Harris harr...@dscltd.com To: 'Maxwell, Chris' chr...@gnlp.com cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: RE: Battery Safety Hi, I've seen this done before on low current designs. Sometimes when you replace the batteries in this type of design the circuit voltage does not have time to drop completely away due to the charge saved on bulk capacitors. When the new batteries are added the circuit comes up in a peculiar state. This is particularly true of uP power on reset circuits. There are more elegant ways to take care of this problem but I suppose a single resistor would be the cheapest (if one ignored battery life). Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:31 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Battery Safety All, We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased. The product is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries. Inside the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the batteries. Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety feature. I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the instrument. I did read through the safety test report; and I found no reference to this resistor being required. All it does is provide a constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life). It has been suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce the electrical noise in a product. To me a capacitor would be better for this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering. Even so, isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor? I'm just drawing a blank why anyone would do this. I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because it's a pain to solder and it
RE: Vibration and Shock Testing
Rick, Try the IEC 60068 series. You'll need part 1 (IEC 60068-1) and an appropriate part 2. Warning! May cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading. IEC 60068-2-47 (1999-10) Environmental testing - Part 2-47: Test methods - Mounting of components, equipment and other articles for vibration, impact and similar dynamic tests IEC 60068-2-50 (1983-01) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Tests Z/AFc: Combined cold/vibration (sinusoidal) tests for both heat-dissipating and non-heat-dissipating specimens IEC 60068-2-51 (1983-01) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Tests Z/BFc: Combined dry heat/vibration (sinusoidal) tests for both heat-dissipating and non-heat-dissipating specimens IEC 60068-2-53 (1984-12) Environmental testing. Part 2: Tests. Guidance to Tests Z/AFc and Z/BFc: Combined temperature (cold and dry heat) and vibration (sinusoidal) tests For more information you might want to contact a company that performs HALT (Highly Accelerated Life Test) and/or HASS (Highly Accelerated Stress Screen). They should be able to advise you about industry standards and make recommendations regarding your products. Regards, Matt This may not be the correct group to ask environmental questions, but I thought it was a good place to start considering so many in the group wear different hats or have past experience. In an effort to understand principles of shock and vibration compliance, I have searched companies like HP, Compaq and CISCO only to find if vibration and shock are called out it is not even the same within the same company. The task is to define the correct vibration and shock testing for electronic equipment, considering operational, non-operational and transportation will have different levels. Are there accepted existing standard like CISPR 22 and IEC 60950 for vibration, shock or other environmental parameters? Is there a similar group to this one that deals with environmental testing and compliance? Thank you in advance for time on this matter. Rick Linford rlinf...@phobobs.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
FYI: Report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones entitled Mobile Phones and Health
According to their website: The report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones entitled Mobile Phones and Health was published on Thursday, 11 May. A press conference was also held on 11 May at The Royal Academy of Engineering, London. The report is available here: http://www.iegmp.org.uk/IEGMPtxt.htm Matt --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: BG Approval
Dear Peter, BG stands for Berufsgenossenschaften (don't ask*). I think the certification mark BG has a rather overweight ... uh thinness challenged i to the left of it. The interlock was certified by the BG Institute for occupational safety in Germany. You may also see IEC/EN 60947-5-1 (chapter 3) written on the switch. This signifies that it is a positive opening device. Regards, Matt *Professional associations dealing with statutory insurance and the prevention of accidents (and many other things). Dear Group, An interlock has BG Approval. Does anyone know what it is? Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Hi Brent, Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Definitely an actual requirement. (about the rest of your subject: No comment). Decision: Original CB Test Reports can be subjected to three (3) amendments only, after which a new CB Test Report and associate CB Test Certificate shall be issued. Explanatory notes: Experience shows that by making more than three amendments to a CB Test Report the technical features of the initial product becomes such that the tracking against the Master File can be lost. To get your very own copy go to: http://www2.imq.it/ctldecisions/collect.htm choose sheet 291 (bottom right) Regards, Matt Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Number of connections per terminal - chapter and verse?
Lauren, The EN 60947-* specifies the tests for Circuit Breakers, Control Switches, Terminal Blocks, ... The test series assumes that only one unprepared conductor will be attached to a terminal unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise. When the manufacturer specifies otherwise, the tests become quite time consuming. Although I can't comment on the relevance of the test series to actual installation conditions, I can tell you that I have seen tests with multiple conductors fail on multiple occasions. Anyway, connecting more than one conductor (when not specifically allowed) is using a component outside of it's approved (certified) specifications. If you want to quote a specific requirement from the 204, look in Chapter 14, Wiring Practices. Matt -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Crane, Lauren Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:07 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Number of connections per terminal - chapter and verse? Safety minded folk, I am stumped finding chapter and verse on the following common sense ideas (i.e. in what part of which standard are the following issues addressed). Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to find! Any corrections would be appreciated. I generally work in the realm of the NEC (NFPA 70), NFPA 79, EN 60204 and EN 61010-1 (aka UL3121). If you know of a related section in one of these I would appreciate the direction. 1. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the manufacturer's documentation, it is only appropriate to apply one wire to one terminal on a commercial electrical device such as a contactor or circuit breaker. 2. For screw-terminal terminal strips, there should be no more than two ring or spade lugs, this includes jumper straps between barriers. Lauren E. Crane * Eaton Corporation, SEO * Ion Beam Systems Division * Manager - Product Design Safety and Compliance * lcr...@bev.etn.com 978.921-9745 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: What is Fire-wire?
Hi Robert, Try PC World Online for a good primer. http://www1.pcworld.com/heres_how/article/0,1400,14371,00.html Regards Matt Heard of this high speed interface? Anybody know about it? Need information, please. Something about IEEE1394 Is the cable defined *very* well? like CAT-5? - Robert - - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Servicing and Repairs
Brian, You can provide maintenance and servicing info to your customer. Just be sure your manuals are in order. To write a any kind of manual, a clear definition audience is necessary. In your case, you are considering the training and knowledge of the average laboratory user - about the hazards of performing maintenance on electrical equipment (best to assume none). Qualified as a scientist (even in an electrical field) has no relation to a qualification to perform maintenance tasks. Tasks requiring the ability to understand (and avoid) the hazards present must only be carried out by truly qualified personnel. You recognize this in the construction of your equipment. My main area of difficulty lies in that we rely on the fact that our electronic units are located behind locked doors or screwed panels to achieve our LVD compliance. You should clearly establish at least two categories of personnel who will be interacting with your equipment: 1. Skilled personnel (maintenance staff, specialists). You must define the general skills/knowledge required or the necessary qualification(s) of skilled personnel. You must also specify any specific training/knowledge these skilled personnel will require to be able to recognize and avoid any proprietary hazards in your equipment. 2. Users (operators). Assume: they cannot recognize any hazards (they only know what you've told them in the manual) they will ignore many of your warnings (which is why some designers use special screws for closing off non-user areas) You cannot assume that the user is a skilled person. EN 61010 does not assume this. Your duty as the manufacturer is to CLEARLY separate tasks which can be performed by users from those which must only be performed by skilled/trained personnel. Then, you must explain how to carry out these tasks safely. Regards, Matt PS If you want to talk about the qualifications of scientists - just browse around the internet. Or go directly here: http://www.rli.com/accident/year_lists/pre-1987.html #021: 1977: Scientist blinded by pulsed Nd:YAG laser. A scientist was partially blinded by a reflection from what was called a relatively weak Nd:YAG The exposure in the eye was approximately 6 mJ. However, 6 mJ in a 10 nsec exposure time creates enormous peak power approximately a thousand times greater than the limit allowed into the eye. Although the laser was thought to be relatively weak, in fact it was many orders of magnitude above the accepted safe exposure limit. As a result of the exposure, a vitreous hemorrhage was produced and the person went into shock. Fortunately, the hemorrhage did not produce a foveal lesion, and eventually some vision did return. The accident was due to the fact that although eye protection, was available, it was not being used. This incident could have been avoided if a laser safety program had developed a safety awareness so that people wore protective eyewear. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Ground lugs
Happy Holidays group, In getting agency approval on our I.T.E. product, the safety ground terminal has come into question. When hard wiring a product, Para. 3.3.7 indicates that the conductor is to be clamped between metal surfaces, and the terminal shall not damage the conductor. This has been interpreted as the terminal must have a metal plate that clamps down on the conductor, and no rotational stresses from the screw are applied to the conductor. Hi James, Not clear what the problem is here. Rotational stresses? Is the conductor being visably damaged by your terminal? If not, sounds like someone's getting a little overzealous. The clamping plate you refer to is used to secure the conductor - not to prevent rotational stresses from the screw. Additionally, European standards such as EN60947 recognize, and even contain drawings of the type of terminal you describe - without clamping plates. Problem is, if you show this to your agency, they may decide they want to carry out testing according to the requirements of the standard (EN60998/999 are probably more appropriate in this case). Rather than worry about rotational stresses - I would be more worried about long term security. Is it really a screw terminal, or is it a stud (bolt) terminal? In the case of a screw type terminal for PE, I would generally expect to see a stud terminal with a bolt, a clamping plate, and a spring (lock) washer. If you feel confident about your terminal however, crimp a terminal lug to the conductor. This should solve your problem with the agency about rotational stresses. In Europe, I understand that a rail terminal block, where one of the terminals is shorted to a rail, is generally used, and accepted, but somewhat costly. There may also be alternatives, but we haven't found an off the shelf one yet. Somewhat costly is an interesting expression. I've heard this and relatively expensive both offered as reasons when designers don't want to change their design. Can anyone give me a rough idea (perhaps as a percentage of unit cost) of what somewhat costly mean? I am looking for a grounding terminal that accepts #14-#18 AWG wire, has a clamping plate, is tin plated, and has a mount or hole for direct connection to a chassis. Most of the approved terminals I know of are for rail mounting (DIN...). Don't think it would make too much sense to install a rail just for one PE terminal. If you're looking for rail mounted terminals however, check Weidmueller and Wago. Both companies offer PE terminals that can be snapped onto a carrier rail. Worth a look if you're including many terminals in your equipment. Good luck, Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: warning label overkill?
Sean, Serious question even though this involves a non-electrical product: at what point do warning labels undermine themselves? This is a good question. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to answer. One of the biggest problems is that response to warning labels varies greatly depending on the viewer's age, education and cultural background. It didn't seem to be any more carbonated than the Cokes I usually buy. I can see the point of such labels on Champaign with the corks that often become projectiles. But the physics of a screw-off soda bottle cap just doesn't seem to have the same ballistic potential. (I know, I know, the GC made them do it. But still.) Contrary to what you might think, these caps do have ballistic potential. To read an opinion on one of these suits, follow the link below. Caution! The information at the end of this link may cause drowsiness. Do not design equipment while reading. http://www.trinity.edu/departments/business_admin/lone2.htm Roughly, the points of interest: In 1976 a witness for ALCOA testified that from 1967 to 1975, thirty four personal injury law suits were filed against ALCOA (cap blow off). One of the main points of contention during the subsequent trial (and appeals) was to determine if ALCOA had done its duty to inform the final user of the possible hazard of cap blowoff. Since ALCOA was not the actual manufacturer (manufacturing was performed based on their patented design) - could they really make sure that the final user was informed? No. But what must they do convince a jury that they tried to make sure the user was informed? One of the judges felt that if ALCOA had made a contract with the manufacturer/bottler - requiring the man. to include a (proper?) warning on the bottle - ALCOA would be performing its duty to inform. So what does this mean now? If there is an injury from blowoff, everyone pays (liability is not avoided by labelling). However, if there is a warning label, everyone probably pays less. I was surprised to find this warning label on a 20 oz bottle of Dr. Pepper. It seems to be unique to that brand -- Coke, Pepsi and whatnot don't seem to carry it. Maybe it was not Dr. Pepper's desire to put the label on. Maybe the designer of the closure system required it. ! WARNING (exclamation point is inside a triangle) CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE. CAP MAY BLOW OFF CAUSING EYE OR OTHER SERIOUS INJURY. POINT AWAY FROM FACE AND PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHILE OPENING. All capitals for the message is not in accordance with the relevant ANSI standard. Furthermore, a non pictorial warning is better than nothing - but not best case. Also, did the warning get your attention BEFORE you were in range? But I guess this is another topic. If you really want some gratuitous warnings the list below taken from http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8884/more.html Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish.-- On a bottle of shampoo for dogs. Do not use while sleeping--On a hair dryer Do not light in face, nor expose face to flame--On a lighter Warning: May cause drowsiness--On a bottle of Nytol brand sleeping pills Not to be used as a personal floatation device--On a 6X10 inch inflatable picture frame Do not drive the cars in ocean--In small print at the bottom of the screen, during a car commercial which showed the car in the ocean Do not put lit candles on phone--On the instructions for a cordless phone Do not put in mouth--On a box of bottle rockets Warning: Misuse may cause injury or death--Stampled on the metal barrel of a .22 calibre rifle from http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8884/more.html Thanks, This was a real eye-opener for me! Matt -- Sean Oberle Vice President of New Products Washington Business Information, Inc. 1117 N 19th St, Ste 200, Arlington, VA 22209 Voice: 703/247-3429; Fax: 703/247-3421 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Article to UL
Hello Matthew! I think that under US tax code the terms non-profit and not-for-profit have special, distinct meanings that govern how the organization must handle income and profits. Again, not being a tax law expert, I could not explain what the difference is. The IRS helpfully points out that Non-profit and not-for-profit are state law concepts. (Experts and non-experts alike can find such info at http://www.irs.gov). UL derives its tax-exempt status from ยง 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This is the section defines charitable, religious, educational, scientific, . organizations that are considered tax-exempt. As to your second question, I object! Objecting to UL's tax-exempt status? Frank, people who test in glass laboratories shouldn't ... Or is my understanding of TUV (current and past) in need of revision? Regards, Matt Regards, Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland of NA --- Matthew Meehan mee...@i-kk.co.jp wrote: Hello Frank, As my UL friends are always quick to point out, they are not-for-profit, not non-profit. Not being expert, I assume there is some subtle difference that is lots on the rest of us. nonprofit - not established to make a profit (nonprofit organizations) - Cambridge Dictionary of American English (http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/) By this definition, UL is a nonprofit organization. I assume that your friends (and the Post) consider profit to mean money that a business earns above what it costs to produce and sell goods and services. Given the general usage of the prefix non, and that UL's earnings are higher than it's costs - perhaps they feel that not-for-profit more clearly describes the company. A more general question is, why is does UL continue to enjoy special consideration when what they are doing is not unique? Regards, Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA Is it necessary to do something unique to enjoy special consideration? When you say special consideration, I assume you are referring to UL's tax-exempt status. Do you object to UL's tax-exempt status, or covet it? Regards, Matt --- Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com wrote: Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit organization? Barry Anritsu Co. From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com, on 11/24/99 1:23 PM: Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped out at me when I read the article. 1. In many other countries, standards are set or approved by a government entity with industry involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other hand, are set primarily by private industry - either in independent labs such as UL or by industry associations or organizations. The CPSC, an independent regulatory agency charged with protecting consumers from hazardous products, imposes federal regulations only when it believes industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a government takeover to me!! 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's recent problems can be traced to the way the company is organized and funded - with more than nine-tenths of its revenue coming from companies for testing products. UL also sets industry safety standards - which it then measures products against - but does not charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and - more importantly - change the funding (a euphemism for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! Sorry - Just could not resist.. __ Open your mind. Close your wallet. Free Internet Access from AltaVista. http://www.altavista.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). = Frank West Senior Engineer TUV Rheinland of North America NW/Portland OR Office __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators
Re: Article to UL
Hello Frank, As my UL friends are always quick to point out, they are not-for-profit, not non-profit. Not being expert, I assume there is some subtle difference that is lots on the rest of us. nonprofit - not established to make a profit (nonprofit organizations) - Cambridge Dictionary of American English (http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/) By this definition, UL is a nonprofit organization. I assume that your friends (and the Post) consider profit to mean money that a business earns above what it costs to produce and sell goods and services. Given the general usage of the prefix non, and that UL's earnings are higher than it's costs - perhaps they feel that not-for-profit more clearly describes the company. A more general question is, why is does UL continue to enjoy special consideration when what they are doing is not unique? Regards, Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA Is it necessary to do something unique to enjoy special consideration? When you say special consideration, I assume you are referring to UL's tax-exempt status. Do you object to UL's tax-exempt status, or covet it? Regards, Matt --- Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com wrote: Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit organization? Barry Anritsu Co. From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com, on 11/24/99 1:23 PM: Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped out at me when I read the article. 1. In many other countries, standards are set or approved by a government entity with industry involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other hand, are set primarily by private industry - either in independent labs such as UL or by industry associations or organizations. The CPSC, an independent regulatory agency charged with protecting consumers from hazardous products, imposes federal regulations only when it believes industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a government takeover to me!! 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's recent problems can be traced to the way the company is organized and funded - with more than nine-tenths of its revenue coming from companies for testing products. UL also sets industry safety standards - which it then measures products against - but does not charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and - more importantly - change the funding (a euphemism for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! Sorry - Just could not resist.. __ Open your mind. Close your wallet. Free Internet Access from AltaVista. http://www.altavista.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). = Frank West Senior Engineer TUV Rheinland of North America NW/Portland OR Office __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Grounding Questions
Robert, I don't think GFIs are failsafe. Don't they all come with test buttons? Matt Why has no one mentioned using a GFI detector as a failsafe way to make certain the installation is done per spec? After all, in the US the manufacturer still comes out liable for any damages. - Robert - -Original Message- From: Crabb, John jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 3:03 AM Subject: RE: Grounding Questions Ed, we do not find it necessary to specify an additional ground for our Automated Teller Machines, other than the ground provided thru the power cord. They are used in similar circumstances to your products. We do state in our site preparation documents, WARNING This equipment must be earthed. If for any reason the product was not grounded, I suspect you would find out quite quickly, since the leakage current, although under 3.5 mA, would be noticable !! Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: 15 November 1999 22:12 To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Grounding Questions Hi Listmembers! I have some questions about electrical power feed grounding. One of our divisions makes revenue control equipment (turnstiles, change machines, ticket vending machines) which are installed in rapid transit stations. The physical installation ranges from free concrete floor standing to mounting in a concrete wall alcove. All machines have massive (vandalism problems with cash inside machines) stainless steel housings which the public can and will touch constantly (while standing on possibly wet concrete floors). In the USA, the power for these machines is supplied from a central distribution panel, through conduit, to a surface-mount electrical box equipped with a Twist-Lock style female connector. (All items up to and including the female outlet are customer supplied, and the distance from the distribution panel to the box may be as much as 1500 feet.) The power supplied is 277 VAC, 60 Hz single phase power, in a 3 wire system (third wire is safety ground), with a typical load of about 4 Amps. Should we provide a separate ground stud on our machine case and require the transit district to provide a ground rod at each machine site? Does this present any problems with duplicating the electrical ground which may (or may not) exist at the distribution panel? Can we realistically depend on the third wire ground for safety? If several machines are mounted in a gallery, should we have a ground rod for each machine? Thanks in advance! Ed - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Shielded Enclosure Fire Hazard
My lab just had an annual inspection visit by our friendly fire hazard inspector. Seems that after 4 successive years of inspections, I suddenly failed this year. Hi Ed, Don't shoot the bearer. Go find the guy who passed you the last 3 years - shoot him. If it's the same guy - well it's nice to see he's got the devotion to re-evaluate his own work (and the ability to admit errors - no small feat in an inspector). Now I'm all in favor of sprinklers; there's several in the ceiling of the parent room that contains my enclosure. But that doesn't protect the contents of the shielded enclosure. What if a fire started inside the enclosure and then had time to grow? The parent room sprinklers might not be able to stop the blaze then! Never mind that there's almost no fuel within the enclosure; just fire-retardant rated anechoic foam and a 10' long table made out of wood 4x4's. Ed, don't you think the inspector stopped by the water cooler to check on your prospects? Do you mean to tell me you haven't heard the rumors? I heard they were moving you out to baha to work on your open site ideas - and your lab is going to be turned into a storage area for all unread quality documents (lot of tinder there). So I don't suppose this is really about common sense. Has anyone recently addressed the issue of fire protection within a shielded enclosure? Or A fire enclosure for people, hmm. Is this your secret shake and bake recipe? Seriously though, unless you could get the room certified as a fire enclosure I don't think you'll get any flexibility from inspector. Sorry I couldn't be more humorous but its been a long day. Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: impact /probes
try www.ergonmicsusa.com - Original Message - From: Dwight Hunnicutt dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com To: EMC PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 3:20 AM Subject: impact /probes Mech testers- Anyone know of sources for the UL1950 Impact Ball (500g, 50mm dia.)? (I know of one online source, but $150 for a ball?!? How about a ball-bearing shop?) Also, how about a source for the UL1950: Test Pin (Fig. 20) Telecom Test Probe (Fig. 16) thanks D -- _ DWIGHT HUNNICUTT Sr.Compliance Engineer _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ T E C H N O L O G I E S 510-771-3349 520-244-2721 fax www.vina-tech.com _ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Humidity Test
Can anyone steer me to an appropriate standard that would specify Humidity tests for a heavy industrial product? Best Regards, Bill Jacowleff Bill, Appropriate covers a lot of ground. Especially since you didn't specify your market (country, equipment category (e.g. semiconductor machinery)). You also didn't mention if you are interested in compliance - or if you're just looking for a little light reading. If you're looking for international standards try searching: http://www.iec.ch/ Since you have not specified I'll just stick with the general standards (there may be a more suitable product family standard). IEC 60204-1 (1997-10) Electrical equipment of industrial machines - Part 1: General requirements Provides a requirement stating that machines must be capable of correct operation at 40 degress C (humidity =50%). This requirement can be altered however by agreement with your customer (see Appendix B). You might also consider the following standards: IEC 60068-2-56 - Ed. 1.0 - Bilingual Title: Environmental testing - Part 2: Tests. Test Cb: Damp heat, steady state, primarily for equipment Publication date: 1988-12 TC: 104 (ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, CLASSIFICATION AND METHODS OF TEST) Pages: 15 Price: 36.00 CHF (price code : H). Abstract: Determines the suitability of electrotechnical products, principally equipment, for use and storage under conditions of high humidity. You would also need the IEC 60068-1 as well. I imagine a few different tests plans are described in the standard. IEC GUIDE 106 (1996-07) Ed. 2.0 CHF 27.00 17 pages Guide for specifying environmental conditions for equipment performance rating This standard is listed in the bibliography of the IEC 60204 Hope this helps. Regards, Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Hot Surface. Hot air.
Now, 70 degrees C for external equipment surface that may be touched seems pretty high to me. 100 degrees C metal surface will, I believe, cause a burn to that part of the human body that touched it. So maybe my interpretation is not true ??and, can someone point another regulatory source for Hot surface permissible temperature ? Israel, As others have pointed out - EN 563 can be used as a regulatory source. The standard ... applies to hot surfaces of all products and equipment that must or can be touched during their normal use. That includes the area of safety of machinery as well as any other applications. The standard does not apply, if a large area of the skin (approximately 10% or more of the skin of the whole body) can be in contact with the hot surface. This standard also does not apply to skin contact with more than 10% of the head or contact which could result in burns of vital areas of the face (e.g. burn resulting in the restriction of airways). In these cases severe injuries may occur, even if the surface temperature does not exceed the values specified in this standard. Does the EN 60950 consider these exceptions relevant? For your average office printer, PC, or monitor they probably aren't. There are however some fairly large equipment which are certified to this standard (mainframes?). You stated that 70 degrees C for external equipment surface that may be touched seems pretty high to me. Figure 2 of EN 563 indicates that at 70 degrees C, contact with a smooth uncoated metal surface for more than 1 second will result in a burn. For less than 1 second of contact time, there is no reliable data available (possible burn). Consider any forseeable problems - like someone falling onto your equipment. At 70 degrees, breaking a fall by placing your hands against the equipment could be rather unpleasant. And don't forget head contact. Regards, Matt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Kill Switch Requirements
Is anyone aware of any requirements anywhere in the world stating that a device that is considered a transport mechanism must have a red kill switch or button on the unit..Does the Machinery Directive have such a requirement?? Martin, If you consider your device a transport mechanism you should probably check the machinery directive. It defines machinery as: - an assembly of linked parts or components, at least one of which moves, with the appropriate actuators, control and power circuits, etc., joined together for a specific application, in particular for the processing, treatment, moving or packaging of a material - an assembly of machines which, in order to achieve the same end, are arranged and controlled so that they function as an integral whole, - interchangeable equipment modifying the function of a machine, which is placed on the market for the purpose of being assembled with a machine or a series of different machines or with a tractor by the operator himself in so far as this equipment is not a spare part or a tool; The Machinery Directive does require an Emergency stop (kill switch) for most machines. Article 1 of the Machinery Directive: 1.2.4. Stopping device . Emergency stop Each machine must be fitted with one or more emergency stop devices to enable actual or impending danger to be averted. The following exceptions apply: - machines in which an emergency stop device would not lessen the risk, either because it would not reduce the stopping time or because it would not enable the special measures required to deal with the risk to be taken, - hand-held portable machines and hand-guided machines. This device must: - have clearly identifiable, clearly visible and quickly accessible controls, - stop the dangerous process as quickly as possible, without creating additional hazards, - where necessary, trigger or permit the triggering of certain safeguard movements. Clearly identifiable in the case of an emergency stop control actuator would generally mean a RED, MUSHROOM or PALM actuator, with a YELLOW background (around the actuator). You can refer to IEC 60204-1 for these and other general requirements regarding emergency stops. Regards, Matt From: marti...@pebio.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 5:27 AM Subject: Kill Switch Requirements Is anyone aware of any requirements anywhere in the world stating that a device that is considered a transport mechanism must have a red kill switch or button on the unit. This question came from an associate of mine while talking with potential customers in Scotland. We certify our product to the Low Voltage Directive using EN 61010. I am not familiar with such a requirement for the LVD. Does the Machinery Directive have such a requirement?? Any comments are appreciated. Regards Joe Martin EMC/Product Safety Engineer P.E. Biosystems marti...@pebio.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Ground Bond Testers - Continued
Brian, Try this loophole on for size. Depending upon the installation location - it may be necessary (required by law) to perform an earth bond test after installation of the equipment. In such a case, testing at your production site would not guarantee a higher level of safety. After all, the reason for making routine earth bond tests is to confirm proper assembly. I have seen production testing waived by a certifier under these conditions (not a high volume product - known installation locations - report of site testing kept for records). Example: You ship your equipment in sections and then assemble (or provide instructions to assemble) the equipment on site. After assembly the earth bond test is performed. Your customer should have access to the necessary equipment if testing is required. Good luck, Matt - Original Message - From: Brian At Work bkundew...@qtm.net To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 11:26 PM Subject: Ground Bond Testers - Continued Thanks to everyone for your replies. Using step down transformers, variacs, and current clamps work well for performing the Ground Bond test here in our safety lab with trained personnel, but this is not an acceptable procedure for less trained production line personnel. The lack of a commercial Ground Bond Tester that will achieve high current has me wondering if other manufacturers of high current equipment is performing 100% production line Ground Bond tests. Am I missing something here? Does this test not need to be done outside the safety lab? Am I foolishly looking for a easy, safe, production line solution for high current ground bond testers? Thanks, Brian - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
