[PSES] Surges on Ethernet ports under 62368-1

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

61368-1, Table 14 (2nd ed) or Table 13 (3rd ed) 
discusses transients to be applied to conductors 
considered external circuits.

Whereas in 60950-1, these tests generally applied to 
conductors falling under Clauses 6 or 7, the scope of 
the applicability of the testing appears to have 
expanded to include simple IEEE 802.3 circuits that 
exit a building structure, which were excluded from 
such testing under 60950-1 (where ITIC had dictated to 
test houses, "thou shalt not place transients on mine 
network circuits").

As a relative newcomer to 62368-1, I am looking for
confirmation that the above is accurate.


Regards,

Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org

-

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] DENEN Law/PSE Marking for ac/dc power supplies

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

In reviewing the DENAN Law and the METI DENAN Guide (v4.0), there's 
mention of a need to mark the "notifying supplier" (in this case, 
taken as the importer) adjacent to the PSE Mark. This appears to be 
targeted at importers of large quantities of ac/dc power supplies 
for sale to the public.

If taken very conservatively (as Japan tends to be), this would 
apply to all ac/dc power supplies. Does anyone know if this marking 
requirement applies to power supplies that are part of a kit or sold 
as spares?


Regards,

Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org

-

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] 61368-1, Table 14 (2nd ed) or Table 13 (3rd ed)

[Peter Tarver]

Good afternoon.

The Subject tables discuss transients to be applied to conductors 
considered external circuits.

Whereas in 60950-1, these tests generally applied to conductors 
falling under Clauses 6 or 7, the scope of the applicability of the 
Subject testing appears to have expanded to include simple IEEE 
802.3 circuits, which were excluded from such testing under 60950-1 
(where ITIC had dictated to test houses, "thou shalt not place 
transients on mine network circuits").

As a relative newcomer to 62368-1, I am looking for confirmation 
that the above is accurate.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

-

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] Applicability of the Machine Directive

[Peter Tarver]

Hi, Doug.

The control systems are internal to the product, but it relies on
power provided by the host equipment.


Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org



From:   Doug Nix 
Subject:Re: [PSES] Applicability of the Machine Directive
Date sent:  Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:05:32 -0400
Copies to:  "EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org" 
To: ptar...@ieee.org


Hi Peter,

The answer to your question lies in the intended application of the
device. If it has an intended application, then it is a machine. If
it is a component that could be incorporated into many kinds of
machines, think "gearbox" for example, then it is not in the scope
of the MD, even it it is an assembly of linked parts at least one of
which moves. Also, does it include the power and control systems
necessary for it´s function, or are these provided by the
application device? If they are contained, then the device is closer
to a machine, pending the intended application. If they are external
then it is a machine part and outside the MD.

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

 On 24-Sep-20, at 16:35, Peter Tarver  wrote:

 Hello.

 For the following, I have (nearly) concluded that the
 Machinery Directive applies, but I have some lingering
 uncertainty. I'm looking for reasonable arguments to
 say that it does or doesn't apply before I dive
 headlong into the tasks related to supporting a
 declaration against the Machinery Directive.

 Consider a product that is completely sealed but
 contains a rotating mass. The mass rotates as a primary
 part of the product's function. In the strictest sense,
 it is (or contains) a machine. However, any number of
 products contain rotating masses (e.g., fans) that are
 not generally subject to the Machinery Directive and
 which have other standards under the Low Voltage
 Directive that address the relevant safety concerns.

 Among the many use cases for the product are autonomous
 or robotic mail delivery and security systems, which
 will move along the ground or along floor surfaces.
 These pieces of motive host equipment would require
 application of the Machinery Directive. For these and
 other use cases,the product could serve as a safety
 component, though perhaps not in any traditional sense,
 but within the context of Annex V of the Machinery
 Directive.

 There are no specific standards in the OJ list of
 harmonized standards that apply directly to the
 product's primary applications function, so I assume EN
 60204-1 will apply, with perhaps some peripheral
 standards that are in the OJ list.

 FWIW, I've performed a review of the mechanical hazards
 using IEC 62368-1 and found that the product falls
 squarely into MS1.

 What ever arguments you can make either in favor of
 applying the Machinery directive or against it are
 welcomed and encouraged. I look forward to hearing from
 you.

 Peter

 -
 
 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: 

Peter Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org

-

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] Applicability of the Machine Directive

[Peter Tarver]

Hello.

For the following, I have (nearly) concluded that the 
Machinery Directive applies, but I have some lingering 
uncertainty. I'm looking for reasonable arguments to 
say that it does or doesn't apply before I dive 
headlong into the tasks related to supporting a 
declaration against the Machinery Directive.

Consider a product that is completely sealed but 
contains a rotating mass. The mass rotates as a primary 
part of the product's function. In the strictest sense, 
it is (or contains) a machine. However, any number of 
products contain rotating masses (e.g., fans) that are 
not generally subject to the Machinery Directive and 
which have other standards under the Low Voltage 
Directive that address the relevant safety concerns.

Among the many use cases for the product are autonomous 
or robotic mail delivery and security systems, which 
will move along the ground or along floor surfaces. 
These pieces of motive host equipment would require 
application of the Machinery Directive. For these and 
other use cases,the product could serve as a safety 
component, though perhaps not in any traditional sense, 
but within the context of Annex V of the Machinery 
Directive.

There are no specific standards in the OJ list of 
harmonized standards that apply directly to the 
product's primary applications function, so I assume EN 
60204-1 will apply, with perhaps some peripheral 
standards that are in the OJ list.

FWIW, I've performed a review of the mechanical hazards 
using IEC 62368-1 and found that the product falls 
squarely into MS1.

What ever arguments you can make either in favor of 
applying the Machinery directive or against it are 
welcomed and encouraged. I look forward to hearing from 
you.

Peter

-

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] Do We Need Flame Retardants in Electronics?

[Peter Tarver]

Not quite so long ago as high voltage vacuum tubes, I am aware of one incident 
where a small "fire" (more accurately, smoke escaped and the enclosure melted) 
occurred in in a TV. IIRC, this was a case where the production of the molded 
plastic yielded material too thin, but this was on the order of 25 years ago.

On another front, there is an area where flame retardants are the enemy of 
compliance: in "other spaces for environmental air." Flame retardants emit 
copious amounts of particulates as they resist ignition. This can cause the 
opacity and density of smoke in the test chamber to exceed proscribed limits. 
If a fire enclosure is not needed (e.g., LSP or LVLE or similar are all that's 
involved) and a metal enclosure is not a cost effective option the best 
approach is to use a lower flammability classified material with low doping 
load of flame retardant and possibly a high percentage of inorganic fill 
material (e.g., glass fibers, etc.).


Peter Tarver

From: Ted Eckert <07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:56 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Do We Need Flame Retardants in Electronics?

 I seem to recall that long ago, when televisions had vacuum tubes, high 
voltage and high power, fires were an issue. I'm not positive, but I thought 
that the requirements for flame retardants came from investigations of a number 
of fires of plastic enclosed televisions. I believe that the basis for the 
requirement is sound. It's been decades since flammable plastics were commonly 
used for IT and A/V products. The fact that there have been few issues may be 
due to the effectiveness of flame retardants.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

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

From: Pete Perkins 
<0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org<mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Do We Need Flame Retardants in Electronics?

Rich, et al,   Like many issues we see raging around us this is one 
which got caught up in political correctness before it had a large public face. 
 I personally felt that the science of flame retardants is well understood and 
making a change involved adding in risks which were not well understood 
therefore bad practice.  Thanx for bring this around again.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 1067
Albany, Ore  97321-0413

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
p.perk...@ieee.org<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

Entropy ain't what it used to be

From: Richard Nute mailto:ri...@bendbroadband.com>>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Do We Need Flame Retardants in Electronics?



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-need-flame-retardants-in-electronics/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdo-we-need-flame-retardants-in-electronics%2F=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C6f8624a753274fc2dda608d73ae6f790%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C637042635984040539=ub7KtAnUqaUapbaX027V6wPDQk2RvtChpLUtsSzI0so%3D=0>

 "...there has never been any valid statistical demonstration that flame 
retardant chemicals of the types and concentrations used in consumer products 
have resulted in death or injury reduction," says Vytenis 
Babrauskas<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdo-furniture-flame-retardants-save-enough-lives-justify-environmental-damage%2F=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C6f8624a753274fc2dda608d73ae6f790%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C637042635984050495=k0o04eDHG0IbRIzN9hu559U5Pt3dlddOXHZngjKEt2c%3D=0>...

The article is more than 5 years old.  Nevertheless, thought-provoking.

Enjoy!

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 
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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C6f8624a753274fc2dda608d73ae6f790%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C637042635984050495=sguIpc6uyhsihuftvffJXtbmcZ5zXEA0FAveJ82pl9g%3D=0>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2

Re: [PSES] Automated listserv error message

[Peter Tarver]

I note that my subscription at my home account was not unsubscribed
(POP3).


Peter Tarver



Date sent:  Wed, 24 Apr 2019 17:10:55 +
Send reply to:  Peter Tarver 
From:   Peter Tarver 
Subject:Re: [PSES] Automated listserv error message
Originally to:  Steve Brody 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


 Ditto, but using Outlook on an Outlook 365 server. Mike was very 
responsive and restored
 my subscription.
  
  
 Peter Tarver
  
 From: Steve Brody 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:38 AM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated listserv error message
  
 Yes - same message and issue. I forwarded to administrators Scott Douglas 
and Mike
 Cantwell for additional info if possible. I am, or was, subscribed through 
my IEEE.org alias
 and then forwarded to my Comcast.net email account.

 On April 24, 2019 at 11:32 AM Doug Powell 
 wrote:


 All,

 Yesterday I received what was called an automatic removal message from
 the listserv. The subject line was "Your removal from the EMC-PSTC
 list". And indeed, I was unsubscribed for the first time since 1997.
 I wondered if anyone else with a gmail account has this problem.

 I was advised to contact my email administrator and of course you can
 see I am on gmail. Apparently there were three separate message
 rejections with error 5.0.0

 Best, Doug

 --

 Douglas E Powell

-

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 
Peter Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org

-

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] Automated listserv error message

[Peter Tarver]

Ditto, but using Outlook on an Outlook 365 server. Mike was very responsive and 
restored my subscription.


Peter Tarver

From: Steve Brody 
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:38 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated listserv error message

Yes - same message and issue. I forwarded to administrators Scott Douglas and 
Mike Cantwell for additional info if possible. I am, or was, subscribed through 
my IEEE.org alias and then forwarded to my Comcast.net email account.

On April 24, 2019 at 11:32 AM Doug Powell 
mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> wrote:


All,

Yesterday I received what was called an automatic removal message from
the listserv. The subject line was "Your removal from the EMC-PSTC
list". And indeed, I was unsubscribed for the first time since 1997.
I wondered if anyone else with a gmail account has this problem.

I was advised to contact my email administrator and of course you can
see I am on gmail. Apparently there were three separate message
rejections with error 5.0.0

Best, Doug

--

Douglas E Powell


-

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] phishing e-mail from an old account of yours?

[Peter Tarver]

All -

I just received an unsolicited e-mail from the address of 
jrallen-at-productsafetyinc.com. Beware the probable phishing and malware link, 
if you receive the same.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver

-

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] File Attachments and the emc-pstc email list

[Peter Tarver]

As a subscriber to this list from April, 1995, this is a welcome addition. I 
echo John W’s concern for subscribers to not abuse this.


Peter Tarver

From: Jim Bacher 
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 08:55
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] File Attachments and the emc-pstc email list

Back on December 1, 1994 the emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> email 
list went into service to discuss regulatory issues (this email list). When the 
list was first setup, a lot of the members even companies were on 14.4 dial up 
modems for email/Internet access. Some members were traveling to countries 
where dial up internet was not very fast. So the list members ask that sending 
files to the list be blocked. So the list admins at that time blocked sending 
of files.

Awhile ago a community site was setup to place files instead of sending to the 
list, however no one has really made use of it. So it is time to move on.

Now days with wifi and cell coverage along with email programs capable of 
selectively downloading attached files, there is no longer a need to block 
files. So the current list admins have enabled file attachments.

I had been trying to look for an appropriate file to test with and decided on a 
PDF file announcing the formation of the email list in the Product Safety 
Newsletter published by the Product Safety Technical Committee (TC-8) under the 
IEEE EMC society was the one to send. TC-8 was the predecessor to the IEEE 
Product Safety Engineering Society.

We did set a max size of 10 Meg for the files. That is sufficient for asking 
what a logo is.

This is a test email to confirm the setting change worked and to announce the 
change.

Jim

-


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 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 


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 standards--outdoor electric machine

[Peter Tarver]

Hi, Chet.

I don’t know if you’re planning to use UL for as an NRTL, but I found the 
following.

I searched UL’s on-line certifications data base on the keyword conveyor. That 
led to several pages of certifications under a few product categories. The best 
match (in concept) was UL’s product category for Conveyors. Unfortunately, the 
UL Guide Card for this product category  explicitly states that it only covers 
equipment for use “within a building structure.“ While UL 73 does contain 
outdoor equipment requirements, this one product category that uses UL 73 
doesn’t allow certifications for outdoor use.

If you are planning to use UL, they can be convinced to create an outdoor 
conveyor category, since UL 73 does include outdoor equipment requirements. 
This process takes some time to accomplish and might not be completed before 
you’re ready to ship safety certified product.

Another option could be to use Outline of Investigation for Factory Automation 
Equipment, UL Subject 2011. Even though this Outline doesn’t explicitly include 
outdoor equipment requirements, it might fit the bill. (2011 does reference 
other standards that do have outdoor equipment requirements, so it’s a short 
leap to including the in the certification.) The product category for Factory 
Automation Equipment doesn’t limit the applications to indoor use. Subject 2011 
is used in conjunction with NFPA 79.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

From: Chester Summers 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety standards--outdoor electric machine

Hi, Doug—

Many thanks for the advice, and for the conveyor pub.  The guarding figures and 
accompanying rationale are really well done.  I’m quickly learning that 
conveyor systems in general are rather complex beasties concerning machinery 
safety!

Best regards,
Chet Summers


From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:33 PM
To: Chester Summers 
Cc: IEEE EMC PSTC 
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety standards--outdoor electric machine

Hi Chet,

I don’t have any opinion as to UL 73, as I am not familiar with that standard, 
sorry. I just wanted to be sure that the mechanical safety aspects were not 
forgotten.

There are some excellent ISO standards that you might also find useful, 
although they are aimed at a broader audience than “just” North America. Also, 
you might be interested in this conveyor safety guide produced by IRRST. 
Excellent stuff. English translation by the WSPS in Ontario, Canada.

http://www.wsps.ca/WSPS/media/Site/Resources/Downloads/User-Guide-to-Conveyor-Belt-Safety.pdf?ext=.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wsps.ca_WSPS_media_Site_Resources_Downloads_User-2DGuide-2Dto-2DConveyor-2DBelt-2DSafety.pdf-3Fext-3D.pdf=DwMFaQ=G4BpsyPyB19LB50bn2swXw=uQYjlohUH2VwYVcMCZDVOGnwYsWulCG18FqsT19OrFM=qiO7vCqkqfqyrswfWbdP_Woleau_Kx7MzcsBnV9ATfA=lZnAWhZ9fabUkSRTfny5W2SH-wzNSQhsEJ5TdyadxWk=>

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org<mailto:d...@ieee.org>
+1 (519) 729-5704

On 16-Oct-18, at 16:17, Chester Summers 
mailto:csummers@CHARLESMACHINE.WORKS>> wrote:

Hi, Doug—
Yes, ASME B20.1 applies and certain aspects of it were included in the initial 
risk assessment.

What’s your opinion as far as UL-73 is concerned?

Chet

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 1:38 PM
To: Chester Summers 
mailto:csummers@charlesmachine.works>>
Cc: IEEE EMC PSTC 
mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] safety standards--outdoor electric machine

Hi Chester,

Don’t forget that this kind of equipment should conform to ASME B20.1, Safety 
Standard for Conveyors and Related Equipment.

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org<mailto:d...@ieee.org>
+1 (519) 729-5704


On 16-Oct-18, at 12:03, Chester Summers 
mailto:csummers@CHARLESMACHINE.WORKS>> wrote:

Hello, listmates—

I’m scoping North American electrical safety standards for an a.c. mains 
powered, portable conveyor system to support an outdoor construction process.  
Used to assist in handling pipe lining fabric at the jobsite.  The motor will 
likely be no greater than ¾ HP single phase, 120Vac/60Hz.  VFD motor speed 
controller to manage the short conveyor belt (approximately 6ft long).  There 
are no product specific standards for this type of equipment, however UL-73 for 
Motor Operated Appliances appears to check all the appropriate electrical 
safety boxes.  Conveyor-specific safety will be addressed with ASME B20.1.

I welcome expert opinions from the group—is UL-73 sufficient to evaluate this 
product?

Many thanks in advance,
Chet Summers


This email and any files transmitted with it from Charles Machine Works are 
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to 
which they are addressed. -


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

Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[Peter Tarver]

Further to Scott’s post, the required illumination is at 20V/m at the EUT, 
rather than the more commonly used 10 V/m (I don’t know the 60335-1 
requirement). As Scott mentions, the intent in this case is to make certain the 
inverter remains functional, less so that it remain in a safe condition during 
the test (really meaning that the test objective doesn’t call for the 
observation, but if an unsafe condition occurs that is readily apparent, the 
inverter would likely not be functional). Surge testing on the grid connected 
port is also required for the same purposes, generally to 6 kVpk (combo and 
ring).


Peter Tarver

From: Scott Aldous
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 08:33

Hi James,

The UL safety standard for PV inverters, UL 1741, makes normative reference to 
IEEE 1547 and IEEE 1547.1 in Section 46. IEEE 1547.1, in clause 5.5 on 
interconnection integrity, makes normative reference to IEEE C37.90.2, which 
has test requirements for withstand capability to radiated electromagnetic 
interference. Utility protection trip parameters must be monitored during test 
to ensure they continue to function correctly.  So it's a bit of a roundabout 
way to get there, and one could argue that this is more a utility interactive 
requirement than a safety requirement per se, but this is another example of an 
EMC test requirement in a safety standard.


-

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] Pilot rating

[Peter Tarver]

Hi, Jon.

Switching a contactor or relay coil does involve an inrush current and 
inductive kickback, as previously mentioned. This can affect air gap contacts 
in significant ways.

For solid state switching, I’m less familiar with the ins and outs, but if you 
look at some SSR manufacturers’ web sites, you can see that there are different 
P/Ns within a family of SSRs, depending on the nature of the switched load. For 
example, use

http://www.crydom.com/en/tools/parametric-search.shtml?type=panel

to go through some examples.

Also, check out (not very detailed, but it gives a flavor)

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE=1=LatestReleased=0=Primary=AP04901001E

There are bound to be some snubbing features built into these SSRs, just as 
there would be for an electromechanical relay.

A lot of SSRs are zero crossing types to prevent switching on higher voltages. 
This can prolong the life of the SSR.

It could simply be clever marketing to change a P/N, but it might also be that 
there’s a physical difference in the SSRs that make them better suited to 
certain types of loads.

It may be that your design satisfies all of the necessaries for piloting a 
contactor of a certain VA rating. An NRTL will likely want to do some testing 
to satisfy themselves that the special concerns are met by your design. If your 
company is not planning to sell the solid state switch, you can probably 
negotiate a reduced test program based on your application. If you do 
negotiate, make sure you build in some head room for load changes so you don’t 
have to repeat testing when someone gets a clever idea for how to repurpose 
your design.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 13:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pilot rating


The ultimate issue is what safety issue occurs if the contactor fails to open 
or close when it is supposed to?  If there is no safety consequence, then the 
contactor control is functional, not a safeguard.  If there is a safety 
consequence, then the circuits controlling the contactor constitute a safeguard 
and must be “reliable,”  and must meet the intent of the standard.

Not so cynical Rich


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


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Eng

Re: [PSES] short range device alternate suppliers and labeling

[Peter Tarver]

My thanks to all for their input.

I chanced on some interesting reading yesterday in Federal Register / Vol. 82, 
No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations. In this document, 
there are some exceptions to physical labeling where an electronic display of 
the required information is allowed, if certain guidelines are followed.

This is a particularly attractive method to convey the required information and 
a potentially excellent method to address my concerns in this thread.

Has anyone used this method that can identify any foibles and pitfalls? Is a 
similar (or the same) approach accepted by IC?


Regards,

Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis Ward [mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 13:07
> To: Peter Tarver <ptar...@enphaseenergy.com>; EMC-
> p...@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: short range device alternate suppliers and
> labeling
> 
> 
> The ID number of the module inside the actual host must be
> identified.  Option 1 does not do this.  Option 2 is also
> questionable as it probably does not follow the instructions
> provided by the module manufacturer.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Tarver
> [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:44 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] short range device alternate suppliers and
> labeling
> 
> Hello.
> 
> Imagine a Class B product and assume there are two
> suppliers of short range intentional radiator devices that are
> identical and use an identical reference design (one buys
> the device from the other and resells). Both have been
> evaluated using the modular approach for FCC and IC.
> 
> Assume also that there is negligible differences in emissions
> test result.
> 
> For either device, the unit is marked to show the FCC ID and
> the IC ID. To allow these devices to be used interchangeably
> for one another without having to purchase new labels to
> support each device, is it acceptable to label either:
> 
> 1) "May contain FCC ID: , IC ID: yyy or FCC ID: aaa, IC ID:
> bbb," or
> 2) "Contains FCC ID: , IC ID: yyy or FCC ID: aaa, IC ID:
> bbb" with a check box before each set of ID strings?
> 
> Option 1 is preferred, since Option 2 requires a manual
> operation on an otherwise automated production line.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter Tarver
> 
> -
> 
> 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>

[PSES] short range device alternate suppliers and labeling

[Peter Tarver]

Hello.

Imagine a Class B product and assume there are two suppliers of short range 
intentional radiator devices that are identical and use an identical reference 
design (one buys the device from the other and resells). Both have been 
evaluated using the modular approach for FCC and IC.

Assume also that there is negligible differences in emissions test result.

For either device, the unit is marked to show the FCC ID and the IC ID. To 
allow these devices to be used interchangeably for one another without having 
to purchase new labels to support each device, is it acceptable to label either:

1) "May contain FCC ID: , IC ID: yyy or FCC ID: aaa, IC ID: bbb," or
2) "Contains FCC ID: , IC ID: yyy or FCC ID: aaa, IC ID: bbb" with a check 
box before each set of ID strings?

Option 1 is preferred, since Option 2 requires a manual operation on an 
otherwise automated production line.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

-

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] 2011/65/EU and 2015/863/EU (RoHS Dir)

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.



2015/863/EU<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015L0863>
 was issued by the EU Commission as amending 2011/65/EU. However, 
2011/65/EU<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32011L0065> 
hasn't been updated to incorporate the amendment.



I'm having to explain to suppliers that 2015/863/EU is in force until it's 
repealed or replaced, but those vendors are continuing to point to the fact 
that 2015/863/EU has not been incorporated into 2011/65/EU.



Is there any expectation that (two years after the fact) that 2015/863/EU will 
be incorporated into 2011/65/EU? Anyone have any stories to share?





Peter Tarver



-

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] Old editions of IEC 65

[Peter Tarver]

fifth edition, 1976 (original) has been spoken for.


Priority:   normal
Date sent:  Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:31:55 -0700
Send reply to:  ptar...@ieee.org

> Hello, everyone.
> 
> I'm going through old papers and discarding items I'm no
> longer interested in keeping. I came across two old IEC 65
> editions. If anyone on the list has an historical (or other)
> interest in having these documents, I'm happy to save them
> from the bin.
> 
> fourth edition, 1972 (photocopied)
> fifth edition, 1976 (original)
> an erratum to the third edition (photocopied)
> 
> I'll hang onto these for a couple weeks, but they'll be in
> the recycling bin or donated to a library after that.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter Tarver
> 

-

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] Old editions of IEC 65

[Peter Tarver]

Hello, everyone.

I'm going through old papers and discarding items I'm no
longer interested in keeping. I came across two old IEC 65
editions. If anyone on the list has an historical (or other)
interest in having these documents, I'm happy to save them
from the bin.

fourth edition, 1972 (photocopied)
fifth edition, 1976 (original)
an erratum to the third edition (photocopied)

I'll hang onto these for a couple weeks, but they'll be in
the recycling bin or donated to a library after that.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

-

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] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

[Peter Tarver]

This reaches back twenty years and things change whether you're looking or not, 
but:

DBP Telekom FTZ 19 Pfl 1 "Voltage Limits for 60 V Consumers in 
Telecommunication Installations of the Federal German Post Office" (no date):

Normal range:   -57.4 V to -67.7 V
Short duration: -50.0 V to -75.0 V

Austrian Telecommunications Authority Dbh VI 0128 "Requirements for Power 
Systems using Cell Switching for 48/60 V Telecommunication Installations" 
(1981):
60 V Normal range: 57.5 V to 63.0 V for 
switching installations
  51.0 V to 
65.0 V for microwave systems
   48 V Normal range: 44.0 V to 49.5 V


My recollection is that this existed mostly in the region along both sides of 
the border of Germany and Austria, rather than Germany as a whole.


Peter Tarver

From: Kannan Dhamodaran [mailto:kan...@india.tejasnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 21:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

Thank you Joe Randolph and Bostjan for your information.

I'm surprised many have not answered. Or maybe that's all the info available.

Once again thanks to everyone in the group.

Best regards,
Kannan

From: Joe Randolph [mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

Germany has historically been 60V, and I believe they still are.

Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com<mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com>
http://www.randolph-telecom.com

From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 11:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

Hello Kannan,

As far as I know it was used in Russia, however they switch now to 48VDC. In 
deed there are many different systems and somewhere they might still use 60VDC. 
Maybe also in some other ex-Soviet Union countries.


Best regards,
Bostjan

From: Kannan Dhamodaran [mailto:kan...@india.tejasnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] -60Vdc Telecom supply voltage

Dear valued members,

can you guide me on nations that uses -60Vdc supply for telecom installations?

Appreciate your valued inputs in advance.

Best regards,
Kannan
-


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>>
-


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>>
-
-

Re: [PSES] Inrush Current

[Peter Tarver]

Customers sometimes want both the highest peak current and an rms over a 
defined number of line cycles. If the request is exclusively standards based, 
John's suggestion works well. You'll need to perform five to ten tests randomly 
closing on the supply cycle and pick the highest values.

If an rms value is also needed, you can capture the inrush on a scope and gate 
the measurement over the relevant number of line cycles.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 05:32

Well, no-one has challenged Annex B since it was first included in the 
standard. Note that the standard applies up to 16 A/phase, so no big motors, 
etc.

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: 10 August 2017 13:15

I think it also depends on what your EUT is.   Machinery will typically be full 
of all sorts of loads, motors, transformers, power supplies, computers, 
inductive, capacitive, etc.   The inrush would still be the peak current when 
the mains is switched on or also when the machine is started as they are 
typically two separate events.  These could last several seconds depending on 
the machinery and the incoming power sine wave would probably have little 
effect on it.

-Dave

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 8:00 AM

Look at Annex B of IEC/EN 61000-3-3. I did a lot of work on this for that Annex 
and you will often get different results each time, because of differences in 
how the current is interrupted at the previous switch-off. You do not select a 
point on the voltage waveform for the switching instant; you can't, anyway, 
because you must use the product's own mains switch (unless it doesn't have 
one). You switch at random points, because that is what happens in practice.

For duration,  you leave the mains voltage applied until the inrush transient 
is over (look at the current waveform); this is usually after three or fewer 
cycles, but for some products it can be rather longer. Normally, the first 
current peak is the highest, but occasionally the second peak is higher.

From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk]
Sent: 10 August 2017 12:30

Hi

We have several times been asked to test Inrush Current and have this function 
on our Harmonic tester, but it is not defined how it measure and we get very 
different measurements each time we switch ON the same EUT.

I can't find an IEC definition on the measurement other than "peak current".

I asume that it is most correctly to measure the current  by switching ON at 
the top of the sine (90 deg), but what about duration?

A peak current with a duration of 0.1 ms is not as interresting as the same 
current for 1 ms. And what if there are several current peaks after each other 
such as ringing wave form?

Best regards,

Kim Boll Jensen

-

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] Min size of double insulation symbol relaxed

[Peter Tarver]

Scott -

The CE mark size is mentioned in RED, but not the double insulation symbol. The 
LVD implicitly defers to the CE Marking Directive for size.

IEC 60417 doesn't have a symbol size for Symbol 5172. You might need to refer 
to the standard used for the product bearing the Symbol 5172 for the answer.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Xe
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 08:55
>
>  Is the minimum size of 5 mm relaxed to the legible reading
> in LVD and RED?  Where and when does it introduce?

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Surface Creepage & Air Clearance Calculator - IEC 60601-1 3.1ed

[Peter Tarver]

Is this not in IEC 60601-1 3.1ed?


Peter Tarver

From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 07:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Surface Creepage & Air Clearance Calculator - IEC 60601-1 3.1ed

Hi all,

Good day,

(1) Does anyone know where can we get a Surface Creepage & Air Clearance 
Calculator based on IEC 60601-1 3.1ed ?

(2) I was told that surface creepage and air clearance distance stated in IEC 
60950-1 2ed is used as Mean of Operator Protection (MOOP) while those stated in 
IEC 60601-1 2ed is used as Mean of Patient Protection (MOPP), is this true ?

(3) It is rather confusing given the 7 tables of creepage and clearance 
distance inn IEC 60601-1 3rd, is there any way to simplify ?

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you & have a nice day.


Regards, Vincent
-


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>>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] low voltage insulation coordination

[Peter Tarver]

It’s important to remember that, while conformal coatings do have incidental 
insulative functions, test houses (in general) only accept them for the 
purposes of keeping the underlying surface clean, thereby reducing the PD.

Some solder masks have been tested in end-products as conformal coatings, but 
not many have certifications for that application.


Peter Tarver

From: Richard Nute
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:43

Solder mask is, necessarily, a reasonable solid insulator.  The trace-to-trace 
insulation construction is

trace - solder mask - air - solder mask - trace

The solder mask is thin, so there is a depression between the traces.  This 
depression makes air a part of the insulation between the traces.

The construction is three capacitors in series.  Assuming the areas of each 
capacitor plate is the same, the capacitance of each is a function of the 
dielectric constant (and the distance through the dielectric).  The dielectric 
constant of air is 1; the dielectric constant of the solder mask is greater 
than 1.  The voltage divides according to the capacitance of each capacitor.  
The air is the weakest link, and will break down.  The heat of the arc may 
damage the solder mask.

A conformal coating is thicker, and would not have as much depression between 
traces; its dielectric strength would be higher than a solder resist coating 
scheme.

Rich

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Scientific principles behind Surface Creepage & Air Clearance

[Peter Tarver]

Hi, Vincent.

As Bernd pointed out, IEC 60664 gives the best information on the scientific 
basis for Clearance and Creepage distances.

Paschen’s Law will (theoretically) have no effect on Creepages. Theoretically, 
Creepages exists in two dimensions. Realistically, even the thinnest copper on 
a board has some height, so it’s possible that, under the right circumstances, 
Paschen’s could have an effect on Creepages as well as Clearances.


Peter Tarver


From: Vincent Lee
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 21:00


Hi all,

Good day,

1) May I know what is the scientific relationship between Paschen's Law 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschen%27s_law) and surface creepage and air 
clearance distance ?

2) If there is a relationship, how can one calculate the surface creepage and 
air clearance distance (such as those in IEC 60601-1 3rd) based on Paschen's 
Law ?

3) If Paschen's Law is not applicable for such calculation, then how are the 
surface creepage and air clearance distance (such as those in IEC 60601-1 3rd) 
obtained ? On what scientific basis or principles ?

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] IEEE1547 - Unintentional Islanding

[Peter Tarver]

Hi, Ralph (say hello to Sarah U also).

UL 1741, Supplement A has this as a requirement in Tables SA8.1 and SA8.2.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:59
>
> Has anyone been asked to perform the Unintentional
> Islanding tests in IEEE1547.1 at different static PF settings?
>
>
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

This afternoon's update: the resolution of the inductive current probes I have 
are limited to 10 Ma. All currents look like noise.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Tarver
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 09:29
>
> Thank you, Pete.
>
> I have received an initial response from Kikusui requesting
> additional information about the EUT and the test setup.
>
> I haven't looked at the waveforms yet, other than voltage.
> That's on the docket.
>
> Regarding the matter of scale, (as I'm sure you're aware) the
> Simpson 228 uses multiple measurement networks and was
> the first commercially available leakage current meter to
> address UL 1459 requirements. The Burn Hazard setting
> (corresponding to 61010-1, Figure A.3, and the Kikusui
> TOS3200, Network A) is 100 mA full scale and I am trying to
> measure current below 1 mA.
>
> For shock hazard (Let Go and Reaction), the scale is OK.
>
>
> Peter Tarver

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

Thank you, Pete.

I have received an initial response from Kikusui requesting additional 
information about the EUT and the test setup.

I haven't looked at the waveforms yet, other than voltage. That's on the docket.

Regarding the matter of scale, (as I'm sure you're aware) the Simpson 228 uses 
multiple measurement networks and was the first commercially available leakage 
current meter to address UL 1459 requirements. The Burn Hazard setting 
(corresponding to 61010-1, Figure A.3, and the Kikusui TOS3200, Network A) is 
100 mA full scale and I am trying to measure current below 1 mA.

For shock hazard (Let Go and Reaction), the scale is OK.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Pete Perkins
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 23:17
>
> Peter,
>
> Altho I have no experience with the Kikusui meter, I
> believe that
> you are on the right track chasing these differences.
>
> Since you have a Simpson 228 are you using a scope
> to look at the
> waveforms and get the readings for the scope display?  In
> my work with that
> meter I always looked at the scope display because of the
> better numerical
> resolution from the scope display.  If you have looked at the
> collexion of
> scope pix provided on safetylink you will see these details in
> each scope
> display - the waveforms as well as the digital readout of rms
> and pk-pk
> values.
>
> Not sure what your measured touch current is when
> you say the 228
> doesn't have the sensitivity you need.  The 0.3mA scale
> should easily read
> down to <0.03mA (<30uA) or below.  Or is it you can't read
> the differences
> between two measurements on the meter face?  Use your
> scope reading to get
> the numerical values, as discussed above.
>
> Not sure whether or not you can get scope
> waveform pix from the
> Kikusui unit.
>
> Unfortunately, the use of complex equipment takes
> some training
> and/or experience to get the correct result each time.  The
> mfgr makes it
> sound so easy but the proof is in the use pudding.
>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

Thank you, Nute.

Page 70 of the manual indicates the ability to select a measuring network. 
According to the first paragraph on this page, it's a meter only for voltage 
measurements. Page 71 shows how to select a measurement network when using 
meter mode.

FWIW, I used Networks A, B and G on Page 114 and can see the effects of 
frequency filtering between these networks.

Also FWIW, I have a Simpson 228 and see similar results to meter mode 
measurements, though the levels are below the resolution of the 228 to 
accurately read the result.

Because the EUT is double insulated, the PE is always "faulted." I can't use 
the faceplate outlet for PCC (Protective Conductor Current) measurements, but I 
can for touch current measurements.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:42
>
> Hello Peter:
>
> I downloaded the TOS3200 manual to better
> understand your problem.
>
> When the TOS3200 is in "meter mode," the terminals
> A-B comprise an ammeter (without the body
> impedance network).  This will yield a higher
> current than in the TC (touch current) mode.  I'm
> not sure if A-B can have the body impedance
> network switched in, although this is implied in
> Figure 4-11.
>
> For a two-wire (double-insulated) product, there
> is no earth wire so you cannot use the outlet for
> the measurement.  You must use the A-B terminals.
> The connections to a two-wire product are shown in
> "b" of Figure 4-7.

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

Thank you, John.

Agreed, but I have also moved the conductors around, used multiple wire 
routings, multiple power sources, power systems in two buildings, on a ground 
plane (this was happenstance in the second building)...

While the results have minor differences, the effects I'm seeing are always 
there.

I plan to try an isolation transformer, a la 60950-1 to see if there's a 
different response.

I have written to Kikusui and asked them a similar question. I'll report back


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 23:30
>
> Stray capacitances are different in the two modes, but
> probably only affect
> measurements if there are relatively strong high-frequency
> components in the  current.

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Kikusui TOS3200 Leakage Current Meter

[Peter Tarver]

Hello.

I am using a Kikusui TOS3200 to measure touch current for a 61010-1 application.

The product is double-insulated and has accessible USB port connector shells 
connected to the secondary circuit reference.

When using the TOS3200 in meter mode (using the two external meter leads), I 
obtain different results than if I measure using the faceplate 5-15R outlet and 
one external meter lead. For each test, I'm using the same measurement networks 
when attempting to correlate the results.

When using the outlet, the meter lead connects to the USB shell.

When in meter mode, I am connecting one lead to the USB connector shell and one 
lead to the power conductor of interest.

Has anyone experienced this with either the TOS3200 or other leakage/touch 
current meters?

FWIW, the manual does not indicate any special considerations are needed when 
using meter mode.

The instrument is in good condition and went through a calibration verification 
in AUG2016.

The currents are within "Measurement range setting Range 1," but the meter is 
set in auto range mode. I plan some additional experiments using defined 
ranges, rather than auto in the next day or so.


Peter Tarver

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Switchgear in Europe

[Peter Tarver]

Greetings.



I am researching requirements for switchgear in Europe and there are two 
prevailing series of standards: 60947-x and 61439-x. These series of standards 
are both produced by TC 121/SC 121A and there seems to have more than 
significant overlap in their scopes..



It does appear that 60947-x are for individual devices, while 61439-x appears 
to be for assemblages of devices, perhaps any number of 60947-x devices. I'm 
not certain I have that right.



I have seen products the identify compliance with 60947-x and don't mention 
61439-x.



Neither standard series is mentioned in the list of harmonized standards for 
the LVD and are not excluded in Annex II. The application is for less than 1 
kVac.



Some 60947-5-x are mentioned in the Mach Dir., but 61439-x are not. (For the 
end-product application, the MD does not apply, though low voltage switchgear 
is in scope of the MD.)



Interestingly, several 60947-x and 61439-x are mentioned in the list of 
harmonized standards for the EMCD.



I note that the CENELEC web site identifies these standards as intended for use 
to demonstrate conformity with the essential requirements of the:

  * LVD

  * EMCD

  * RED



and of these three, only the EMCD mentions any 60947-x or 61439-x standard. 
CENELC doesn't mention the MD at all, except for 60947-5-3 and 60947-5-5, which 
is at least consistent with the lists of harmonized standards for the MD.



How does one choose the correct standard(s) between the two series?



I am aware of 61439-0, but haven't yet purchased that document to discover what 
guidance it can give.





Peter Tarver



The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] MD vs LVD for Laboratory Equipment

[Peter Tarver]

I’m with you here, Dave. Just because a product contains a cooling fan should 
not mean the MD applies. But then, the products you cite are explicitly 
excluded from the scope of the MD (I’m sure you know this, since it appears you 
took the text directly form the MD).

However, in Article 2 of the MD, where the text Doug mentions is located, goes 
on to say that they’re, “intended for lifting loads and whose only power source 
is directly applied human effort.” This encompasses:

• automotive lifts and jacks
• come-alongs
• block and tackle sets (if sold as a unit)


Peter Tarver

From: Nyffenegger, Dave
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 17:40

But there are products meeting that definition of machine that are covered by 
the LVD and specifically excluded from the  MD:

— household appliances intended for domestic use,
— information technology equipment,
— ordinary office machinery,

-Dave

From: Douglas Nix
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:20 PM

I concur with Michael Loerzer. IMO, the test labs didn’t feel comfortable doing 
MD evaluations, so they used the “out” that was in the text of the previous MD 
(98/37/EC) that said that if the hazards were ‘predominantly electrical in 
nature” then the MD needn’t apply. Many machines were “slid-past” based on this 
misuse of the text of the MD, which is why the text was changed in the 2006 
edition.

If the device is “an assembly of linked parts, at least one of which moves” 
it’s a machine.
--
Doug Nix
d...@mac.com<mailto:d...@mac.com>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Peter Tarver]

In general, and for UL and CSA in particular, crimped terminals are evaluated 
for the number, size, stranding and types of wire under the crimp.

In most cases, only single wires are evaluated, unless the manufacturer 
specifies that they want additional testing.

Wire sizes are critical for any particular crimp design. Too large and all 
strands might not consolidate well under the crimp or might prevent adequate 
“squish” of the crimped joint and the crimp will fail. Too small and the crimp 
will never hold. Either case could serve sources of risk of fire and electric 
shock.

For UL standards, the default stranding is Class B. Other stranding counts 
require additional evaluation. I suspect, but have not confirmed, the same is 
true for CSA standards. It is not necessarily true that the more strands these 
better, since too many strands can form a poor crimp and the crimp tool or the 
crimp itself can cut or nick strands, which is not a good result. (I have asked 
both UL and CSA about decimating strands to get a wire size to fit into a 
connector crimp and was told this was unacceptable. An understandable response.)

Copper is the default wire type used for evaluation. Evaluations using aluminum 
conductors (or anything more exotic) must be done separately.

There is no magic method to find crimp terminals that are safety certified for 
multiple conductors under a crimp. They do exist, but it requires creative 
internet searches and contacting suppliers. Make certain you get copies of 
their certification test reports to verify any claims.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] UL Go?

[Peter Tarver]

It should be kept in mind that all of these so-called services are sales tools. 
My experience with all of the agencies discussed have been less than stellar on 
the delivery side, once a PO is placed.

Peter Tarver


The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] UL Go?

[Peter Tarver]

My experience to date is that UL only has knowledge being advertised below for 
only specific product categories/countries/markets. I have witnessed/heard 
claims of expertise that when it comes time to take action, they know less than 
the client does.

When asked to provide a list of competencies relative to several countries' 
requirements for grid compliance of distributed generators, we received an 
exorbitant quote for UL to research their own capabilities.

I have been less than impressed so far with such claims of aid, so I'm 
reluctant to entertain a subscription service.


Peter Tarver

From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 09:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL Go?

Has anyone taken a look at this? It was just sent to me by my UL representative.

Here is the text, as I do not think I can send an attachment:

UL-Go
For more information, contact us today at g...@ul.com
What is UL-Go?
UL-Go is an online subscription service created to solve your problems for 
finding
current, correct and complete Global Market Access (GMA) regulatory requirements
that apply to your products for the countries you're selling or wish to sell to.
What GMA Information is provided in UL-Go?
In partnership with UL, UL-Go can be customized to meet your company's
specific needs.
* This means you tell us the products, countries and regulations you want access
to, and we'll provide you with in-effect regulations (updated quarterly) as 
well as
updates on developing requirements.*
* We provide you with the expertly organized information you'll need to 
understand
the impacts each regulation has on your product, country by country.
Is UL-Go a new Service Offering?
Yes, UL-Go is a pilot product launched with comprehensive regulatory 
information and great features and functionality. As a pilot
participant, you can help us develop UL-Go in a way that will deliver even more 
value to you!
Partner with UL
Identify your most important needs, and help validate our solutions.
* What's first on your list? Do you to know the GMA services UL provides or do 
you need mobile alerts or do you want collaborations
spaces that will help you get to your markets faster?
* We've got the basics right - now let's get the interactions right!
Are there additional benefits to subscribing to UL-Go?
* You can make side-by-side comparisons for up to three countries 
simultaneously.
* You can download, print or share results easily and bookmark your favorite 
searches.
* Your global staff can have unlimited access to GMA information they can have 
confidence in.
What does it cost to subscribe to UL-Go?
* Each subscription will be quoted separately based on your selections.
* UL-Go is a customizable subscription-you select the countries and products 
you want access to for the regulations you need most.
What if I want only a one-time delivery of the latest regulatory requirements?
We're happy to provide one-time GMA research to you at any time. Just select 
the products and countries you are interested in receiving
regulation information about, and we will provide you with a quote for services.
UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC (c) 2016

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may 
contain proprietary and privileged information for the use of the designated 
recipients named above. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.
-


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>>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

[Peter Tarver]

Charlie –

Article 49
Transposition 1.
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 12 June 2016, the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They 
shall forthwith communicate the text of those measures to the Commission. They 
shall apply those measures from 13 June 2016.

Article 50
Repeal
Directive 1999/5/EC is repealed with effect from 13 June 2016.

RED is effective now. Unless I missed something deferring it’s adoption.


Peter Tarver

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 09:00

The RED doesn’t need to be used until next June, so I would wait as it may well 
be published in the next listing which is likely to be within next 2 months.

Regards
Charlie

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] PV Connectors: UL 6(9)703?

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

6703 and 6703A are for PV connectors, as you stated. 9703 is for cable 
assemblies that have cable with connectors integrated into an assembly. The 
connectors used in a 9703 product means the connectors themselves would also 
have to undergo a 6703 evaluation.

"Upgrading to 9703," is not a consideration. These outlines are for different 
product types.

Peter Tarver

From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 14:33


I'm trying to find out if UL 6703 (connectors for PV systems) is being upgraded 
to UL 9703 or the other way around.   UL's site isn't helpful - it could be 
drawings I got are just misprinted, but there was a UL 9703, "Outline for 
Investigation"

thanks,

Colorado Brian
720-450-4933
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Fire ants

[Peter Tarver]

Reminds me of a movie, Them!

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 23:09

Plutonium is probably not a good answer;
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Risk Assessment of Air Filter

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

UL will generally accept a Class 1 air filter. These are evaluated against UL 
900.

Otherwise, it depends on the standard for the end product what requirement 
apply. I recall 60950-1 accepting HF-1.


Peter Tarver

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 09:43

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 
<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>>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!

[Peter Tarver]

Some of the articles I'd read in some magazine or other (copies available if 
you know Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman), stated some equipment designers were 
paying extraordinarily close attention to maintaining the phase relationships 
between channels and between voltage and current, as signal passed through a 
system. Claims were made that doing so improved the accuracy of the reproduced 
sound.

I heard stories in the early 1980s of people standing around rooms, dropping a 
set of keys onto a glass coffee table and recording it, then everyone else 
closing their eyes while someone made them guess if the next sound they heard 
sound was recorded or live. Folklore to people like me, but gospel to some 
audiophiles.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor
> [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 17:32
>
> A very simple and inexpensive means of arranging staging is
> to introduce
> delays between left and right channels such that the sound
> appears to be
> coming from a particular direction. This is much easier to
> accomplish with
> headphones than loudspeakers, but it's the same principle.
> I've seen a
> convincing demonstration at the US Army Aeromedical
> Research Lab (USAARL),
> where something like five different radios can be going at
> once and a
> helicopter crew have to be able to intelligently respond in a
> crisis
> situation, and what people normally do in a situation like
> that where they
> can't pay attention to everyone is they zero in on one
> conversation and
> ignore the others, and to do that we use directionality.
> Originally there
> was none and the headphones could be blaring all channels
> at once, and the
> crew would simply turn off he radios they didn't want to
> hear, which wasn't
> good. By introducing specific delays for each radio, the
> various radios
> could be made to sound as if one conversation was from
> 12:00, another at
> 3:00 another at 6:00 and so on. That allowed the crew to
> mentally focus in
> on the conversation of interest and tune out the others
> temporarily.  But
> that is all software and digital circuitry: no fancy audiophile
> equipment
> necessary.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> > From: Peter Tarver <ptar...@enphaseenergy.com>
> > Reply-To: Peter Tarver <ptar...@enphaseenergy.com>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:37:04 +
> > To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > Conversation: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other
> than safety!
> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other
> than safety!
> >
> > I have heard of and known a few audiophiles that go to
> great lengths to have
> > sound reproduced as accurately as possible and spend
> enormous sums to
> > accomplish that.
> >
> > The term that was most silly in my view was holography;
> but I understood what
> > was meant. The aforementioned audiophiles claim to
> recreate the spatial
> > relationship between the physical locations musical
> instruments when recorded.
> > The needs for recording and reproduction are entirely
> impractical and don't
> > seem achievable for simple stereophonics, so it seems on
> the bovine
> > scatological side of the olfactory sense.
> >
> > BUT, I have stood in and moved about a room that was
> carefully put together.
> > In one part of the room one instrument (say clarinet)
> could be heard more
> > distinctly than in other areas, and so on for other
> instruments, giving the
> > impression that one was moving from musician to
> musician on a sound stage.
> >
> > Pretty clever, but outlandishly expensive.
> >
> >
> > Peter Tarver
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ken Javor
> >> [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 19:55
> >>
> >> Next, the terms are not entirely gibberish. They may be
> >> unfamiliar to those not in the hi-fi hobby, but I can make
> out
> >> all but one of these terms:
> >>
> >> Sound staging means stereo separation.  Or whatever
> >> passes fro that in the age of five and six different
> channels (I
> >> haven't kept up with this stuff since it departed from two
> >> channels).  I don't know how a fuse aids or degrades
> >> channel separation, but at least we can understand what
> is
> >> being claimed.
> >>
> >
> > The information contained in this message may be
> privileged and confidential.
> > It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to
> whom it is
> > addres

Re: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!

[Peter Tarver]

I have heard of and known a few audiophiles that go to great lengths to have 
sound reproduced as accurately as possible and spend enormous sums to 
accomplish that.

The term that was most silly in my view was holography; but I understood what 
was meant. The aforementioned audiophiles claim to recreate the spatial 
relationship between the physical locations musical instruments when recorded. 
The needs for recording and reproduction are entirely impractical and don't 
seem achievable for simple stereophonics, so it seems on the bovine 
scatological side of the olfactory sense.

BUT, I have stood in and moved about a room that was carefully put together. In 
one part of the room one instrument (say clarinet) could be heard more 
distinctly than in other areas, and so on for other instruments, giving the 
impression that one was moving from musician to musician on a sound stage.

Pretty clever, but outlandishly expensive.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Javor
> [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 19:55
>
> Next, the terms are not entirely gibberish. They may be
> unfamiliar to those not in the hi-fi hobby, but I can make out
> all but one of these terms:
>
> Sound staging means stereo separation.  Or whatever
> passes fro that in the age of five and six different channels (I
> haven't kept up with this stuff since it departed from two
> channels).  I don't know how a fuse aids or degrades
> channel separation, but at least we can understand what is
> being claimed.
>

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Ball pressure test of thermoplastic parts

[Peter Tarver]

Kristiaan –

Most of the responses agree with my understanding.

I will add that my recollection of the origins of the test in 60950 was related 
to electrical connections under compressive loading where the compression is 
needed to establish and ensure an electrical connection. Some custom made 
terminal blocks were made using inexpensive materials, including polyamide 
without inorganic fillers (like glass). As time moved on, the application of 
the testing expanded to cover other design features.

http://www.ulttc.com/en/solutions/test-methods/physical/ball-pressure-test.html

It appears the testing was simplified to a single temperature with the 
pass/fail criterion simply being the 2.0 mm diameter dimple, rather than 
finding the temperature at which the 2.0 mm dimple forms.

Maybe Pete Perkins or Rich Knute recall further back than I do.


Peter Tarver

From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 05:58

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
-

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this 
message!

-

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] Ambient temperature

[Peter Tarver]

Date sent:  Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:55:06 -0800
Send reply to:  ri...@ieee.org
> I've used a 5-sided cube inside the chamber to create a
> draft-free environment for performing flammability tests.


> Rich

This technique works well for heating tests on lab 
benches as well and quickens thermal equilibrium. Open 
face of the cube toward the benchtop. Especially nice 
in drafty or heavily air conditioned areas.

Peter Tarver

-

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] Ambient temperature

[Peter Tarver]

Alternatively, assuming the typical wire rack shelving in the chamber and
a relatively small EUT, free air flow can be limited by placing three wire
rack shelves onto adjacent levels that are out of the main air circulation
pattern in the chamber and placing pieces of cardboard or corrugated
fiberboard onto the two outer shelves, with the EUT on the center of the
middle shelf. Place a thermocouple 25mm to 50 mm above the EUT to provide
an ambient temperature measurement.

Never rely on the environmental chamber's controls or internal
thermocouples for internal ambient air temperature measurement. They will
rarely give the temperature at the location the EUT is placed.

If the EUT is large the environmental chamber needs to be much larger than
the EUT, as indicated by others.


Peter Tarver

-

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] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Peter Tarver]

Fine and valuable responses. Thank you.

Can anyone respond to my question?


> Has anyone else encountered this sort of requirement? The CBTL 
either
> could not or would not provide a written requirement, so this 
smells off.


Peter Tarver


Date sent:  Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:59:02 -0800
From:   Peter Tarver <ptar...@enphaseenergy.com>
> Howdy, howdy, howdy.
> 
> Product incorporates Type 5 component VDRs and is installed in an OVC III
> environment via field wiring connections. Evaluation for a CB Scheme
> Certificate and Test Report.
> 
> In recent dealings with a CBTL, I was told that the VDRs in a product
> needed to be Type 2. In referencing UL 1449 (for convenience), a Type 2
> VDR has the assumption of fixed wiring for the VDR itself and mounting by
> solder onto a board is not a consideration (except that a Type 2 VDR may
> include a system of Type 4 and/or Type 5 VDRs and other components) .
> 
> Per the CBTL, the Type 5 VDR certifications used may or may not be
> suitable for the application, depending on the level of testing performed
> on the VDR during its component evaluation, primarily associated with the
> combination wave open-circuit voltage amplitude related to the OVC.
> 
> I checked the CTL Decisions and OSM Decisions for 61010-1 for both the
> third edition and fourth edition and found zero related decisions. The
> CBTL was unmoved by my efforts, claiming this matter has been a long term
> discussion in TC66 and imposed their will irrespective of a defined
> requirement in the IEC.
> 
> Likewise, the CBTL was unmoved by the testing performed by another
> division of the mothership that applied 6 kVpk surge testing to the
> complete product as a part of another evaluation to type. This may be
> because the staff and intent of the testing was not under the
> accreditation of the CBTL/NCB, but I'm not certain.
> 
> In checking publicly available databases for components, the kind of
> information needed to preselect an appropriate Type 5 VDR is not possible.
> This ultimately boils down to evaluation of each Type 5 VDR by the CBTL
> for each and every prospective alternate or substitute VDR.
> 
> Has anyone else encountered this sort of requirement? The CBTL either
> could not or would not provide a written requirement, so this smells off.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter L. Tarver
> 
> -
> 
> 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>

[PSES] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Peter Tarver]

Howdy, howdy, howdy.

Product incorporates Type 5 component VDRs and is installed in an OVC III
environment via field wiring connections. Evaluation for a CB Scheme
Certificate and Test Report.

In recent dealings with a CBTL, I was told that the VDRs in a product
needed to be Type 2. In referencing UL 1449 (for convenience), a Type 2
VDR has the assumption of fixed wiring for the VDR itself and mounting by
solder onto a board is not a consideration (except that a Type 2 VDR may
include a system of Type 4 and/or Type 5 VDRs and other components) .

Per the CBTL, the Type 5 VDR certifications used may or may not be
suitable for the application, depending on the level of testing performed
on the VDR during its component evaluation, primarily associated with the
combination wave open-circuit voltage amplitude related to the OVC.

I checked the CTL Decisions and OSM Decisions for 61010-1 for both the
third edition and fourth edition and found zero related decisions. The
CBTL was unmoved by my efforts, claiming this matter has been a long term
discussion in TC66 and imposed their will irrespective of a defined
requirement in the IEC.

Likewise, the CBTL was unmoved by the testing performed by another
division of the mothership that applied 6 kVpk surge testing to the
complete product as a part of another evaluation to type. This may be
because the staff and intent of the testing was not under the
accreditation of the CBTL/NCB, but I'm not certain.

In checking publicly available databases for components, the kind of
information needed to preselect an appropriate Type 5 VDR is not possible.
This ultimately boils down to evaluation of each Type 5 VDR by the CBTL
for each and every prospective alternate or substitute VDR.

Has anyone else encountered this sort of requirement? The CBTL either
could not or would not provide a written requirement, so this smells off.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver

-

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] 802.11 built into a product for Australia

[Peter Tarver]

We are marking a product with the RCM and have done relevant emissions
testing for the complete product.  The intent from the start has been to
leverage the testing and certifications the supplier obtained to reduce
the amount of testing needed for the end product (a "modular approach" in
a global scale).

An IEEE 802.11 intentional radiator is incorporated into the product.  The
product incorporates a supplier's reference design that has been tested
against relevant ETSI standards for EU deployment.  These ETSI standards
are referenced  by AS 4268.  However, we do not have a test report that
explicitly mentions AS 4268 or a certificate indicating compliance with AS
4268 from the supplier.

In reading the Radiocommunications Labeling Notice, a 2014 revision adds
AS 4268 as a requirement.

I am asking the supplier to obtain at least a certificate showing
compliance with AS 4268, but they are pushing back, indicating they would
need to mark their chipset with the RCM.  This is an inappropriate use of
the RCM, since it apples to complete products.  The supplier has not been
able to identify the marking the claim is needed for their chipset.  The
802.11 intentional radiator is not being used for audio signals.

I am asking for the certificate or an amended report that explicitly
mentions AS 4268 to avoid having to go through unnecessary gyrations
should the compliance status of the intentional radiator come into
question.  My intent is also to no have to explain why the ETSI testing
covers the requirements in AS 4268 to a bureaucrat with limited technical
knowledge and to also satisfy customer requests for evidence of
compliance.

Am I asking too much of the supplier?


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver

-

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] Cd exemption for art material

[Peter Tarver]

One hopes, then, that artists will not lick their brushes or hold them in
their mouths, the same way one hopes science academy janitors will not do
the same with their mops and brooms.


Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Brian O'Connell
>
> The chemical principle of local concentration vs equilibria, and
> likelihood for direct exposure to users, seems to have been
> ignored.
>
> Brian
> Sr Janitorial Assistant For the Vulcan Science Academy
>

-

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] 208 split-phase?

[Peter Tarver]

Ralph –



I’m less familiar with the CEC, but the NEC does not preclude 208/120 V WYE
to a single-family home (residence).  It all depends on how much one is
willing to pay the utility for the service and proper provisioning and
system design at the use location.





Peter Tarver



*From:* McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2015 15:00
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?



NEC art 210.4 and 210.5 seem to allow it and the CEC here in Canada
certainly allows it. For large residential highrises, it's probably simpler
and cost effective to distribute 120/208 throughout the building (1/3 of
the suites on one 208 leg, and so on)  Phase balancing would be part of the
building electrical plan.  Sending a single-phase MV feeder to 1MVA,
120/240V transformer is likely a comprehmise

It's different for low density residential where stringing a mile or two of
single-phase MV to feed 120/240 pole transformers throughout the
neighborhood makes more sense.

-

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] 208 split-phase?

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

There are oftensmall, legacy grids that you come across or hear 
about.

I was recently told that some areas of the Northeast US have a 208 
V, split-phase power system to some residences and small businesses.  
Still 180° phase-to-phase and presumably 104 V phase-to-Neutral.  A 
specific area cited was "around Boston."

Has anyone heard of or directly experienced this voltage system?
  Is it split-phase or was I misinformed and it's from a WYE 
connected transformer?

Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org

-

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] 208 split-phase?

[Peter Tarver]

Doug –



I’m not certain what I’m referring to. Hence the question.  Since typical
120/240 V split-phase distribution in the US is from a center grounded
delta, my inclination is to believe this follows that same method.  Or the
original proposition I received is incorrect and a three-phase WYE is used
on the load side of the distribution transformer.



I think I prefer “bastard leg.”





Peter T



*From:* Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 09:01
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?



Peter,

The idea of a 208 V split phase is unusual and probably not the case here.
The number 208 is obviously derived from a three phase system.

I believe the system you are talking about is a red-leg or high-leg three
phase system.  Wikipedia does have a good review in this case (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-leg_delta;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-phase_electric_power).  In the figure
on Wikipedia this is a 240 VAC delta with the neutral applied between L1 &
L2, creating 120 V split-phases in 180 degree opposition.  The 208 is the
high leg, L3 in the figure.  You can verify the voltages using the bit of
trig further down the page. This voltage system is used in many parts of
the world but is no longer very common in the USA.

The alternative system this could be is a 416 V three phase, delta
configured with split phase secondaries at 208 V.  I have worked with this
configuration in the past.

All the best, Doug




doug...@gmail.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



‎



On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Peter Tarver <ptar...@ieee.org> wrote:

Good morning.

There are oftensmall, legacy grids that you come across or hear
about.

I was recently told that some areas of the Northeast US have a 208
V, split-phase power system to some residences and small businesses.
Still 180° phase-to-phase and presumably 104 V phase-to-Neutral.  A
specific area cited was "around Boston."

Has anyone heard of or directly experienced this voltage system?
  Is it split-phase or was I misinformed and it's from a WYE
connected transformer?

Peter Tarver
ptar...@ieee.org

-

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>




-- 



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 <
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>
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

Re: [PSES] 208 split-phase?

[Peter Tarver]

Brian of the nonburrito ilk -

This is usually called 208 V single-phase.

I'm still trying to clarify the specifics of the request.

Peter Tarver

> -Original Message-
> From: Kunde, Brian
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:34
>
> snip <
>
> I have heard the term "208 split-phase" many times from our
> customers who claim to have this but in reality what they have
> is 208 3-phase wired into a 230V split-phase receptacle but
> only using 208 Phase to Phase with the Grounded Neutral.
>
> snip <

-

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] Different surge test equipment, different results

[Peter Tarver]

David -

Thank you.

In one case, the output was after the CDN.  In the other, the CDN was not in
the circuit.  I will ask for calibration screen captures with and without
the CDN on both cases.  This could prove informative.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Schaefer, David
 Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 12:11

 Peter,

 Are the open circuit waveforms identical out of the surge
 generator, or out of the coupling decoupling network? -4-5
 relaxes the waveform limits for the rise time and duration at
 the output of a CDN, based on amperage. Check out tables
 6 and 7 of the 2nd Edition for more information. Two
 generators should produce identical waveshapes out of the
 generator itself, but the CDNs could have drastically
 different durations.


-

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] Different surge test equipment, different results

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

I'm wondering if others have experienced cases where different
manufacturers' surge test equipment  (ANSI/IEEE C62.41 ring and
combination waves) with nearly identical open-circuit voltage and
short-circuit current calibrations have led to very different results.  In
these cases, other than addressing the issue by using the surge generator
that produces the worst-case result, what were thought to be the causes
for the different results (ignoring the real possibility of a marginal
design).


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver

-

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] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

[Peter Tarver]

Adam –



Brian’s suggestion I a good one.



Answer from electrician should include three 20 A, two-pole branch circuit
breakers for each single-phase load, possibly one main 45 A, three-pole
breaker (with dependencies), plus Neutral bar (if needed) and ground bar.
Miscellaneous assorted potpourri to fit the application.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, August 20, 2015 13:36
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question



Thanks for the suggestion, Brian.  I just contacted the company that did
some of my office building's infrastructure, so will see how that goes.

Regards,

Adam



On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
wrote:

Have you talked to a certified industrial electrician?

Had a customer that bought several 250kVA distribution transformers that
also wanted some custom wiring harness and downstream panel boxes. So hired
an industrial electrician to advise us on materials and build it up. Passed
on-site assessment with no problems. Probably saved hundreds of hours of
engineering time, and $ in wasted material costs.

Brian


From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 208V/30A/3PH NEMA 3R power distribution question

First-time post with an application question after getting guidance from
many of you earlier this year about how/where to learn more about safety.
So here goes.I would appreciate recommendations for either reference
materials I should read or hardware options to convert a 208V/30A/3PH
branch circuit to support qty. 6 of 208V/15A/1PH loads while trying to
minimize the hardware volume.

Loads do not have internal supplementary protection devices, so I cannot
rely on the 30A branch circuit protection w/simple disconnect switch for
service support, similar to my home 240V air conditioning compressor
circuit.

I've searched the PSES archives with a variety of terms (208V, 3 phase,
load center, molded case breaker, DIN rail, NEMA, etc.) and have been
looking at online (well-known load center/circuit breaker suppliers,
electrical supply companies, Mike Holt forums, etc.) and just started
calling/visiting local electrical supply companies and big box home
improvement stores.  Haven't landed on a clear option yet.  3PH load
centers all appear rated for 100A or larger capacity requiring larger AWG
supply conductors than what I am told the branch circuit will have (10AWG
or possibly 8AWG depending on final building construction plans).
Descriptions of DIN Rail circuit breakers/supplementary protection devices
sounded promising for the smaller form factors, but I haven't found a
source that puts all of the hardware pieces together (supplementary
protection devices, DIN rails, housing, etc.) into a system that meets NEC
requirements -- this doesn't look like a common configuration.
I also looked at suppliers of rack mount PDU gear and found one option that
is about the size of a 12 circuit load center, but doesn't have a NEMA 3R
requirement (surprise..) and would require a larger housing.  The 208V
PDU's that I have seen and in a couple of cases, peeked inside, have
double-pole breakers with C19 outlets rated for 12A continuous load.
Are there other options worth investigating or aspects of the power
distribution design that I likely am not understanding?

Kind regards,
Adam


-

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

Re: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?

[Peter Tarver]

ISO 17025 (General requirements for the competence of testing and
calibration laboratories) has some requirements related to knowing what
you’re doing.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:30
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?





 The only ones that come to mind are ISO audits, and the contractual
requirements between you entity and the NRTL/NB you engage to provide your
certifications.



These only require that you possess the standard in question and employees
can locate it when necessary, thereby establishing familiarity.  None
that I know require any demonstration of competence.  NRTL's must establish
competence, and adequacy of their facilities, to their auditors.



Colorado Brian



-- Original Message --
From: Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Accreditation for standard comprehension?
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 23:15:53 +

Does anyone know of any conformance assessor certification schemes that
have provisions requiring the applicant to demonstrate familiarity with the
standards to which they will be assessing?



I am familiar with a couple lab certification schemes that appear to focus
on general business practices and professional qualifications and rigor of
assessment, but not necessarily needing to demonstrate the assessor knows
well what the standard requires.



Regards,

Lauren Crane

KLA-Tencor



-


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) 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
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) 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
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

Re: [PSES] UL HTTPS

[Peter Tarver]

UL recently changed a number of URLs and other items, probably as a matter
normal churn.  Several bookmarks no longer worked.

This is probably a related thing that they'll work through in time.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell
 Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:39

 Anyone know what is with UL's CDA site? Seems to have lost
 the secure connect for last several days. The pages seem
 only partially encrypted or perhaps mixed scripts, but cannot
 detect anything using inspect mode on browser. Hopefully
 they just need to renew cert.

 Sent email to them several days past - no response.

-

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] Serrated head screws for grounding/bonding

[Peter Tarver]

Good morning.

I am reviewing the suitability of serrated head screws in grounding and
bonding applications.  I am aware that these screws are good at resisting
vibration, but I've not seen them used for grounding and bonding purposes.

I question this application since, while the serrations oppose loosening
of the screw, they do not bite into the metal beneath the head and also
seem unlikely to form a gas-tight connection, allowing degradation of the
grounding/bonding interface over time.

What are your opinions?  Are you aware of any evidence of the reliability
of an grounding/bonding connection using such screws?

The screw will secure a wire, possibly with a crimp-on ring connector.  (I
also question the value of using a single toothed washer in these
applications.)


Regards,


Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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] Looking for Steven Holmes, formerly of UL

[Peter Tarver]

Anyone know how to contact him?  All contact information I have for Steven
is outdated.  E-mails bounce and the last telephone number I have for him
is kaput.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Looking for Steven Holmes, formerly of UL

[Peter Tarver]

Ben der, dun dat

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 15:34
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Looking for Steven Holmes, formerly of UL

 see his linkedin page.

 Brian

 -Original Message-
 From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 3:11 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Looking for Steven Holmes, formerly of UL

 Anyone know how to contact him?  All contact information I
 have for Steven is outdated.  E-mails bounce and the last
 telephone number I have for him is kaput.


 Regards,

 Peter L. Tarver

 -
 -
 ---
 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] weird stuff in agency agreement form

[Peter Tarver]

Not related to the specific content of this thread, but on topic for the
Subject: A certain SCC/NRTL lab had asked last year for a newly signed
agreement.  The section on what constitutes confidential information in
the new agreement explicitly excludes the name, title, business address
or business phone number of employees of client.

This smacks of a revenue enhancement scheme for the lab when they sell my
contact information to third-parties wishing to spam me.

Said lab could not be swayed to change anything in the agreement, so I
didn't sign the new agreement and the lab still gladly accepts our
business.


Regards,


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] question with regard of inverter

[Peter Tarver]

IEC 62109-1 considers “PV circuits in general” to be OVCII.



Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
*Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2014 13:57
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] question with regard of inverter



My understanding as well, namely, OV categorization in power distribution
is based on indirect (near-by) lightning strikes.

___

*Ralph McDiarmid*  |  * Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business*  |
*CANADA*  |   *Regulatory Compliance Engineering*

From:

John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk

To:

EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG,

Date:

08/06/2014 01:53 PM

Subject:

Re: [PSES] question with regard of inverter


--




In message 53e28a32.4020...@ieee.org, dated Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Richard
Nute ri...@ieee.org writes:

.  Your solar cell DC source is not
subject to load switching, but is subject to a direct lightning
strike.
Your DC OVC due to load switching is zero, and your OVC due to
lightning is beyond OVC IV.

Is resistance to a direct lighting strike required of civilian products?
I though that only 'indirect strike' was to be resisted, and OVC IV was
based on that.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__


-


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) 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

I'm looking to control smoke and fumes during component and other abnormal
conditions, as well as UL 94 testing.

Lots of food for thought.  Thanks.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 16:49
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

 My boss immediately said that below was a Freudian slip.
 Should have been  You would probably not get this additional
 functionality on the stuff intended for chem or bio labs.

 Brian

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 4:37 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

 My current hood is stainless steel, with a large bubble in
 the exhaust tube just above the hood. The bubble has fans
 fore and aft. The bottom lip of the hood is used to hang
 Lexan 'shields' on three sides; this is because I wanted them
 removable so that I can also use the underlying bench as
 normal test area when not torturing stuff. The back wall
 surface is covered with a sheet of galvanized metal and has
 latches for the lexan shields.

 Unless you run a very well-sealed hood area, fans must have a
 high volumetric rating. In any case, doubt that even the fans
 for a large computer would suffice for any type of setup.
 Fans for my hood are rated 120V or 208V, direct drive, fused
 and rated at least 500 cfm, and not anything special and are
 mounted to be easily replaced (seem to be replacing them
 about one per year), so do nothing for filtration, just vent
 the smoke to the outside smog. If the vent stack is very
 short, there could be a possibility of the exhaust having
 burning embers. Most commercial hood setups use a venturi or
 are centrifugal so can be difficult to service and replace.
 Look at fans in the Dayton or Grainger catalogs for ideas -
 decent exhaust fan assemblies will be at least $250 USD. But
 the commercial lab stuff is an order of magnitude more
 expensive. My set up is also useful for the Type Test on end-
 use equipment that could cause smoke emissions. You would
 probably not get this additional fun!
  ctionality on the stuff intended for chem or bio labs.

 If you want a portable setup to exhaust a small area just for
 UL94 stuff, build a metal box, about 1 cubic meter with inlet
 louvers at bottom, and use a bathroom exhaust assembly on the
 top.

 Or you could just put a steel bench in the parking lot behind
 the building...

 Brian

 -Original Message-
 From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:45 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

 Hi.

 I'm doing some research and am looking for recommendations
 for fume hoods
 for abnormal condition testing for my lab.  I have an
 opportunity to have
 an exhaust to outside air system and am looking for your
 thoughts on what
 has worked well for you in terms of cfm capacity and which
 manufacturers
 you've used.

 I'm thinking of a variable speed or at least multiple speed
 fan.  Product
 types range from about the size of desktop feature phone to a
 large tower
 computer.  I will likely also use the fume hood for
 flammability testing.

 I'm not interested in recirculating air types, since the
 filters can be
 expensive.

 Any insights you can give are solicited, even modifications
 you've made to
 improve performance or usability.


 Regards,

 Peter L. Tarver

 -
 -
 ---
 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 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

Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

[Peter Tarver]

Doug –



I’m familiar with those fans.  They were used in a PBX system I was
associated with in an alternate universe.  Good variable speed control on
them.



I’m not sure I’ll need a spark arrestor, but I appreciate the reference.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, June 21, 2014 14:47



I’ve had excellent success with backward curved impellers for high-flow,
low noise applications. EBM makes some great ones
http://www.ebmpapst.com/en/products/centrifugal-fans/centrifugal_fans.html.




Also, if you’re concerned about burning embers, consider adding a spark
arrestor into the exhaust duct: http://www.qamanage.com/SparkArrestor



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

[Peter Tarver]

Good pointer, Rich.

UL 94, §5.1 seems oriented at improving observation of the test.  I had
originally thought I might make a box out of polycarbonate.  I either need
to rethink that or add curtains or some low transmittance window film.

I also need to consider a flame resistant table top surface.  A simple
stainless steel pan could transmit heat and create undesirable secondary
effects.☺  An air gap might fix that, but then I need to come up with a good
support system.

Details, details ...


Regards,


Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 16:27

 Hi Peter:


 Since you will be doing flammability tests, see
 5.1 of UL94 which has specifications for the fume
 hood.  Note that during the flammability test,
 the hood is draft free while permitting normal
 thermal circulation of air past the specimen.


 Best regards,
 Rich


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] Exhaust fume hood recommendations

[Peter Tarver]

Hi.

I'm doing some research and am looking for recommendations for fume hoods
for abnormal condition testing for my lab.  I have an opportunity to have
an exhaust to outside air system and am looking for your thoughts on what
has worked well for you in terms of cfm capacity and which manufacturers
you've used.

I'm thinking of a variable speed or at least multiple speed fan.  Product
types range from about the size of desktop feature phone to a large tower
computer.  I will likely also use the fume hood for flammability testing.

I'm not interested in recirculating air types, since the filters can be
expensive.

Any insights you can give are solicited, even modifications you've made to
improve performance or usability.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] Greece and HAR cable

[Peter Tarver]

Visiting the EEPCA web site to look up some ENEC certification
information, I did a little extra browsing and came across this statement:

Due to the recent changes that happened in Greece, ELOT is obliged to
abandon the maintenance of its issued HAR licences.

http://www.eepca.eu/page.php?p=6

Following the link on the page to a HAR member list shows Greece is
absent.

Does anyone know the back story?


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] use of AC contactor in PV application in US/CAN

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Boštjan Glavič
 Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 01:01

 Is anyone familiar if it is allowed to use a contactor
 instead of circuit breaker in PV application to disconnect
 inverter from the grid?

 NEC in Article 690 does not specify it precisely.

 What standard needs to comply this contactor?


A circuit breaker is not required to be used as the disconnect device for
the grid, but branch circuit overcurrent protection is required, so it's
convenient to use a circuit breaker.  Aldous gave you the relevant
standards for contactors.

Many fire marshals require a separate disconnect switch for inverter
output connections to the grid.  Whether or not this switch can operate
a contactor will depend on the jurisdiction involved.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Critical Components definitions

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Brian Oconnell
 Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:38

 Concur with Mr. Nute.

Ditto.  To add by way of example, there was a recent thread on regulating
network.  Components without which or the failure of which the network
would lose it regulating function (within the context of the applicable
standard) would be deemed critical.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Meaning of regulating network in 61010-1

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Crane, Lauren
 Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:27

 John,

 Your reply makes sense to me, but it also brings me to
 notice that circuit is used freely in the surrounding
 text, and yet the standard says regulating network
 rather than regulating circuit perhaps this implies
 network is a narrower concept?

In undergrad courses I attended, 'network' and 'circuit' were used
interchangeably.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Meaning of regulating network in 61010-1

[Peter Tarver]

 From: sudhakar wasnik
 Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:38

 So in short impedence single element/combination is a
 network and RLC single element/combination is circuit.

 Any takers

It's completely arbitrary whether or not a circuit is considered a
network.  A differentiation could be derived based on passive -v- active
components, number of nodes, or based on function.  Someone will always
have a different opinion.

In the standards world, they are used interchangeably.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Cooling fan safety query

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Richard Nute
 Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:03

 Stalling the fan would be the better course of action
 as this would require the fan motor to dissipate some
 power as well as the series resistor, thus causing
 more heat -- but not much -- in the equipment.

My experience with small impulse start fans is that that generate
negligible heat when stalled, but this method would remove all doubt.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Cooling fan safety query

[Peter Tarver]

Ian -

Another consideration, since you have more than one fan, is that you can
disable *all* fans simultaneously to demonstrate that no cooling is
necessary for safety reasons.  This is a multiple fault scenario, but it's
at your discretion to do so to prove your case and eliminates the need for
cfm ratings.

Stalled rotor testing should not be needed in the end product unless:
1) the test was not done on the fan when it was safety certified
(very common, even among UL Recognized fans)
2) the fan if it is not safety certified at all (you state the
fans you're using are UL Listed, but I think you mean UL Recognized)
3) the fan is a type whose motor current under stalled conditions
can overload another component of the power supply (the impulse start dc
motors I've tested can go an interminably long time without getting more
than a smidgeon above the local ambient temperature)

Disabling (removing power) serves most of the thermal concerns.

There are flammability issues that may need to be met, as mentioned by
another poster, and providing the manufacturer and model can provide a
level of traceability to the relevant materials.

If you can successfully eliminate the need for cfm ratings and stalled
rotor testing, your only concerns are reduced to flammability and loading
of the power supply.  In some cases, you can use the fan ratings alone to
meet the standard's and certifier's requirements.

As a final word, alternate or substitution of components is an ongoing
issue for everyone involved in product safety certifications.  You can try
to have a handful of alternates ready when the certification evaluation is
performed and still have this concern because there's always a less
expensive alternative available.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Circuit Breakers - Branch Circuit Protection vs Supplementary

[Peter Tarver]

John -

The simplest method is whether or not the breaker is Listed or Recognized.
If it's Listed, it's suitable for branch circuit protection, within the
caveats of the product category (some exceptions may exist, but should be
detailed in the Listing). Recognized breakers are never suitable for branch
circuit protection and are only suitable for supplementary protection
applications, unless it's used as a part of a Listed assembly identified
for use as branch circuit protection.

QVNU2 breakers are not suitable for branch circuit protection.

Regards,

Peter Tarver



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Circuit Breakers - Branch Circuit Protection vs Supplementary

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Brian Oconnell
 Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:31
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

 But there are, in fact, listed CBs intended for supp
 interrupt protect.

I'm aware of UL Listed supplementary overcurrent protection fuses, but not
CBs.  What's the product category?


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Piotr Galka
 Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 05:15

 The fourth side: We (I hope I will not be alone) think
 point 1 is an error - it should call for No... (unique
 identification of document):

I will propose yet another position.  This position appears to me to
logically suit the intent of the RoHS Dir.

For a product with a given model designation, there may be multiple product
revisions that don't affect the overarching model designation.  I've worked
at companies that had three levels of product identification (others may
have more), each of which was marked on the product for traceability
purposes that aided in customer support and failure analyses.

Level 1: A model designation that is generally unvarying, but may have a
revision code that changes only for large changes in functionality that
marketing wants to make customers aware of.

Level 2: A part number for the product that is used coincident with the
model designation that contains a suffix that is allowed to change more
frequently than the model designation.

Level 3: A lower level part no. that changes frequently (even with every
minor ECO or MCO addressing minor cosmetic issues as well as with more
substantive changes) and may or may not change a suffix only.

To address the RoHS Dir. for a product following the above (or a similar
scenario), each level of product identification that can be or is RoHS
compliance affecting must be identified in the DoC.  This might include only
the first two levels in the above example.  As the revision levels roll up,
a new DoC should be issued that covers the relevant product identifier
levels.

It is completely illogical that every S/N should be identified.  For
products that have high production rates, this is ridiculously onerous.  Not
that politicians are immune to being illogical or ridiculous, either by
design or through ignorance or negligence. ☺


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Categorizing a new product

[Peter Tarver]

TO,OB (did you really mean that?) –



There are a number of devices designed for similar uses, but that are for
wiring in.



Example manufacturers include TeleHaase (http://www.tele-online.com),
Lovato Electric (http://www.lovato.co.uk/) , ABB (http://www.abb.com/) and
others.  You can peruse their web sites for these devices and get the
flavor of their certifications.  Fair warning, many specs. are not
available in English.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2013 15:52
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Categorizing a new product





Dear Regulatory Wizards,

I’ve been asked to provide the regulatory scope for a product type which is
new to me, and I’d appreciate if you could provide me with a sanity check.
We are considering Safety and EMC for Europe only here, of course other
Directives(RoHS 2, REACH, WEEE, etc.) will apply. A CB report may be
considered for additional countries, as required.



The product is a small device which is intended to plug into the mains via
a supply cord, and, in turn, provides a socket for another piece of mains
operated equipment.

The function of the device is to pass mains power through, and provide
under- and over-Voltage protection by disconnecting the mains under extreme
conditions(using a relay). It automatically re-connects the mains when
Voltage returns to the normal range. It may also provide some surge
protection. This device will be intended for use with small industrial
appliances with input ratings of 100-250V, 50/60Hz, drawing maximum normal
currents of less than 12A.

This device is designed to prevent damage to the attached product only, the
product itself is compliant with current standards for Europe and North
America.



Using my friend Google(thanks Brian O.), I’ve arrived at two European
safety standards which seem applicable:



EN 60255-27 :2005 Measuring relays and protection equipment - Part 27:
Product safety requirements

EN 50550-2011 Power frequency overvoltage protective device for household
and similar applications (POP)

Additionally,

-  plugs and sockets will comply with EN 60320-1.

-  if not specified within these standards, spacings will comply
with EN60664-1.



For EMC immunity and emissions:

EN 61326-1:2006 Electrical equipment for measurement, control and
laboratory use - EMC requirements - Part 1: General requirements



Please provide your comments. Am I missing anything? If not, I’ll purchase
my standards, and begin the process.

Thanks for your help.

Best Regards,

Brian C.

(The *other*, other Brian)



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] CPSC product recall

[Peter Tarver]

For those who don't subscribe to InCompliance magazine or track recalls
through other methods, the below link is related to a US product recall of
a relocateable power tap with surge protection.

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2014/Schneider-Electric-Recalls-APC-Surge-P
rotectors/


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] standards update and legal madness

[Peter Tarver]

Brian -

Threats of tort is commonly used to try to get someone else to absorb the
types of costs described below.  Depending on the actual cost of the
required product fixes, one side or the other may decide to eat the costs,
simply based on the typically exorbitant legal costs for pursuing a tort
and the potential for losing.

The contracted company's legal dweebs need to review the contract to see
if professional incompetence is on their side or on the part of the
contracting company.  Meaning, how specific was the contract in specifying
the applicable standards and was there any presumption of continuing
compliance over time.  This ties into John Shinn's question about, build
to print, which is a contract manufacturer's backup Plan A.

As far as the who's who, simply direct them to the committee responsible
for the standard and let them tease out its membership.  It should not be
the contracted company's responsibility to take action beyond this minimal
level, unless there's a desire to play extra nice until it's time to not
play nice.

If the contracted company's legal dweebs are on the ball, they're most
likely already on these issues.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:46
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] standards update and legal madness

 None of this is a representation of my employer.

 A company makes a component for North American market
 designed for the needs of a single customer. The
 company received notices from CSA and UL with
 tabulation of standards corrections. The company
 informed affected customer of time and cost to update.

 The company then receives letter from the customer's
 legal dweebs - they want to see complete list of
 organizations and individuals that contributed to the
 errors that caused a mandatory update to the standard.

 The company's customer is considering pursuing a tort
 for lost opportunity and professional incompetence. Has
 this ever been done? Has a member of a TC/WG ever been
 served with a subpoena for this stuff? Is this stupid
 or just insane?

 -
 ---
 -
 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] Standards copyright lawsuit

[Peter Tarver]

There is occasionally much haranguing regarding how standards should be
free.



The NFPA has joined ASHRAE and
ASTMhttp://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/september-october-2013/pov/first-word?order_src=C247to
claim otherwise.





Regards,



Peter L. Tarver



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Public Service: Opt Out From Online Behavioural Advertising

[Peter Tarver]

 From: N. Shani [mailto:nshani...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 18:28

 This may apply to Canadian on-line advertising only,
 but I'm sure other jurisdictions around the globe have
 similar sites/tools available.
 To see more, and opt-out, see
 http://youradchoices.ca/choices

I went to that site out of curiosity and it told me that to use the site to
look at its content, I had to allow setting cookies in my browser (I have my
browser to not allow third-party site cookies, but otherwise they're
allowed).

Must be Canadian humor.☺


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] question on clause 6.3 and 1.4.11 of IEC60950-1

[Peter Tarver]

Zhang Guoqing  -

I'm not sure where to begin to respond to the below, so I'll limit my
responses to the following.

1) §1.4.11 is in §1.4, General conditions for test, and presents an
assumption about the nature of telecommunications networks in general.
For the purposes of this standard, is not intended to provide a
reference requirement to other standards or to place a specific
requirement on the output of a TNV circuit.

2) ETSI and other standards are welcome to reference 60950-1, but this
does not always equate to a perfect mapping of 60950-1 into those other
standards.

3) The maximum current a circuit is capable of delivering is not
necessarily (and typically is not) into a load identical to the Norton
equivalent output impedance of the source circuit.

4)  TNV circuits output characteristics are evaluated in §2.3.

5) I was a member of the Canada/US BiNational Working Group (BNWG) when
the requirement in §6.3 was developed and had input into TC 74 through
the TC 74 Chair, who was also a member of the BNWG.  The same is true for
§1.4.11.

6) If you're interested in further reading, consider UL 1863, which was
one of the references used to develop the 1.3 A limit.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


 -Original Message-
 From: Zhangguoqing (A) [mailto:zhangguoq...@huawei.com]
 Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 19:05
 To: Peter Tarver; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: 答复: [PSES] question on clause 6.3 and 1.4.11
 of IEC60950-1

 Dear Peter,

 Thanks for your reply.

 For this topic, my opinion is:
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 - if it is declared and installed for power
 transmission, the power transmit / receive equipment
 will be installed by skilled person, and be installed
 in pairs.
  clause 6.3 should be the requirement for power
 transmit equipment, but 15VA should not be the
 requirement for power transmit equipment.  so, the
 power distributed to and available from the
 TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK will be larger than 15 VA.

 - if it is not declared and installed for power
 transmission, the power available from a
 TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK is considered to be limited
 to 15 VA, and so the equipment connected to the
 TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK
   ? does not need to comply with §4.6.4.3
   ? does not need a fire enclosure for the
 connectors, per §4.7.2.2,
 7th dashed paragraph
   ? does not need a fire enclosure for materials
 rated HB75 or HB40
 less flammable (under specified conditions), per
 §4.7.2.2, 9th dashed
 paragraph, 2nd dotted subparagraph
   ? use the connector material exemption in
 §4.7.3.3, 3rd paragraph,
 5th dashed subparagraph
   ? etc.
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 But, in some ETSI standards, 15VA is a limit for power
 transmission equipment. The reason for this limit is
 interpreted as  according to EN 60950-1  in those
 standards!
 For example, this sentence is extracted from clause 4.3
 of ETSI TR 102 614 V1.1.1 (2010-06):
 15 W is the limit according to EN 60950-1 [i.9] for the
 power on a telecommunication network and the A4
 interface is
 be designed in order to limit the output current to a
 value that does not cause damage to the
 telecommunication wiring
 system due to overheating, under any load condition as
 required by the same EN 60950-1 [i.9]. The S/Pfilter
 should be
 dimensioned for the maximum current of 250 mA at 60 V.

 so, I am confused with this sentence.


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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

Re: [PSES] 答复: [PSES] question on clause 6.3 and 1.4.11 of IEC60950-1

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 21:21

 To summarize, limit of 1.3A is applicable for CO
 equipment, and limit 15VA for subscriber units
 (analogue or ISDN phones, modems etc).

This is simply not correct.  Please see my post earlier in this thread.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] question on clause 6.3 and 1.4.11 of IEC60950-1

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Zhangguoqing (A)
 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 17:57

 If a transmit equipment can deliver 1.3A current into
 telecommunication network, then in the corresponding
 receive equipment (terminals), 1.3A current is
 available, do you think so?

The 1.3 A limitation is under worst-case loading conditions, and is not
the normal operating current.  For any loading condition up to and
including short-circuit, the output current available from the source
cannot exceed 1.3 A.

This concept is not unlike the LPS current limits in §2.5 in that the
intent is to not create a risk of fire in certain common premises wiring
and connection devices.

 My question is why the standard states the transmit
 equipment can deliver 1.3A (max.), but at the same time
 it states the power available from a TELECOMMUNICATION
 NETWORK is limited to 15 VA?

The 15 VA assumption in §1.4.11 is assumed by definition.  It is the
assumed power available from an unknown/generic telecommunications
network, which may come from a PBX, a central office, a key system or
other equipment, which the equipment under evaluation has no specific
knowledge of.

Because this is assumed by definition it is not a requirement that applies
to equipment outputs in IEC 60950-1.  These requirements are contained
elsewhere in the standard.

If you connect a terminal device to a telecommunications network, the
anticipated power available from the telecommunications network is 15 VA.
By defining this power limitation, for the purposes of this standard,
doubt about what the connection is like is ameliorated.

For example, if I were to connect a POTS telephone or other network
(nonPoE) device to a telecommunications network, the POTS device:
• does not need to comply with §4.6.4.3
• does not need a fire enclosure for the connectors, per §4.7.2.2,
7th dashed paragraph
• does not need a fire enclosure for materials rated HB75 or HB40
less flammable (under specified conditions), per §4.7.2.2, 9th dashed
paragraph, 2nd dotted subparagraph
• use the connector material exemption in §4.7.3.3, 3rd paragraph,
5th dashed subparagraph
• etc.

The same exceptions/exemptions can apply to those portions of a fax
machine, computer, answering machine and the like, where there are no
extenuating circumstances caused by other circuits/components in the
vicinity of the TNV circuit.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] question on clause 6.3 and 1.4.11 of IEC60950-1

[Peter Tarver]

 -Original Message-
 From: Zhangguoqing (A) [mailto:zhangguoq...@huawei.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 05:39

 My question is , if a equipment intends to provide
 power over the telecommunication wiring system, the
 current and the power should be controlled at the same
 time?  or, only the current should be controlled?


Zhang Guoqing -

§1.4.11 is the assumed power available *from* a telecommunications network
to connected equipment (terminals).  A POTS device, for example, with no
other power sources can be considered to be supplied by a 15 VA power
limited source.  This plays nicely with the 15 VA limits you'll find in
the fire enclosure and internal wiring requirements.

§6.3 relates to current generated by equipment and *delivered into* a
telecommunications network under worst-case loading conditions.  The
intent is to protect wiring and wiring devices typical in
telecommunications networks, in particular modular plugs/jacks, line cords
and the like.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Wire ampacities -

[Peter Tarver]

 From: McInturff, Gary
 Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:16

 I was just discussing the current handling capabilities
 of appliance wiring material and while I have a chart
 it is of unknown heritage and differs from some other
 reference material. For example the chart I have says
 26AWG wire can handle about 0.25 amps, but when I look
 at the connector it says about 1 amp with a 26 AWG
 wire.

AWM will have a temperature rating associated with each wire style and
might be surface marked on the wire insulation.  The ampacity of AWM is
such that its measured temperature does not exceed the temperature rating
for the wire style while carrying the intended current, barring any
extenuating circumstances like exceeding the temperature allowed in a
certain area of a product due to material constraints, hazardous
atmospheres, or routing through an area in the equipment operating at an
elevated temperature, etc.


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Standard for testing of high voltage penetrators

[Peter Tarver]

You can check CENELEC’s TC 20 web site.



Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Niels Hougaard [mailto:n...@bolls.dk]
*Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 07:23
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Standard for testing of high voltage penetrators



Dear list members,



High voltage penetrators rated 1,1kVAC are tested according to EN 50393.



Does anyone know the similar standard for a penetrator rated 1,5 kVDC?



Regards,

Niels

Niels Hougaard

Bolls ApS

Ved Gadekæret 11F

DK-3660 Stenløse

Denmark



T: +45 48 18 35 66

F: +45 48 18 35 30

n...@bolls.dk

www.bolls.dk





-


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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Norwegian RF Study

[Peter Tarver]

There’s also an article much shorter than 200 pages at



http://www.fhi.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=240trg=Content_6765Main_6664=6894:0:25,7553:1:0:0:::0:0MainContent_6894=6765:0:25,7558:1:0:0:::0:0Content_6765=6729:100854:25,7558:1:6770:2:::0:0



This article also indicates there’s little value in further research.



Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
*Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 05:11
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Norwegian RF Study



*The Norwegian Institute of Public Health released a study of
electromagnetic exposure to humans earlier this year. You can get a PDF for
free by going to*

* *

*http://www.fhi.no*

* *

*then click on the little British flag in the top right corner to get
English (well, unless you like to read Norwegian). Then just type
“electromagnetic” into the search box and you should be offered a download
for  “Low-level radiofrequency electromagnetic fields – an assessment of
health risks and evaluation of regulatory practice. NIPH report 2012:3”*

* *

*The executive summary is:*

* *

*The Committee has assessed the health hazards from low-level
electromagnetic fields generated by radio transmitters. These
electromagnetic fields are found around mobile phones, wireless phones and
networks, mobile phone base stations, broadcasting transmitters and other
communications equipment. The Committee has evaluated the power of the
fields, whether they pose a health risk, the current regulatory practice,
and whether the threshold limit values for exposure are observed.*

*The health authorities have determined that the threshold limit values for
electromagnetic fields around transmitters in mobile phones and other
equipment should be the same as those recommended by the International
Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The threshold
limit values are based on fields above a certain power that can cause
harmful heating of tissue. The ICNIRP has not observed other adverse health
effects under this level. *

*The threshold limit values for these fields are 50 times below the level
that causes heating of human tissue or stimulation of nerve cells. Due to
increasing public concerns, the government requested the appointment of an
Expert Committee to assess whether such low-level electromagnetic fields
could cause health effects. **Regarding equipment that provides the lowest
exposure, such as base stations, wireless networks, broadcasting
transmitters and proximity to other mobile phones, the experts believe that
the risk assessment has negligible uncertainty. In other words, it is
reasonably certain that such equipment is not associated with health risks.
*

*The report is approximately 200 pages long and includes Norwegian and
English summaries.*

* *

*Ed Price
**WB6WSN
**Chula Vista, CA USA***



-


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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] breakage of the fuse

[Peter Tarver]

 -Original Message-
 From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
 Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 21:41

 Peter,

 Fuse is not replaceable. It needs to be sleeved (tubed)
 and only manufacturer can repair the power supply.

 Due to the tubing, there is not likely that vaporized
 metal would affect other parts and decrease safety
 distances.

Boštjan -

Don't be too hasty in that tubing assessment, simply because it's there.
The pressures involved can be substantial and the sealing ability of the
tubing would need to be carefully reviewed, as well as application
methodology (work instructions and craftsmanship).  After a fuse opens the
circuit involved, the tubing needs to be cut open to look for evidence of
metal vapor deposition.  Assume nothing.

During my employ at a well known NRTL, I was responsible for testing glass
tube and other fuses, as well as having seen glass tube fuses crack,
ferrules become dislodged (even on solder in place fuses), when the
interrupting (breaking) capacity was too low for an application in
end-product equipment.

I'm glad the fuse will be replaced with another, more approriate type.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] breakage of the fuse

[Peter Tarver]

When a fuse's interrupting (breaking) capacity is too low for an
application and the fuse opening interrupts current in a manner that
causes the glass to crack or break, the temperature gradient across the
glass and the internal pressure created by the plasma when the fusible
element vaporized can and will push some of the vaporized metal out of the
confines of the glass and contaminate the surrounding area.  Sometimes the
deposited metal is not readily visible and even if visible does not always
clean up easily or well.  The Creepage Distances may be compromised.
Depending on the overall design, this can cause increases in touch current
(leakage current) and otherwise increase the risk of electric shock with
continued product use.

Replacement of the fuse can become more frequently necessary due to the
contamination allowing unintentional current flow to keep the product
operating.  If each successive fuse replacement uses the same fuse, more
of the same may result.  If the product isn't returned for replacement or
discarded, the fuse might eventually be replaced with a larger rated fuse
with possible further degradation of safety.


Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments

[Peter Tarver]

Gary -

Per the list of harmonized standards published by the European Commission,
EN 60950-1:2001 was superseded by EN60950-1:2006 on 1JAN2010.  Per
CENELC's web site, EN60950-1:2006 was published in 14APR2006.

If we were to assume even a three months delay before being published in
the EU OJ, there was about a 3 1/2 year transition window.


Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: McInturff, Gary
 [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
 Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 08:06
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments

 Ha now I'm getting new words - lost favor and expired,
 but not so not sure I have asked the right question and
 I have a follow-up question.
 First of all my preference would be to update to the
 current standards etc but we have an existing product
 with very small sales for Europe. Sales is all over the
 place claiming low voltage directive, and I am pointing
 out that an even though the ITE equipment is in fact
 powered by very low voltage there is a harmonized
 standard for this type of equipment that takes
 precedence,  60950. Obviously they disagree since it
 affects their sales. I am holding my ground since it is
 my function to help protect our markets in EU and for
 the potential legal and economic impact on our company
 if all goes wrong. In the middle I suppose is that the
 risk is very small - a logical argument that I have to
 counter every so often.
 So what I'm really trying to determine is this.

 Obviously new products have to meet 60950 but existing
 products have a presumption of conformity even under
 old standards for X time. So if it still maintains
 presumption of... and that presumption of hasn't
 expired cannot I not release the small number of units
 to sales? I'm really trying to find a middle ground
 while these guys get their act together to build a
 business case that would warrant the expenditure to
 update the product to the new standards.

 I have to dig out the scope for the LVD, but I do have
 to admit I don't have a great argument why the low
 voltage ITE device couldn't satisfy the safety
 directives by claiming it under the LVD (still has EMC
 concerns which are in fact addressed). Hopefully I can
 develop that argument before I get the call I know is
 coming from the VP of sales etc.

  Thanks for the input so far and the date of standard
 withdrawal, but still need to understand if I can
 maintain presumption of conformity if the docopos-
 whatever hasn't expired.

 Happy to send John the nickel.


 Gary

 -Original Message-
 From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
 Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:30 PM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments

 In message
 D250D01E39356A4E9CC3B4B459D6655097DCF204@MS-CDA-
 01.advanced-input.com,
 dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, McInturff, Gary
 gary.mcintu...@esterline.com
 writes:

 Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on
 IEC 60950-1:2001,
 First Edition I have a small sale - not large enough
 to generate the
 approval fees to 2nd edition and latest amendments.
 But if the date of
 cessation et al - hasn't passed we could continue with
 the sale. My
 first answer was no to the Marketeers - but I think
 I'm wrong if the
 old standard still provides presumption of conformity.

 It expired on 1 December 2010.
 --
 OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it?

 John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh,
 Essex UK

 -
 ---
 -
 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-
 guide.html
 List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 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

[PSES] Looking for an alternative to SII in Israel

[Peter Tarver]

Photovoltaic inverters and related equipment.

Poor service and lousy communications are leading me to consider a move.
Any input will be accepted.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] 60950 1st edition and amendments

[Peter Tarver]

*From:* McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 18, 2013 16:23



Anybody know the Docopocoss (or whatever on that) on IEC 60950-1:2001,
First Edition



Gary –



*EN** *60950-1:2001 lost favor on 1DEC2010.



You owe John Woodgate a nickel.



Peter Tarver



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits

[Peter Tarver]

Rich -

Notwithstanding your statements about the safety insulation needing to
meet the testing, I have always viewed the testing with the SPC removed or
disabled to be an allowance, since in almost every instance, will cause a
false indication of breakdown of the safety insulation by means of
fulfilling their intended functions.

This view is similar in concept to allowing a dc test when capacitances
will allow excess currents to flow during the same tests.

Your answer sells better in committee.


Peter Tarver

 -Original Message-
 From: Richard Nute

 Hi Joe:


 Very quickly...

 SPDs are not considered reliable components or
 assemblies.
 The safety standards anticipate a failure -- anywhere
 from open-circuit to short-circuit.

 In the event of an open-circuit, there is no indication
 of such a failure.  And, of course, all transients then
 pass through the open SPD.

 Consequently, the equipment safety insulations will be
 called upon to withstand the expected transient
 overvoltages.
 So, the standards require performing the voltage
 withstand test without the SPD in place.


 Best regards,
 Rich


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] UL warning regarding a wall receptacle

[Peter Tarver]

*From:* John Allen
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:14



 what is the point of including “sophisticated” circuitry



Judging from historical appliance development, a clock.  Judging from the
direction of things, to turn your toaster off without your foreknowledge or
permission because your using too much electricity, and so Google can let
you know when you need to buy more certified organically produced, free
trade soy-milk.



Peter Tarver



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] UL warning regarding a wall receptacle

[Peter Tarver]

UL warning regarding a wall receptacle (socket outlet)

http://www.nema.org/News/Pages/UL-Warns-of-Potentially-Hazardous-Receptacl
e.aspx

I'm not aware if mixing of voltages is allowed in a duplex receptacle (I
suspect it is not, since wiring errors become more likely and segregation
of wiring and other issues come into play in the device box).

The marked manufacturer makes UL Listed outlets.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] UL warning regarding a wall receptacle

[Peter Tarver]

John -

I was able to find it in UL's public notices at

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/newsroom/publicnotices/detail/index.jsp
?cpath=/global/eng/pages/newsroom/publicnotices//detail/data/ul-warns-of-p
otentially-hazardous-receptacle-release-13pn-05_2013043008.xml

From the photos, it looks as though the receptacle doesn't mix wiring
types, it's that the mechanical interface accepts 125 V and 250 V NEMA
plug types.  Based only by appearance and that the assumption receptacle
can accept NEMA 5-15P, an quick and dirty analysis of potentially
compatible NEMA configured plugs is presented below.

1-15P (ungrounded, 125 V, 15 A; will fit)
2-15P (ungrounded, 250 V, 20 A; will fit)
2-20P (ungrounded, 250 V, 20 A; might fit)
5-15P (grounded, 125 V, 15 A; will fit)
5-20P (grounded, 125 V, 20 A; will fit)
6-15P (grounded, 250 V, 15 A; will fit)
6-20P (grounded, 250 V, 20 A; might fit))


Peter Tarver


 -Original Message-
 From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
 Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:11
 To: 'Peter Tarver'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: RE: UL warning regarding a wall receptacle

 Peter
 Whilst the link to the UL press release works, the
 follow-on links to the
 actual photos do not appear to.

 John Allen
 W.London, UK.


 -Original Message-
 From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On
 Behalf Of Peter Tarver
 Sent: 06 May 2013 17:56
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: UL warning regarding a wall receptacle

 UL warning regarding a wall receptacle (socket outlet)

 http://www.nema.org/News/Pages/UL-Warns-of-Potentially-
 Hazardous-Receptacl
 e.aspx

 I'm not aware if mixing of voltages is allowed in a
 duplex receptacle (I
 suspect it is not, since wiring errors become more
 likely and segregation of
 wiring and other issues come into play in the device
 box).

 The marked manufacturer makes UL Listed outlets.


 Regards,

 Peter L. Tarver


 This email message is for the sole use of the intended
 recipient(s) and may
 contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
 you are not an
 intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy,
 disclose or distribute
 this message. If you received this message in error,
 please contact the
 sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
 original message.

 -
 ---
 -
 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-
 guide.html
 List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
 Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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



 -
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 3162/6302 -
 Release Date: 05/06/13


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] UL warning regarding a wall receptacle

[Peter Tarver]

 From: Pete Perkins
 Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:48

 snip 

 I already have a mixed line voltage
 and USB wallplate adaptor that is very handy.

What voltages are mixed in your cover plate or are you referring only to
line voltage and USB/SELV?

Since small device SMPS for USB charging are quite small these days, I
must assume the cover plate USB power source has the SMPS built into it.
For this scenario, it's readily conceivable that adding this functionality
could be safely accomplished.  I did a quick search on UL's database and
found three companies with Combination tamper resistant receptacle with
USB outlets in their listings for outlets.

In such cases, I suspect the USB portion requires no field wiring and that
the USB portion replaces one outlet from a duplex configured device.  Is
this accurate?


Regards,

Peter Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] HAR factories for marked cable

[Peter Tarver]

Thank you, Art.  I had visited the wwpca.eu web site earlier yesterday.



There is a statement under ABOUT THE HAR MARK, “The HAR Mark was
established and is operating with the full support of the cable
manufacturers located in the CENELEC countries, represented by the European
cable manufacturers association EUROPACABLE,” but it falls short of
limiting manufacturing locations to CENELEC countries.



Under HOW THE HAR MARK WORKS, there are similar inferences, but again fall
short of an overt statement.



I suppose one of the contacts on the site will be able to elucidate on this
further.





Regards,



Peter Tarver



*From:* safetyl...@gmail.com [mailto:safetyl...@gmail.com] *On Behalf
Of *Arthur
Michael
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 24, 2013 20:14
*To:* Peter Tarver
*Cc:* EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] HAR factories for marked cable



Hi Peter et al,



Here is a link to the official HAR Fact Sheet [as found on Safetylink.com];



http://www.eepca.eu/dev/page.php?p=203



Best regards, Art



Product Safety Int'l

Middletown, CT 06457

www.safetylink.com


=

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Peter Tarver ptar...@enphaseenergy.com
wrote:

Good afternoon.

A cable supplier has mentioned that cables cannot bear the HAR marking
if they are not manufactured within an EU country.  This seems to be
buried in HAR agreement documents that are out of my reach.  Can anyone
confirm this?


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an
intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute
this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

-



This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 


-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] HAR factories for marked cable

[Peter Tarver]

Good afternoon.

A cable supplier has mentioned that cables cannot bear the HAR marking
if they are not manufactured within an EU country.  This seems to be
buried in HAR agreement documents that are out of my reach.  Can anyone
confirm this?


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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