TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Xing, Section 5.2.3 of IEC 60950 (2nd edition) shows how this measurement is made for Class II equipment. This should be the same in China's GB 4943? standard. See the paragraph near the end of 5.2.2 describing that for Class II, accessible conductive parts or metal foil wrapped around the unit are used to measure the current to either phase or neutral. If your adapter is plastic enclosed, with no exposed metal, the leakage should be quite small. You could also use the output pins as the ground side, but these may not qualify as being exposed. George xingwb xingwb%cesi.ac...@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/25/2002 05:56:33 AM Please respond to xingwb xingwb%cesi.ac...@interlock.lexmark.com To: Peter Merguerian pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Hi Mr. Peter: Our test lab receive a CB TEST REPORT FOR NATIONAL RECOGNIZATION, the EUT is a class II ac adapter having a bridging capacitor (4700pF)across the reinforced insulation The touch current measured by CB is 0.17mA(4700pF declared) but the value we measure is 0.28mA(4700pF) which one is correct ? it depend on test equipment? How to judge How to obtain accurate result? any comments are appreciated Xing weibing 2002-06-25 17:56 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; Robert Johnson ; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing, Yes, 0.25mA is very strict for 950. However, I can assure you that depeding on the test lab and uncertainty of the test equipment, you will obtain slightly different results. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:13 AM To: Robert Johnson; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear SIRS: Thanks for your e-mail A further question for touch current: Is it (0.25mA) strict for Class II equipment ? 0.28mA rms is OK FOR IEC60065 0.28mA rms is not OK for IEC60950 Any comments are appreciated Best Regards XING WEIBING 2002-06-25 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Ilan Cohen ; Michael G ; Shmuel Gnatt ; Sima Beloborodov ; Valery Rodionov Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing Hello! ake a look at IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current. The limits in IEC 60 950 are based on this particular standard. Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24 ---
Japan mains voltage
I can only speak for ITE products per IEC 60950. Note that this standard requires testing for safety at -10% and +6%, or 90V to 106V for Japan ITE rated at 100V only. Note that this must be done for both 50Hz and 60Hz, both of which are used in Japan. I am not aware of any stated 85V test requirement for Japan, and would be surprised if long term 15% voltage drops were common in Japan. As in any country, there can be momentary brown outs where the voltage may briefly sag to even lower values. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 06/04/2002 12:04 PM --- Van Compernolle, Eric eric.vancompernolle%barco@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/04/2002 11:21:40 AM Please respond to Van Compernolle, Eric eric.vancompernolle%barco@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Japan mains voltage Hello, As you probably know the mains voltage for Japan is 100V. For safety we are testing up to - 10%: 90 V. However for some situations in Japan , it seems you can even expect 85 V. So we are planning to define a general rule that a product for Japan must handle 85 V. Is this low voltage rule known or common use in your company? best regards, Van Compernolle Eric Reliability Manager Barco Projection Systems Noordlaan 5 8520 Kuurne Phone:+32 56 368 373 Fax:+32 56 368 355 mailto:eric.vancomperno...@barco.com http://www.barco.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Laser Safety Verification
One way to generate a form of compliance to laser safety standards is to obtain a CB Report based on, or including IEC 60825-1. Although this is used largely as a means of proving conformity to the EU Directives, I suspect it would be acceptable to concerned buyers world-wide. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Marking - Made in XXX
Amund, There are multiple countries that have Country of Origin (CoC) marking requirements. Probably all for the same reasons, i.e. tariffs, truth in advertising, etc. Many countries have their own lists of countries from whom they will not accept imported goods, usually for economic and/or political reasons. At one time, the U.S. would allow imports of products Made in... China, Taiwan, and Thailand, but the U.S. government would not purchase such products. I am sure there are corresponding laws in various other countries. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re:
Vijay, I have posted my opinions within brackets [ ] in your note below. Wani, Vijay (V) vwani%dow@interlock.lexmark.com on 04/20/2002 08:38:51 PM Thank you all for your valuable input. i apologize for late reply. i ordered a copy of EN60950:2000. (thanks, Chris, George and constantin) and now, it is getting much clearer. however, i have some questions and would appreciate any comment. as per EN60950:2000, 4.7.2.1: 1. Except where method 2 of 4.7.1 is used exclusively, or as permitted in 4.7.2.2, the following parts are considered to have a risk of ignition and, therefore, require a FIRE ENCLOSURE: - components in PRIMARY CIRCUITS; So if i am interpreting Rich and Scott's e-mail right (great explanation), i do not need FIRE ENCLOSURE, if primary circuit is supplied by a Limited Power source. For an existing device, how do i know whether the primary circuit is supplied by a Limited Power source? are cell-phones, PDA's typically supplied by Limited Power Source? [The type devices you list are typically battery powered. The output of batteries can often be totally unlimited, thus fire hazards. However, a current limiting device may be used to obtain a limited power source. One way to determine what is the case is to buy the product and test the battery power to the conditions for limited power source.] as per 4.7.3.4 2. Inside FIRE ENCLOSURE, materials for components and other parts, (including MECHANICAL and ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURE located inside FIRE ENCLOSURS) shall comply with on of the following: - be of FLAMMABILITY CLASS V-2 OR FLAMMABILITY CLASS HF-2; OR - pass the flammability test described in clause A.2; or - meet flammability requirements of a relevant IEC component standard which includes such requirements. Does this mean; if i have an enclosure inside a FIRE ENCLOSURE, than it has to be V-2 eventhough there are no safety hazards resulting from complete disapperance of the enclosure? [Simple answer is yes. There are exeptions listed immediately following the text you included above, e.g. parts mounted on materials of flammability class V-1.] thank you. vijay wani --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Safety Certs - custom lamps
George, Your associate may have only two choices for the U.S. and/or Canadian markets for the protable version. Either will serve in both countries. a) Submit the product to UL for a c-UL-us mark. b) Submit the product to CSA for the CSA/NRTL mark. For any fixed electrical device that is to be installed in a home or office, it will probably require both one of the above, and being capable of passing any local building code inspection. I am not familiar with the exact UL/CSA stds. for electrical lighting. George George Stults george.stults%watchguard@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/28/2002 01:26:51 PM Please respond to George Stults george.stults%watchguard@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Safety Certs - custom lamps Hello Group, I am forwarding this question for a colleague who resides in Washington state, USA. Basically he would like to create, on a commercial basis, custom lighting (lamp fixtures), both portable (carry and plug in) , and permanent (built into a house). However, building inspectors etc want to see a safety mark for these creations. (UL or CSA or NRTL etc.) He is looking for advice about how a small business can economically and efficiently achieve safety certification for one-of-a-kind custom lighting fixtures. Thanks in advance George Stults --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
Nick, Thanks for your comments. However, I like to simplify things to their essential ingredients. Whatever I may fail to understand, I do understand that my products will have no import within EU states if: 1. They are designed with IEC 60950 and common sense in mind. 2. They are third party certified via a CB Report to IEC 60950. 3. Similarly to 1 and 2 above for EMC. 4. A EU DoC is appropriately held within the EU. We do obtain certifications for Germany (GS mark) and Sweden (S mark), not because they are mandatory, but for ease of marketing. I know of no national laws that take precedence over the EU Directives for IEC/EN 60950. For the U.S. and Canada, one may follow a similar path: 1. Design to UL/CSA 60950 and common sense in mind. 2. Obtain either UL or CSA approval for both countries. 3. Submit EMC data to the U.S. FCC and Canada ICES. 4. No DoC required. A CB Report from a Euro test agency may be used to obtain either the UL or CSA blessing, or conversely, a UL or CSA CB may be used to support the EU DoC. George Nick Rouse nickjrouse%cs@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/25/2002 06:28:35 PM To: emc emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations George I fail to follow your argument, The fact that you have not been challenged or taken to law by any member state does not mean that it is not the laws of the member states that have legal juristriction. You have not been taken to the European courts of justice either. you say:- For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives No, the EU requires that member states put in place national laws requiring compliance in that country of the requirements of the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. This is somewhat different. Had you transgressed and been prosecuted you would have been prosecuted under the national law of the country. If for instance you had been taken to court in the UK in relation to EMC problems you would not be accused of contravening directive 89/336/EEC, you would be accused of contravening the UK Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 1992 (SI 19992/2372) In Germany the same action will have you in conflict with Gesetz über die elektromagnetische Verträglichkeit von Geräten, (EMVG) In Belgium you will run foul of Royal decree of May 18th 1994 concerning electromagnetic compatibility; and in Greece Ministerial Decision number 94649/8682/ 93/25-8-94 And in each case it is you the manufacturer dealer or user that will be taken to court. It is not the country that will be prosecuted and it is not a matter of allowing entry. Crossing borders as such is not an offence either for an individual or a member state. The offence is placing on the market or taking into service non-compliant equipment at any point in the EU. The fact that you have not had any trouble with any of these national laws is good news, long may it remain so. However this does not change the fact that these are the laws under which manufacturers, dealers and users operate in the various countries and you should beware of the subtle differences between them. Nick Rouse - Original Message - From: geor...@lexmark.com To: Nick Rouse nickjro...@cs.com Cc: emc emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:16 PM Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations Nick, To some degree, I beg to differ with your explanation, particularly with the following: It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that member state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not. For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. They have further listed harmonized standards which are deemed sufficent to comply. Under the present process, a manufacturer can obtain a CB Report of create a Technical Construction File to meet the LVD, and take EMC data at an authorized test site to meet the EMC Directive. At that point the manufacturer can apply the CE marking, and file a EU Declaration of Conformity within the EU. Since this process was adopted by the EU, we have not had a single EU member state ask to see either our DoC or our background test data/reports. So, there are no national regulations, but only the EU regulations, which were designed to do away with the many diveregent national regulations. Again, the EU law applies to member states, over which the EU has some power. There is no law pertaining to mfrs, but the Directives as to what the member states are to do to ensure safe products. If a mfr manages to place a product on the market that does not meet
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
Nick, To some degree, I beg to differ with your explanation, particularly with the following: It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that member state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not. For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. They have further listed harmonized standards which are deemed sufficent to comply. Under the present process, a manufacturer can obtain a CB Report of create a Technical Construction File to meet the LVD, and take EMC data at an authorized test site to meet the EMC Directive. At that point the manufacturer can apply the CE marking, and file a EU Declaration of Conformity within the EU. Since this process was adopted by the EU, we have not had a single EU member state ask to see either our DoC or our background test data/reports. So, there are no national regulations, but only the EU regulations, which were designed to do away with the many diveregent national regulations. Again, the EU law applies to member states, over which the EU has some power. There is no law pertaining to mfrs, but the Directives as to what the member states are to do to ensure safe products. If a mfr manages to place a product on the market that does not meet the LV or EMC Directives, it is the member state which allowed entry of the product that is held accountable. Of course, a mfr found doing this would have to remove the product from the market and would have a hard time doing future business in the EU. George Alspaugh Nick Rouse nickjrouse%cs@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/22/2002 04:44:05 PM To: emc emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations Thanks George for your outline of the basic way US safety works. Perhaps I may expand a bit on how EU directives works. First the EU directives are, as you say, not in themselves directly law in any of the member states. What they do is to direct each of the member states to pass into their national laws regulations emboding the requirements of the directive and most importantly to repeal any other legislation that lays any requirement in the aera covered on anyone placing relavant products on the market or taking them into service. The member states are bound to do this under the terms of the treaty of Rome and other European treaties. Any member state not properly transposing a directive into national Law is in principle liable to be taken by the Commission to the European Courts. The wording of the directives, heavy on permissive clauses and requirements on governments to allow goods to be moved, sold and put into service, surprises some people but it must be remembered that the wellspring of most of this legislation is the idea of a single European Market. The member states are not allowed to have local regulations that may act as an indirect trade barrier favoring local suppliers over those of other member states. By a having just a unified set of European technical requirements it is hoped to create a level playing field for all paticipants in the European market. The directives are usually implimented by some form of secondary legislation. Here in the UK we use things call statutary instruments. The Single European Market Act of 1987 was passed through the full legislative process but gives thereafter ministers of the crown the right to draft statutary instruments to impliment directives into UK law. They are placed in the libaries of both houses of parliment and it is in principle open to the members of parliament to pass a resolution anulling these instruments. In practice this never happens and after 7 days they automatically become statute law. It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that memmber state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not . The various national implimentations should all be the same but just to remind everyone that we still are 15 independant countries, there are small quirks in the the various implimentations that the Commission has not thought serious enough to stamp on. One such if the UK modified application of the EMC directive to educational establishments. In addition the member states may apply to the Commission for the right to have extra local laws to meet special local requirements An example of this is the UK 1994 Plugs and Sockets etc.(Safety) regulations that require
U.S. Safety Regulations
There seems to be some confusion regarding U.S. product safety regulations. It is not as complicated as some have made it appear. I will try to simplify this topic. First, the European Directives may be EU law, but they are only directed to member states, not manufacturers, over which they have no legal authority. Read the text of some Directives. The EU Directives outline to member states what standards products must meet to enter the EU via any country border. Hence, manu- facturers who wish to market in the EU would be wise to adhere to the LVD and other applicable Directives. The U.S. OSHA regulations are virtually the same in this respect. These regs describe what employers must do to ensure a safe workplace. The employer is barred under OSHA rules from allowing employees to use specified products that do not meet OSHA require- ments. Hence, manufacturers who wish to market in the U.S. to businesses would be wise to adhere to OSHA requirements. Now, it is somewhat true that electrical products for the U.S. can either be NRTL approved for total U.S. distribution, or be approved by every local city/county electrical safety authority. BTW, this is an option that does not exist within the EU that I know of. Now, which method do you think is easier and less costly? Duh! I assure you it is the NRTL route, even if you desire to enter only one local market. There have been several opinions offered as to why any U.S. (or other) safety regs exist. My personal opinion is that manufacturers should apply the following concepts, in the order given: - provide products that will not cause injury or property damage - provide products that meet the standards - provide products that exceed the standards if appropriate to achieve the first item - if the above are done, there is little else you can do to minimize product liability litigation [The above comments do not necessarily apply to extremely large and expensive products sold in volumes of only 1, 10, or so. These may best be handled by on-site installation approvals.] George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
DSL on residential buildings.
Your comments remind me of how FCC limits began a few decades ago. As many may recall, in the days before real PCs, Playstations and the like, Coleman and others began marketing ping pong games one could play on their TV set. Since TVs had no direct inputs at the time, the small game box fed VHF signals to the TV antenna inputs, which were demodulated within the TV. The user was directed to remove the TV antenna leads to do this. However, it was not uncommon for a consumer to leave both the antenna and game leads attached to the TV. When the game was tured on and played, faint images of ping pong balls and paddles were transmitted via the outside antenna to neighbors' TV sets, prompting compliants. Due to this and related phenomena the FCC created EMI limits for digitally clocked systems employing a 10kHz clock or higher. You know the rest of the story. Oddly, our many electrical appliances not involving digital controls are not regulated, and create most of the EMI in a typical household. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: NEC Question
Steve, If the products in question are going into U.S. workplaces, they are bound under the OSHA requirements in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations to be listed by an NRTL, regardless of the locale. Approved NRTLs can be found at: http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html#nrtls Note that not all NRTLs are approved to test to all the standards. You can use any approved to test to the standard covering your products. George sbrody%prodigy@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/20/2002 10:57:28 AM Please respond to sbrody%prodigy@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: NEC Question Colleagues: The question was asked if all products sold in the US, specifically industrial products, that plugged into the mains had to be UL Listed. The answer was that not necessarily UL Listed, but according to the NEC they did have to be listed, labeled, certified, classified, etc., by a 3rd party. The answer went on to say that this was only applicable if the locality in which the product were to be used, and their AHJ, adhered to the NEC and that not all areas of the country adopted and adhered to the NEC. 1. Do you agree with the above responses? 2. How long has the NEC required products to be listed, labeled, certified, classified, etc.? Your comments and feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Steve Brody sbr...@prodigy.net --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: product modifications by the end user
Chris, Every set of existing rules has an intent, to be achieved by following the letter of the rules. Personally, I always consider meeting the intent far superior to meeting the letter of rules. Example, the letter of the law says we must stop at stop signs before proceeding. The intent is to avoid accidents. We all know that sometimes we must exceed the rules, i.e. defensive driving, because the situation demands it. We also know that if the stop sign is in the middle of a desert, and we can see 5 miles in all directions, one would be meeting the intent of the law if no other cars could be seen, an we did not stop at the sign. The intent of IEC 60950 and like standards is to avoid personal injury and property damage. End users are generally considered operators under the standard. As such, they are to be reasonably prevented from access to hazards in the equipment. This does not mean that the equipment must be in a welded steel box, but that tools are required to enter hazardous areas, and the operator manual does not direct the operator to access such areas. The General Principles of 60950 (page 19) clearly states under Electric Shock : Prevent operator access to parts at hazardous voltage by fixed or locked covers, interlocks, etc. Page 17 indicates that operators are assumed to be oblivious to electrical hazards. When all else fails in such situations as yours, I get something in writing indicating that my team has explained the hazards and risks, and the the Product Manager (or other responsible party) understands and accepts these risks. This usually closes the issue. George Colgan, Chris chris.colgan%tagmclaren@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/19/2002 07:36:09 AM Please respond to Colgan, Chris chris.colgan%tagmclaren@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: product modifications by the end user Hello good people Just say someone in your marketing department came up with the bright idea of selling upgrade kits to an unqualified, untrained end user that involved removing the top cover of a product. In the process not only would the victim be exposed to hazardous voltages (if the product was still connected to the mains) but he/she would also have to wire up mains connections. There would also be a possibility that critical insulation would be disturbed. Apart from telling them that they were mad and suggesting that someone could be killed or seriously injured, would there be any black and white legislation that you could use to help bin this idea? I can't find anything specific in EN60065 or the LVD. Thanks for any input Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
NAMAS
Using an on-line acronym finder, I see that NAMAS = National Measurement and Accreditation Service There is a NAMAS website at: http://www.smtl.co.uk/MDRC/NAMAS/about-namas.html This describes process certifications, not product safety assessments. From what I discern, they produce no product safety certification reports that could be used by an NRTL. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 03/13/2002 11:56 AM --- Stone, Richard A (Richard) rstone1%lucent@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/13/2002 11:20:51 AM Please respond to Stone, Richard A (Richard) rstone1%lucent@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'Wall, Steve' swall%thinkengine@interlock.lexmark.com, Peter Merguerian pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com, EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: CSA Mark Does anyone know about NAMAS approvals? are they equal to a UL for 94v0 testing for flammability. Can it be used/accepted by NRTL. thanks Richard, -Original Message- From: Wall, Steve [mailto:sw...@thinkengine.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:42 AM To: Peter Merguerian; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: CSA Mark http://www.csa-international.org/certmarks/ http://www.csa-international.org/certmarks/ Regards, Steve Wall ThinkEngine Networks -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian Sent: Wed 3/13/2002 7:52 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Cc: Subject: CSA Mark Dear All, Does anyone know where I can download the CSA Mark? This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com http://www.i-spec.com Title: CSA Mark Does anyone know about NAMAS approvals? are they equal to a UL for 94v0 testing for flammability. Can it be used/accepted by NRTL. thanks Richard, -Original Message-From: Wall, Steve [mailto:sw...@thinkengine.net]Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:42 AMTo: Peter Merguerian; "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" Subject: RE: CSA Mark http://www.csa-international.org/certmarks/ Regards, Steve Wall ThinkEngine Networks -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian Sent: Wed 3/13/2002 7:52 AM To: "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)" Cc: Subject: CSA Mark Dear All,Does anyone know where I can download the CSA Mark?This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate,distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If youreceived this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding themessage and its attachments to the sender.PETER S. MERGUERIANTechnical DirectorI.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211Or Yehuda 60251, IsraelTel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175http://www.itl.co.ilhttp://www.i-spec.com
Oops! 72/23/EEC?
One of our OEM customers called me this morning with a question. It seems that one of our European Union Declarations of Conformity listed the Low Voltage Directive as 72/23/EEC, while others had listed 73/23/EEC. I replied that I was fairly certain that 73/23/EEC was correct, but would check it out. If you do a Google search on 73/23/EEC, you will get all the expected references on the EU LVD. However, if you do a search on 72/23/EEC, you will see many mfrs DoCs listing 72/23/EEC, but no references to the source of such a document. Apparantly someone made a typographical error once upon a time, which has infiltrated the DoCs of many respected manufacturers, inluding ours. If anyone is aware of an actual EU Directive 72/23/EEC, please post the URL for its description and text. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Change in emc-pstc Software?
Wow! This morning is the first time I've ever received postings from this listserver that were NOT in 10 pitch Courier font style, which is dull I should know, as my site has dealt with fonts for over forty years, beginning with the IBM typewriters, and now in printers. Today I saw Joe's post which included 12 pitch Helvetica, Tania's 10 pitch Helvetica, and 10 pitch Helvetica bold. Wow! I almost confused the note for an internal one, as we pretty much use 10 pitch Helvetica as the default font. Whatever IEEE did to get rid of the default Courier, I applaud!! George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: CE - the abbreviation
Interestingly, if you go to : http://www.acronymfinder.com/ you will get 63 hits on CB. Only one is close to those used in the certification field, i.e. Certified Bodies. Both competent bodies and certification bodies have been used for some time, and abbreviated CB. The true meaning of CB depends on the context in which it is used. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: CE - the abbreviation
Dan, Sorry about that. I should have checked first. The closest I found on the site was The operating units of the CB Scheme are the National Certification Bodies (NCB's). Like most such websites, there may actually be a definition somewhere if one looks at enough pages, but I won't tout it again. George Roman, Dan dan.roman%intel@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/12/2002 10:26:02 AM Please respond to Roman, Dan dan.roman%intel@interlock.lexmark.com To: Roman, Dan dan.roman%intel@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: CE - the abbreviation Thanks, makes sense, but they do not mention what CB stands for even once on their web site, at least no place that I could find. Dan -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:15 AM To: Roman, Dan Subject: RE: CE - the abbreviation CB = Certification Bodies See www.cbscheme.org for excellent info on CB Scheme. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: CE - the abbreviation
CB = Certification Bodies See www.cbscheme.org for excellent info on CB Scheme. Roman, Dan dan.roman%intel@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/12/2002 09:40:23 AM Please respond to Roman, Dan dan.roman%intel@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: CE - the abbreviation My understanding also but here is one I've never figured out, what does CB stand for in the CB Scheme of things? Dan -Original Message- From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:37 AM To: am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CE - the abbreviation Hi Amund I have always understood it to mean Conformite Europeenne. And that it indicates that the manufacturer has satisfied all assessment procedures specified by law for its product. It is not of course a quality mark. Alan E Hutley www.compliance-club.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Manufacturer's I.D. for Europe
What are your thoughts on this issue? The prevailing ITE safety standards (e.g. IEC 60950) require markings that include the manufacturer's name, trademark, or identification mark (section 1.7.1). It is not uncommon for a manufacturer to allow another company to market their products under the 2nd company's logo. Often the 2nd company will retain the certified machine model/type number, but prefers no reference to the original manufacturer, including on the power rating label. In the U.S., manufacturer identification marks can be listed by UL in their Yellow Books. For example, in the case above, the original manufacturer's identity can be preserved by the use of a listed graphic, which is not obvious to someone buying the product through the 2nd company. In addition, the use of agency file numbers with their marks maintains traceability to the original manufacturer. However, in Europe, I am not aware of any means by which manufacturer's identification marks can be registered or listed. In addition, European safety agency marks are not required to be accompanied by file numbers etc. Therefore, replacement of the original manufacturer's name and/or logo with that of a 2nd party obscures any traceability to the original manufacturer. This may be acceptable, for as I understand it, the EU holds the responsible party as being the one placing the product on the market, i,e, not the original manufacturer. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
TUV NRTL
It occurs to me that many folks are not aware that there are many different TUV agencies authorized to issue the German GS certificate. In other words, not all agencies with TUV in their title have the same country laboratory recognition. The Standards Council of Canada lists TUV Rheinland of North America one of several accepted alternatives to CSA for specific products and standards. No other TUV agencies are listed. OSHA (U. S.) lists TUV America Inc. (TUVAM), TUV Rhienland of North America (TUV), and TUV Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG) as NRTLs. But only the last two are authorized for testing to UL 1950 (now UL 60950). BTW, there are many other TUV agencies authorized by the German government which are less commonly known outside of Europe. I confess that I've never taken the time to know the meaning of the German words on which TUV is based. I am sure there are many out there who know. While we are at it, what is the translation of the GS, i,e, geprufte sicherheit. I have been told it meant proven safety? George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: NOM Mark
Divine, I do know that Mexico uses 127V nominal, and standard U.S. type plugs, both two blade and two blade with ground pin. You do NOT have to provide three pin plugs unless device is Class I. See Mexico at: http://www.panelcomponents.com/guide.htm NOM is more of an import certification than product safety. Each party importing a product must obtain their own NOM certification. I do not know the process, as this is handled by our people there. George Alspaugh Divina Ng divina.ng%pfhongkong@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/08/2002 03:53:27 AM Please respond to Divina Ng divina.ng%pfhongkong@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: NOM Mark Dear All, Is anybody know about the NOM Mark? What is the applicable standard for an AC Operated Desk Lamp? In order to get the NOM Approval, does it need to have the power plug a 3 pin type of plug even though there's no earth grounding connected. Any feedback from you all regarding this inquiry would be highly appreciated. Thanks Divine Ng Pollyflame Concept (H.K.) Limited --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: TUV NRTL
Richard, We have largely used UL and CSA or c-UL on our office and consumer printers, so I do not have experience with the use of other NRTLs for the U.S. and Canada. However, for the U.S. OSHA establishes acceptable NRTLs, and the CFR uses the words NRTL, so I do not see how an electrical inspector could object to what the Federal Government has sanctioned. Likewise, the Standards Council of Canada lists the accepted certification bodies (CBs) at: http://www.scc.ca/accreditation/cb/colist_e.html TUVR is included, so again, I doubt that an electrical inspector could object to the use of SCC sanctioned CBs. I beleive the greater challenge is the education of and acceptance by, your customers, who may only think of UL or CSA as proper markings. George richwoods%tycoint@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/07/2002 02:17:45 PM Please respond to richwoods%tycoint@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: TUV NRTL TUV Rheinland of North America is a NRTL and is also accredited in Canada. I would like to hear from anyone using their NRTL and/or Canadian mark about any difficulties you have or have not had with acceptance of the mark by electrical inspectors. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Compliance After Repairs in the Field
Allen, I agree with your comments. Hi-pot is not, and never was, a reliable safe/unsafe test. It merely finds component and/or finished goods whose processes may have crept to non-compliance. For example, xfmrs whose internal creepage/clearance distances between windings have crept over from the original required values to less than required. The ground continuity is a far more critical test, and can be performed within the accuracy required with a small PAT. One reason, I believe, that the standards do not address repair/service actions and post-testing, is that there is no way the manufacturer or the agencies can police this. Name one consumer product, no matter how complex and possibly hazardous, that a consumer at one time has not tried to repair. Our products range in price from $50 to $10K. The low end units have no service plan, only dispose and replace. All of the others can be serviced by our authorized service centers, or by anyone else who wants to hang out a Service-R-Us shingle. The agencies have no way to control what independent after-market repair centers do. However, if a company has rather tight control over the design, installation, and servicing of its products, then it would be a good thing to do hi-pot and earth resistance tests after servicing. For example, a complex and expensive piece of unique manufacturing equipment. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Dr. Clayton Paul
Update on Dr. Paul provided by a colleague: Clayton retired from U of K, however, he resumed his teaching at Mercer University. Shortly after moving to Georgia and beginning a teaching position at Mercer, he received an endowed chair, given by former United States Ga. Senator Sam Nunn at Mercer U. His title: Sam Nunn Eminent Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering School of Engineering Mercer University He's enjoying his life in Georgia and lives on a small farm outside Macon. A word about Dr. Paul From 1981 to 1993 I managed several of our lab functions, including EMC. At the time, Dr. Paul taught EMC courses at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington, where our (then) IBM lab was also located. As a result, we were able to hire Dr. Paul as an EMC consultant during several summers. While I was never enough of a practicing EMC guy to understand the bulk of his book (remember I was only the manager), he made many significant contributions to our EMC design practices, which lowered the cost of EMI suppression in our products. Beyond his technical competence, Clayton is a heck of a nice guy, who developed some good fishing buddies in my department. As I understand it, he has retired to a farm in Georgia. Although I am not competent to endorse his book, I do endorse Dr. Paul, who never tired of explaining to me the difference between differential and common mode noise, until I finally got it. Clayton, if you see this, I hope your retirement is great! George Alspaugh Lexmark Product Safety --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Dr. Clayton Paul
A word about Dr. Paul From 1981 to 1993 I managed several of our lab functions, including EMC. At the time, Dr. Paul taught EMC courses at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington, where our (then) IBM lab was also located. As a result, we were able to hire Dr. Paul as an EMC consultant during several summers. While I was never enough of a practicing EMC guy to understand the bulk of his book (remember I was only the manager), he made many significant contributions to our EMC design practices, which lowered the cost of EMI suppression in our products. Beyond his technical competence, Clayton is a heck of a nice guy, who developed some good fishing buddies in my department. As I understand it, he has retired to a farm in Georgia. Although I am not competent to endorse his book, I do endorse Dr. Paul, who never tired of explaining to me the difference between differential and common mode noise, until I finally got it. Clayton, if you see this, I hope your retirement is great! George Alspaugh Lexmark Product Safety --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
ITE in Japan
Kim, Here is my understanding: EMCVCCI member = CISPR 22 compliance + cert non-member = no certification or confirmation Safety ITE should comply to IEC 60950, but no certification ITE AC/DC adapters required to obtain cert + PSE mark George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
pacemakers
A few observations.. APS--An APS camera is one that uses Kodak's patented Advanced Photo System film cartridge. The only big difference from other 35mm film cartridges is that you just pop it in and close the lid. It self winds. No film trailer to fool with. Electronics--An APS camera's electronics is not that much different from any other electronic camera. All such devices must operate at very low power levels to avoid changing batteries every month. My wife's APS can go a year or more on a battery, and that's including use of the built in flash. Pacemakers--My father-in-law had one of these twenty years ago. The early models were (or were thought to be) susceptible to higher than ambient electromagnetic waves. Wearers were warned to avoid microwave ovens and the like. However, note that microwave ovens operate at 100s of watts, not microwatts, like consumer portable electronics. Opinion--It is my opinion that any electrical appliance that falls under FCC (and similar) guidelines will not produce adequate EMF to interfere with today's pacemakers. I think I'd be more cautious of non-regulated appliances which one might have near their chest cavity, e.g. electric blankets, electric razors, hairdryers, etc. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
CB Reports
Scott, You are correct in pointing out that the CB Scheme is geared to IEC standards, not EN standards or any other local country equivalent of IEC standards. We ask our suppliers to obtain a CB Report which stipulates compliance to IEC 60950 (whatever edition and amendments) and the country differences for all CB Scheme member countries as listed at www.cbscheme.org for OFF (office) products. We may exclude Canada, Japan and the U.S. if the CB only covers our 230V models. This results in about 30 countries. I refer suppliers to the IECEE CB Scheme website because the list changes from time to time without my knowledge. This takes care of individual country equivalents to IEC 60950, e.g. China's GB 4943-1995, Europe's EN 60950, etc. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Don Bush's Death
I am posting this notice of Don Bush's death, as he was an EMC pioneer, and one of my employees from 1981-1993. Donald R. Bush recently passed away of cancer at the age of 59. Don received his MSEE at the University of Louisville and joined IBM in Lexington, Kentucky in 1965. At the time he became a pioneer in product design for electromagnetic compatibility, and worked as an EMC engineer his entire career. Don was a long and active member of IEEE, and presented numerous papers at EMC conferences. Don became a Lexmark employee when Lexmark was spun off from IBM in 1991. He retired about 1996 and formed his own consulting company, dBi. Although retired, Don was asked to participate in the Lexmark groundbreaking for a new state-of-the-art 10m semi- anechoic chamber. Sadly, this facility was completed and offically opened shortly after his death. He will be missed by his family, friends, co-workers, and the many EMC professionals he met over his 36 year career. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
North America Voltage Ratings
Cecil, This site http://www.panelcomponents.com/guide.htm lists U.S. and Canada as 120V and Mexico as 127V. We normally rate our printers as 110-127V, if not going to Japan. However, I have seen single value ratings of 115V and 120V on models going to these countries without issues brought to my attention. My suggestion is 110-127V. George cecil.gittens%kodak@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/04/2002 04:04:37 PM Please respond to cecil.gittens%kodak@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: From: Cecil A. Gittens Hi All, What is the correct voltage labeling for the US, Canada and Mexico on product dataplate? Is it 100-120V or 100-127V? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Warranties vs. Performance
Note that vehicle warranties merely assert that the named parts or systems will be replaced by the dealer (or authorized repair shop) at no cost if they go bad. They do NOT guarantee that they will not fail within the stated time/mileage. For example, suppose the brakes fail, or air bag deploys for no reason, resulting in an accident. The warranty merely means that the defective parts will be replaced. The free replacement of safety parts would be little consolation if someone died in the accident. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Asian EMC regulations
Can anyone help me? I need to find the relevant EMC standards for IT equipment when it is supposed to be deployed in the following Asian countries: Korea (CISPR 24/22 ??), Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China (CNS 13438 ??), Taiwan and Japan (VCCI (V-3/97-04) ??). If you have a link to a description of the needed standards please contact me. Although this might not be the correct forum for this, but I am also looking for a list of the safety and telecommunications standards to comply with in the above countries - anybody who has a good link to a description of the Asian regulatory requirements? Most all countries now accept safety compliance to IEC 60950 or equivalent. Here is the little I know of these country ITE safety req'mnts. Koreacert. required by KSA (e.g. KTL) Hong Kongno cert. requirements Singaporecert. required by PSB for consumer ITE Malaysia no cert. requirements Chinacert. required via CCIB (soon to be CCC) Taiwan no cert. requirements, accepts UL marking Japanno cert. requirements for ITE, except PSE for AC/DC adapters George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EMC-related safety issues
I think the issue is that the lamp is not an EMC regulated device. In fact, in Europe, ITE conducted emissions must be regulated so as not to cause desk/room lights to flicker, as in when a fuser lamp in a printer kicks on. Apparantly the proper functioning of lighting takes precedence over the propoer functioning of radios and the like affected by the lights? George Rich Nute richn%sdd.hp@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/03/2002 04:08:51 PM Please respond to Rich Nute richn%sdd.hp@interlock.lexmark.com To: jmw%jmwa.demon.co...@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues Hi John: I've replaced the incandescent lamp on my bedside table with a new energy-saving compact flourescent lamp. With the lamp on, I cannot listen to even the strongest AM radio station on my clock radio (on the same bedside table) due to the lamp interference. This must not be the usage contemplated by EMC requirements. Limits in the household environment are based on a 3 m separation between source and receiver. Wonderful! Either the lamp or the radio must be on the opposite side of the room from my bedside table. When I am in bed, one or the other is not controllable, and is therefore useless to me. Whine mode on: I want both on my bedside table, and I want both to do all of their functions. This IS not the usage contemplated by 3 m separation EMC requirements. :-) Best wishes for the New Year, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EMC-related safety issues
Rich, Your scenarios are excellent at proving my point that it is largely the unregulated devices amongst us that are the true source of EMIC, i.e. electromagnetic incompatibility. Thanks, George Rich Nute richn%sdd.hp@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/03/2002 02:19:38 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues Hi George: The key word in EMC is compatibility. This implies that electrical and electronic equipment are (ideally) designed so that each can operate normally in the presence of another. This requires limiting both the emissions and sensitivity of such devices. EMC? Ha! I've replaced the incandescent lamp on my bedside table with a new energy-saving compact flourescent lamp. With the lamp on, I cannot listen to even the strongest AM radio station on my clock radio (on the same bedside table) due to the lamp interference. This must not be the usage contemplated by EMC requirements. My TV and stereo are more-or-less integrated (they are in close proximity). On New Year's Day, I wanted to listen to the radio version of the football game description while watching the TV. With the TV on, I cannot listen to even the strongest AM radio station due to the TV interference. This must not be the usage contemplated by EMC requirements. I take my Grundig portable radio with me when I travel. Most hotels have sufficient interference sources that I cannot listen to AM radio, and sometimes not even FM radio (with lights and TV off!). This must not be the usage contemplated by EMC requirements. EMC? Ha! Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
EMC-related safety issues
The key word in EMC is compatibility. This implies that electrical and electronic equipment are (ideally) designed so that each can operate normally in the presence of another. This requires limiting both the emissions and sensitivity of such devices. Historically, only a limited number of product types have been subject to EMC limits. Most EMC requirements are based on the assumption that the emission of specific frequencies is more likely to interfere with other equipment than white or broad spectrum emissions. For example, the FCC rules apply to devices using clocked frequencies of 10K and above, but place no limits on vacuum cleaners, blenders, arc welders, etc. unless they contain clocked electronics. The exclusion of so many products from emission/susceptibility requirements is often the cause of EMC related accidents. Some years ago, in one of the U.S. Southwestern states, the local public safety (police/fire/etc) communications were often disrupted by an unknown source. The source was eventually traced to a pin ball machine in a roadside tavern. The owner was told he must get rid of the machine. A few weeks later, the noise re-appeared. It turned out that the same pinball machine was placed in service at another pub in the county. In some cases, the interaction of two devices is not exactly foreseeable. We once received reports of one of our typewriters typing occasionally without human assistance. It turned out that the typewriter was in use fairly close to an airport radar beacon. When the radar beam swept the area of the typewriter installation, it could cause the capacitor coupled keyboard to create false keystrokes. We added a large grounded template to cover most of the interior keypad area, to increase its immunity. There can be, and have been, safety related consequences of EM incompatibility. In the 1980's (as I recall) a U.S. aircraft carrier suffered a major EMC disaster. The powerful on-board electronics, particularly the radar units, triggered the launch of a missle from one of the on-deck planes. The missle struck the bridge tower, resulting in a fire costing millions of dollars in repairs and the loss of some lives. I cannot find my copy of this event, reported some years ago in one of the electronics magazines. In general, Navies are far more sensitive to EMI due to the concentration of on- board electronics. As a result, the U.S. Navy version of the Blackhawk helicopter had few EMI problems, while the Army version had several early crashes due to interference from nearby radio stations. The moral, if there is one, is that emissions and susceptibility of unregulated devices is more often the problem than the emissions or susceptibility of a regulated device. George Alspaugh Lexmark International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Enclosed OATS facilities---detour
Chris, I like your innovative thinking! When I once managed our acoustics lab, we had both a semi-anechoic chamber and a reverberation chamber. The SAC was similar to those for EMC, in that the walls were designed to absorb all sound waves striking them, so that sound pressure at a point near the DUT could be measured. The reverberation chamber sides (6) were to reflect all sound waves striking them so the total noise energy emitted from the DUT could be measured. This might suggest that your igloo EMC chamber not include the initial absorber layer. With a good conductive inner liner, all EMC energy would eventually be conducted away by this liner, and measured with a low impedance meter between the liner and ground. It really does not matter how many reflections take place, as all wave energy must eventually leave via the conductive path. The problem is how to fully electrically isolate this conductive collector from additional outside EMI. Perhaps a very thick di-electric (low C) between the collector and an outer conductive layer to absorb in-coming EMI. If you ever build one that works, just allow me to visit you at your new house in the Bahamas, bought with your profit from the Igloo Chamber. George Chris Maxwell chris.maxwell%nettest@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/12/2001 03:45:52 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com, Patrick Lawler plawler%west@interlock.lexmark.com cc: EMC-PSTC emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Enclosed OATS facilities---detour H, This conductive layer of snow reminds me of a daydream/ thought experiment that I had for measuring emissions... What if you put a DUT inside a chamber that looked like a hemisphere. The chamber would be hollow (otherwise, how would the DUT get in). The chamber skin would be a sandwich with a thin layer of absorber on the inside and a good conductor (conductor 1) then a dielectric then another good conductor (conductor 2) on the outside. Why these layers? The inner layer would offer just enough attenuation to reduce reflections, while letting some energy get to the conductor 1 behind it. The conductor 1 layer would effectively be a integrating measurement antenna which picks up and integrates all emissions from the DUT. The dielectric layer would insulate conductor 1 from conductor 2. (maybe this layer would need to be RF absorbant as well, not sure). The conductor 2 layer would be grounded all the way around and would serve to block ambients. What would happen? Would conductor 1 capacitively couple to the DUT such that a simple swept RF voltage measurement between the DUT and conductor 1 would show the total interference produced by the DUT? Who's with me? Let's go to K-mart and get: A large dome tent. About 50 square yards of tin foil Some Tokin flexible ferrite stuff ** A DUT. An RF voltmeter/spectrum analyzer and a stub cable. ** **probably not available at K-mart...maybe Wal-Mart? Might make a fun experiment, or maybe give the neighbors the idea that you're building an escape pod to the mother ship. Any immediate pitfalls that can be foreseen by the collective gurus? Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Enclosed OATS facilities in snow country
Once upon a time, before we were spun off from IBM, and I was the EMC manager here, I faintly recall that the IBM Boebligen lab in Germany had an OATS facility. I also faintly recall that snow on the rooftop did impact the measurements needed. Note that OATS structures are normally constructed with non-conductive materials, e.g. wood, plastic, etc. A layer of snow represents a plane of conductive material, albeit not a great conductor. However, these are memories from the distant past. Surely there are some still using OATS facilities where winter snow is a problem. George plawler%west@interlock.lexmark.com (Patrick Lawler) on 12/12/2001 12:40:35 PM Please respond to plawler%west@interlock.lexmark.com (Patrick Lawler) To: EMC-PSTC emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Enclosed OATS facilities in snow country I saw some photographs of an enclosed OATS facility in an area subject to snow. How does snow accumulation on the roof affect performance measurements? Does it affect the NSA figures? Is the effect significant enough that attempts are made to keep the roof snow free? Or does the normal attempt at keeping the inside test area warm enough for people take care of snow build-up? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Argentina Resolution 92/98
Gents and Ladies, I would like your input on the exact requirements of the subject resolution to ITE office products. We have multiple inkjet and laser printers certified in Argentina under the most recent requirements, viz. tendering of a CB Report with product sample if requested. Our people there are using IRAM as their agency of choice. I am being informed that in the near future our certified products must bear both the IRAM safety mark (inverted triangle containing IRAM) and the Republica Argentina S mark (rather like a circular target with large S in the middle). I am also informed that IRAM must now inspect every factory that builds printers for marketing under our logo in Argentina. It is difficult to obtain information on these new requirements that do not read like a typical legal document. The best I've seen so far is that on UL's website, which does describe the need for a recognized product certification mark under Phase III of the resolution. It does not mention a need for multiple Argentina marks. Nowhere have I found reference to mandatory factory inspections by IRAM or other OAA (official gov't body) designated agencies. This seems a bit of overkill, if true, as all of our supplier factories are already under follow- up services from UL, CSA, and TUVR (or other GS mark issuing agency). Thanks in advance for any insight you may offer regarding Res. 92/98! George Alspaugh Product Safety Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Hi-Pot OK labels
Chris, As I understand it, there is no standards requirement on how or were or if a OK hi-pot mark is required. An initial factory inspection for a ITE product (UL, CSA, TUV,...) will usually require that the hi-pot process in place ensures no walk-arounds, but does not require marking. Typically, we require the hi-pot operator to scan the bar code on or near the power rating label, which identifies the S/N of the unit. This is fed to computers which maintain a database of scanned (and presumably hi-potted) units. For your own quality purposes, a label, indelible mark, etc. are all acceptable, but not required, means of tracking this. As to agency marks, it was once common for each to sell rolls of marks not unlike the way some postage stamps are done. However, most mfrs evolved to a single power rating label which incorpoates the marks in the artwork at less cost than stickering separate agency marks. I had thought that the individual stickers were still available, at a price, from the main agencies. George Alspaugh Chris Maxwell chris.maxwell%nettest@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/28/2001 04:16:37 PM Please respond to Chris Maxwell chris.maxwell%nettest@interlock.lexmark.com To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Hi-Pot OK labels Hi all, I previously asked about Hi-Pot testing and NRTL labeling. Ok, so there is no such thing as a standard UL, CSA ... label that can be purchased. Although the logos are available on the website, the labels have to be re-invented for every company (yawn). Seems like a waste of time to me.. but in these days of layoffs... I guess every excuse for employment is OK. How about the little Hi-Pot OK labels that I have seen? I would assume that these are widely used. Any sources for these? Or do we have to go to a print shop and pay a tooling charge to make our own (what a waste)? Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: 80/80 rule for euro compliance?
Actually, Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) was an Italian economist. He observed that 80% of the economy was driven by 20% of the consumers, i.e. 20% of the customers account for 80% of the turnover. Two decades ago I was involved in an effort to create a data bank of IBM typewriter service customers. Some customers (e.g. banks) owned many units, and placed many calls for service, while fewer calls came from individuals owning one machine. It became evident that 20% of the customers accounted for 80% of the service calls. The data base was set up to maintain the phone numbers of only the most active 20%, as this required 80% less computer space. When a call came in, the customer was asked for their phone number. If it was one of the 20%, the operator then saw a full screen of data as to the name, address and service history of the customer, saving time on the phone keying data. It would probably be correct to say that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the workers; however, it would still take 100% of effort to complete 100% of the work. George Alspaugh Gregg Kervill gkervill%eu-link@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/14/2001 08:03:00 AM Please respond to Gregg Kervill gkervill%eu-link@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'Doug McKean' dmckean%corp.auspex@interlock.lexmark.com, 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group' emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: 80/80 rule for euro compliance? Liars, Damn Liars and . I sounds like the Pareto's law from management statistics You can do 80% of the work with 20% of the effort... I think someone requoted it once as You an fool some of the people all of the time. Cynically yours Gregg --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: ULC vs. CUL
There is a UL mark acceptable for the U.S. There was a c-UL mark, acceptable to both Canada and the U.S. The more correct mark from UL for the c-UL mark is now the c-UL-us mark, i.e. circled UL with small c outside lower left of circle and small us outside lower right of circle. I have never heard any of these referred to as a ULC mark. George Alspaugh burchj%andovercontrols@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/13/2001 03:18:12 PM Please respond to burchj%andovercontrols@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: ULC vs. CUL Someone from our UK office is asking if ULC is the same as CUL. Does anyone know the difference between these two marks? Your help is always appreciated. Thanks, Joe Josiah P. Burch Compliance Engineer II Andover Controls Corporation 300 Brickstone Square Andover,Ma 01810 (978)-470-0555 x335 (978)-470-3615 Fax --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: CLASS 11(DOUBLE INSULATED) 2/3-CORE CABLE
A word of history on Class I vs. Class II, as I understand it. In the beginning there was no such thing as earth grounding in homes and offices for the needed electrical appliances. The equivalent of our present double insulation was required to prevent against electric shock. When structures began to include earth grounded outlets, this method of protection required only basic insulation, i.e. cheaper for the average appliance cost of materials, hence a rapid use of Class I designs. However, given what I know about each, I prefer Class II devices for home appliances and tools, as there is no dependence on the ground path, which may be compromised in the device, the cord, extension cords, house wiring, and so on. Just my personal opinion. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: CLASS 11(DOUBLE INSULATED) 2/3-CORE CABLE
Several years ago I had the need to explain this same issue. Similarly most of the inquiries came from the U.K. Here are some exerpts from a white paper done to address this issue: *** This document addresses the nature and safety of two-wire ITE products. The international safety standard for ITE is IEC 60950. The referenced sections of IEC 60950 below are generally the same in unique country standards. SHOCK PROTECTION A major aspect of product safety for ITE is protection against electric shock. There are three equally acceptable methods of achieving this protection (section 1.2.4). Class I equipment employs only basic insulation, but ties all accessible conductive parts to a ground pin to protect the user in the event of a failure of the basic insulation. Such equipment requires a three-wire line cord and a reliable path to earth ground. Class II equipment uses double or reinforced insulation between primary voltage and accessible conductive parts to protect against electric shock. Such equipment uses a two-wire line cord, is not dependent on the integrity of the building's grounding system, and typically displays the square within a square symbol denoting double insulation. ITE products which contain no hazardous voltages (e.g. less than 42.4Vpk/60Vdc) are approved as Class III devices. NATURE OF CLASS II There is one aspect of Class II equipment that can confuse end users. Because no earth ground path is required or available, accessible conductive parts will float to some voltage less than the applied mains voltage. Typically this may be one-half of the mains voltage. This voltage is not considered a hazard under the standards as the available current cannot exceed the 250uA specified in Table 17 of section 5.2.2. Some individuals may be able to feel a slight tingle or shock at this low current level, although no electric shock injury should result. FINAL COMMENTS If a user is aware of a voltage on an accessible part, and suspects a hazardous condition, some simple tests can be performed to eliminate this concern. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Safety Critical etc - the future
John, Allow me to comment further on this issue. I seem to remember a saying that goes The proof of the pudding is in the eating. By the same token, I have always expressed within my area of influence that the truest test of our internal ITE safety policies, practices and processes is field history. We all know that standards, like many other sets of knowledge, evolve from errors over time. Another saying that makes this point is Success comes from experience. Experience comes from failure. Overall, I believe the ITE industry has a superb safety record, given the exponential growth of this industry from corporate uses to homes, dorm rooms, etc. Hundreds of people are killed or injured every day in the use of various products, e.g. vehicles, farm equipment, firearms (hunting accidents), aircraft, etc. The majority of these are due to operator error and/or poor judgement. The more complex products are the ones more likely to develop a defect that could lead to deaths, e.g. aircraft. In the eight plus years I have been in product safety, I am not aware of a reported serious injury or death from the intended use or misuse of an ITE product. This does not mean there have been none, but it does mean that ITE is not a significant cause of injury or death. This is a result of fairly sound standards, common sense, experience, and due diligence in maintaining the original certified design of each product. We probably all know of improvements we would make in this process if we got to be king for a day. Most of us handle these as internal requirements beyond the imposed external requirements. The way we define and account for the use of safety critical parts is one small aspect of a much more complex series of processes leading to protecting ITE users from harm. George Alspaugh These are personal opinions only. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
PCB Design Books
When I managed EMC during the 1980's, we were fortunate enough to hire Dr. Paul as a consultant during the summers for a few years. He taught EMC courses at the local University of Kentucky. We learned a good deal more about theory from him, while he learned a good deal more about EMI from real world controller PCBs etc. He was an excellent example of one who could apply the theory to real world hardware problems. George Alspaugh wojciech_babij%nmss@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/31/2001 02:19:44 PM Please respond to wojciech_babij%nmss@interlock.lexmark.com To: Dan Kwok dkwok%intetron@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, martinjp%appliedbiosystems@interlock.lexmark.com, owner-emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: PCB Design Books Here are my favorite: All of them are good in many areas of PCB design (use many point from all of them in my designs): EMC and Signal Integrity Books: Analysis of Multiconductor Transmission Lines Clayton R. Paul, John Wiley Sons, 1994. ISBN 0-471-02080-X Architectural Electromagnetic Shielding Handbook, A Design and Specification Guide Hemming, L.H., IEEE Press, 1992. ISBN 0-87942-287-4 Cable Shielding for Electromagnetic Compatibility Anatoly Tsaliovich, John Wiley and Sons, 1995. Capacitance, Inductance and Crosstalk Analysis Charles S. Walker, Artech House, 1990. Computer Circuits Electrical Design Ron K. Poon, Prentice Hall, 1995. Control and Measurement of Unintentional Electromagnetic Radiation W. Scott Bennett, John Wiley and Sons, 1997. Controlling Conducted Emissions by Design J.C. Fluke, John Wiley and Sons, 1991. Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design Michel Mardiguian, John Wiley and Sons, 1992. Coupling of External Electromagnetic Fields to Transmission Lines A.A. Smith, Jr., John Wiley Sons, 1977. Coupling to Shielded Cables E.F. Vance, John Wiley Sons, 1978. Decoupling and Layout of Digital Printed Circuits K.R. Keenan, The Keenan Corp., 1985. Design of Shielded Enclosures: Cost-Effective Methods to Prevent EMI Louis T. Gnecco, Newnes, 2000. Digital Design for Interference Specifications, 2nd Edition, 'A Practical Handbook for EMI Control' D.L. Terrell and R. K. Keenan, The Keenan Corp., 1997. Digital Signal Integrity: Modeling and Simulation with Interconnects and Packages Brian Young, Prentice Hall, 2001. Digital Signal Transmission C. Bissell and D. Chapman, Cambridge University Press, 1992. Digital Systems Engineering William J. Dally and John W. Poulton, Cambridge University Press, 1998.. Electromagnetic Compatibility J.J. Goedbloed, Prentice Hall, 1992. Electromagnetic Compatibility: Principles and Applications D. A. Weston, Marcel Dekker, 1991. Electromagnetic Compatibility Design Guide E.R. Freeman and M. Sachs, Artech House, 1982. Electromagnetic Compatibility Handbook N. Violette, D.R.J. White, and M. Violette, John Wiley and Sons, 1987. Electromagnetic Compatibility in Medicl Equipment W. Kimmel and D. Gerke, IEEE Press, 1995. ISBN 0-7803-1160-4 Electromagnetic Compatibility in Power Electronics Tihanyi, L., J.K. Eckert IEEE Press, 1995. ISBN 0-7803-0416-0 Electromagnetic Interference Reduction in Electronic Systems Jeffrey P. Mills, Prentice Hall, 1993. Electromagnetic Shielding Handbook for Wired and Wireless EMC Applications Anatoly Tsaliovich, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. Electronic Packaging of High-Speed Circuitry S. Kronsowski and A. Helland, McGraw Hill, 1997. Electronic System Design: Interference and Noise Control Techniques J.R. Barnesi, Prentice-Hall, 1987. Electrostatic Discharge and Electronic Equipment: A Practical Guide for Designing to Prevent ESD Problems Warren Boxleitner, IEEE Press, 1989. Elektromagnetische Verträglichkeit(in German) A.J. Schwab, Springer, 1996. EMC Analysis Methods and Computational Models Frederick M. Tesche, Michel Ianoz, and Torbjörn Karlsson, John Wiley Sons, 1997. EMC and the Printed Circuit Board - Design, Theory and Layout Made Simple Mark Montrose, IEEE Press, 1999. EMC: Electromagnetic Theory to Practical Design P.A. Chatterton and M.M. Houlden, John Wiley Sons, 1991. EMC for Product Designers, 2nd Ed. Tim Williams, Oxford, Boston, 1996. EMC for Systems and Installations Tim Williams Keith Armstrong, Newnes, 2000, ISBN 0 7506 4167 3 EMI/EMC Computational Modeling Handbook Bruce Archambeault, Omar Ramahi, Colin Brench , Kluwer Academic Pub, 1998. EMI/EMC: Selected Readings V. Prasad Kodali (Editor), Motohisa Kanda (Editor),IEEE Press, 1996. Engineering Electromagnetic Compatibility V. Prasad Kodali, IEEE Press, 1996. ESD in Silicon Integrated Circuits Ajith Amerasekera and Charvaka Duvvury, John Wiley and Sons, 1996. Grounding and Shielding in Facilities R. Morrison and W.H. Lewis, John Wiley and Sons, 1990. Grounding and
Re: Definition for Safety Critical Component
There are at least two possible definitions of this term. Under the 60950 standards, these would be the components listed by an approving agency deemed to be safety critical. The other is any part, listed or not, that contributes to the overall safety of the device. For example, a metal housing will not show up on a critical parts list, but can have sharp edges. As pointed out earlier, even a caution label could be considered such a part. Based on the single fault theory on which the standards are based, the failure of a single safety critical component should NOT introduce a hazard. For example, if the insulation between primary and exposed metal parts fails in a Class I design, the fault current will go to ground via the earthing path, and blow the fuse. At no time should the exposed metal carry hazardous voltages. The failure of two safety critical components can result in a hazard. If in the example given the ground path does not exist (a second fault), the bare metal may bear hazardous voltages. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Keep off the grass: RF emissions!
I saw a piece on on this type of mower on one of the Dateline or other news formats. The one displayed also had the ability to be operated remotely by the owner to trim etc. In this case, the hand held transmitter would be an intentional radiator. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 10/29/2001 11:30 AM --- woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/29/2001 10:09:45 AM Please respond to woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Keep off the grass: RF emissions! If it is an intentional radiator and operates above 9 kHz, it is considered to be a transmitter. If so, it is considered to be an inductive loop short range device in Europe and subject to EN 300330-1 and -2 for radio emissions and EN 301489-1 and -3 for spurious emissions and immunity. FCC Part 15 rules applies in the US and Industry Canada RSS-210 applies in Canada. However, one might be able to construct a reasonable argument that the device is not an intentional radiator because the signal is inductively coupled to the mower and that any emissions outside the boundary is unintentional. The problem with the argument is that the loop and mower are not physically attached or in proximity all of the time. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics -Original Message- From: Massimo Polignano [mailto:massimo.polign...@esaote.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 9:08 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Keep off the grass: RF emissions! Hello everybody! A friend of mine, overthinking of the breadth of my knowledge, is asking me for some advise about the applicable standards to a rather unusual piece of equipment. It is a auto mower intended to be programmed by the user to cut within a given garden area. It makes use of a boundary loop wire to exchange information (by means of RF TX-RX) about the actual position and the cutting area. It is provided also with a docking station where it goes automatically to recharge its battery. Now the questions. Is there any applicable product standard dealing with EMC and safety of that kind of devices? Do you think it is to be handled as an intentional RF transmitter, similarly to an ISM? Let's consider it is not an intentional transmitter, as the emission depends on the broadness of the reference loop, does it make sense to do measurement at three or ten meters? Do you think immunity as well can be anlysed regardless the actual installation? As my field of interest is bounded to electromedical devices and actually I have no garden to take care of, can someone out of there help my friend to send this problem to grass? Thanks in advance. m.p. - ESAOTE S.p.A. Massimo Polignano Research Product DevelopmentDesign Quality Control Mngr Via di Caciolle,15tel:+39.055.4229402 I- 50127 Florence fax:+39.055.4223305 e-mail: massimo.polign...@esaote.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
FCC Class A and Class B testing
FCC looks at things like price, where advertised, where sold. If any of these look a lot like other consumer ITE, the verdict will be Class B. If it is advertised only in periodicals such as Forbes and the WSJ , and sold only through high end ITE outlets, to mainly buiness clients, then it might pass the Class A test. -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 10/25/2001 01:28 PM --- cecil.gittens%kodak@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/25/2001 12:14:51 PM Please respond to cecil.gittens%kodak@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: FCC Class A and Class B testing From: Cecil A. Gittens I am in process in creating an EMC test plan for a Photo Color Printer that will be sold for about $1200.00. My question is can I test this product for either FCC Class A or B? Does the cost of a product matters if it is Class A or B for the US market? Cecil --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
skinny power cords.
Gary, It was always my understanding that house fuses/breakers were to protect all the upstream stuff, e.g. service entry box, external transformers etc. They cannot realistically protect downstream stuff, as they have no knowledge of how much current is too much for a given appliance. However, the house wiring should be able to carry a current up to that of the fuse or CB rating. ITE manufacturers must protect their own product by the use of incoming fuses, CBs, etc. A fixed line cord is part of the product. Hence, the product fuse must blow before a skinny line cord on the product would melt down. For example, suppose a device is rated to draw 2.5A (electric razor?) and uses a skinny line cord at that rating. If an internal fault draws 14A, it might melt down the cord or the device, but it should not harm house wiring rated up to 15A. Of course, I have been wrong before. I think it was 1961. George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 10/24/2001 02:31 PM --- Gary McInturff gary.mcinturff%worldwidepackets@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/24/2001 12:06:00 PM Please respond to Gary McInturff gary.mcinturff%worldwidepackets@interlock.lexmark.com To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: skinny power cords. Fuses and breakers etc, are provided to protect the wiring downstream from these devices. A 15 amp breaker is allowed to have 14 AWG wire attached and run all though my house, and terminates in a 15 amp rated receptacle - parallel blade with ground pin. Why then can I plug in a computer that has only a 6 or 10 amp rated power cord? Surely, its not because the computer has supplemental fusing at 2 amps or whatever. That 2 amp fuse can't protect the wiring between it and the 15 amp breaker in my garage from prolonged operation at 15 amps. The breaker is completely happy running at that value so the wire just sits there and cooks! One would think that any cord rated less than 15 amps, would have to be terminated in a plug that doesn't mate with the wall outlet, much like a 15 amp connector plugged into a 20 amp outlet. Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Lithium Ion Batteries
Note that besides the product safety issues, there are many environmental issues with lithium batteries. Nearly every Euro environmental acceptance form for our products asks if they contain lithium batteries, and how these will be recycled or reclaimed to avoid going to waste land fills. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EMC requirements and Product Marking
Cecil, It is my understanding that both of these countries accept CE marked products, which attests to complying with the applicable EU Directives, one of which is the EMC Directive. There are several methods described in the Directives to justify using the CE marking. Each includes a means of demonstrating conformity to the (now harmonized) EMC standards. Once this has been done, a EU Declaration of Conformity properly executed, and the product CE marked, there is no further EMC certification required in the EU or other countries accepting the CE marking. George Alspaugh cecil.gittens%kodak@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/12/2001 10:02:03 AM Please respond to cecil.gittens%kodak@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: EMC requirements and Product Marking From: Cecil A. Gittens What needs to done to get EMC certification for Switzerland and Norway? Are there any marks required for these countries? Regards Cecil --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Steel Balls vs. Chickens
I suppose the only link between this listserver and the present topic is that the chicken testing discussed pertains to some degree to product safety. One story made the rounds a few years ago about a railroad engine manufacturer that wanted to perform some similar windshield tests on it's locomotives. They got the essential information somewhere, but failed to note that the chickens should be thawed. It was reported that the first test resulted in the frozen bird going through the windshield and one or more bulkheads behind the crew cab area, into the diesel engine area. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Allowable Sound Pressure/Power Levels
There are various OSHA defined levels of noise, beyond which the employer must provide ear protection, regular checkups, etc. with increasing levels. However, the first level is about 85dBa or so, about that for the oprtator of a gas powered lawnmower . With one exception, I know of no acoustic levels mandated in the world that would typically affect the average ITE product. The German Workplace Law requires that employers provide a workplace with acoutic immission levels under 55dBa or 65dBa depending on what type of work is being performed. Immission is the sum of all noises impinging on the person's ears, and depends a large degree on the workspace furnishings, e.g. carpet, curtains, etc. So a specific source must generally be below the stated levels so as to be only part of the sum. This is why we are required to include a German Acoustic Statement per ISO 7779 and ISO 9296 in our user manuals for home/office printers. These are stated in dBa using the 1 meter average sound pressure, as printers do not typically require an operator to be sitting in front of them. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Steel Balls vs. Chickens
In the late 1960's I was working on what became IBM's first copier. We made frequent use of NESA glass, a PPG product. This consisted of an ultra-thin gold layer deposited on glass sheets. We could perform photoconductor light-discharge experiments by coating the PC on the gold surface, and expose from the opposite side. I was told that the NESA glass concept was developed during WWII to defrost bomber windshields. These were typically made of plexi-glass, and would not thermally conduct sufficient heat from within the cockpit to defrost the exterior. The gold coating was placed on the outside of the windshield, and DC current passed across the surface to create enough heat to melt frost. The question of durability of the gold coating to birds striking the surface was established by firing dead chickens at test surfaces. I often kidded one of my mechanical engineering friends that he could and should design a top-of-the-line chicken cannon, with variable muzzle velocity, variable bores for using birds of different sizes, etc. As you know, jet airplane engines are still tested for their resiliency to birds both small (near airport ground level) and large (those ecountered at high altitudes) by similar methods. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
CHINA REQUIREMENTS
Whoa, Too much misleading information! The China safety standard is GB4943-1995 and mirrors IEC 60950 except for testing required at -/+10% of rated voltages, vs. the -10/+6% of IEC. China EMC standard is GB9254-1998 and equal or similar to CISPR 22. The dominant certification agency mark is CCIB, with a small S E indicating safety and EMC. This mark is generally required for all imported ITE. CCEE is another safety (only) mark that typically applied to China made electrical appliances for the Chinese market, i.e. no import . However, if a consumer ITE product is marked Made in China, and exported to some country, then imported back to China, it may require a both CCIB and CCEE marks. This isbecause the CCEE mark does not include EMC, and because CCEE inspectors of retail outlets have no way of knowing that the product was an import. CIQ probably stands for Commodity Import Quality, and may have been a pre-cursor to SAIQ, which became SACI, which is somewhat like the administrative arm of CCIB. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 09/20/2001 11:30 AM --- William D'Orazio dorazio%cae@interlock.lexmark.com on 09/20/2001 10:11:45 AM Please respond to William D'Orazio dorazio%cae@interlock.lexmark.com To: EMC Posting (E-mail) emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: CHINA REQUIREMENTS Gents, It is my understanding that the CIQ Mark is to China as the CE Mark is to Europe. Also the equivalent to IEC60950 is the GB9254 standard and the equivalent to CISPR22 is the GB-4943 standard. Does anybody know if there is an equivalent to CISPR11 and is it mandatory to obtain the CIQ mark for industrial type equipment such as a Full Flight Simulator. Thanks in advance, William D'Orazio CAE Inc. Electrical System Designer Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555) Fax: (514)340-5552 Email: dora...@cae.ca --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Japan VCCI vs. PSE
Here is my understanding. For EMC, Japan has only the VCCI, which is the Voluntary Council for the Control of Interference. It is optional to belong, but members must meet the equivalent of CISPR 22. Until now, AC/DC adapters required safety certification and the use of the Dentori-T mark with certification number. Now, the new Denan process will require the same certification ut with use of the PSE mark. It does not appear that the safety certification is required for most ITE products (other than adapters) under the old or new requirements. George Alspaugh Wan Juang Foo fwj%np.edu...@interlock.lexmark.com on 09/20/2001 09:06:36 AM Please respond to Wan Juang Foo fwj%np.edu...@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Request for a Compliance Matrix Dear all, The table as posted on the web site was very impressive. However there is one or two things that is bugging me. I was aware that the EMC marking in Japan was not mandatory but there are standards set by VCCI. Can someone enlighten me on how (if ) it is related to the PSE marking? Thanks in advance. Tim Foo, E-mail: f...@np.edu.sg ECE, School of Engineering, http://www.np.edu.sg/ece/ Tel: + 65 460 6143 Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Fax: + 65 467 1730 535 Clementi Road, Singapore 599489 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Request for a Compliance Matrix
Clarification. I believe the matrix posted earlier contains some possible errors and omissions. China does NOT accept the CE mark, but requires CCIB and/or CCEE certification depending on the product and country of origin. The Czech Republic is not yet in the EU, and may not yet accept the CE mark without local EZU country certification. Slovakia requires EVPU certification via a CB Report. South Africa requires SABS approval via a CB Report. Brazil is a recent member of IECEE and will soon require local certification via a CB Report. Hungary requires MEEI certification via CB Report. The Mexico NOM certification is more an import license than a safety certificate, requiring little in the way of safety documents. Poland requires PCBC certification via CB Report. Russia requires GOST-R certification via CB Report, although there are intermediate patries to obtain the GOST-R approval. Singapore requires PSB certification for consumer ITE products only, e.g. low end lasers and nearly all inkjets. Slovenia requires SIQ certification via CB Report. United States includes CDRH notification for laser and other radiation devices imbedded in ITE. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: CE Mark
Jody, I seem to recall that CE is for European Community but in Frech, i.e. Communite European. You can try looking around the EU website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/legislation.htm George Jody Leber jleber%ustech-lab@interlock.lexmark.com on 09/11/2001 07:30:53 AM Please respond to Jody Leber jleber%ustech-lab@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: CE Mark Is there an offcial website that defines what the CE actually stands for? I believe it is Conformite Europeene, however I have seen other definitions. I seached the europa site but did not have any luck. Best Regards, Jody Leber Laboratory Manager jle...@ustech-lab.com http://www.ustech-lab.com U. S. Technologies 3505 Francis Circle Alpharetta, GA 30004 770.740.0717 Fax: 770.740.1508 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
UL vs CSA (IT product)
Amund, I believe some additional clarification is warranted. UL and CSA are private agencies and do not determine what is acceptable to market goods (ITE) in their respective countries. This is determined by government bodies. The U.S. OSHA has approved multiple Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories to (NRTLs) to perform testing to the UL standards for ITE. These include UL and CSA. See: http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html The Standards Council of Canada has approved multiple Certification Bodies to perform testing to the CSA standards for ITE. These include UL and CSA. See http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist_e.html Neither UL nor CSA is obliged to recognize or accept testing performed by the other agency, although their respective governments do so. Canada requires either CSA, c-UL, or marks of the other listed certification bodies. U.S. requires UL, CSA/NRTL, or marks of the other listed NRTLs. So, you can use either agency to get a mark acceptable in both countries. However, here is the down side of each: CSA/NRTL--Not as well known in the U.S. by large corporate customers. Requires some selling to convince that it is equal to UL. c-UL--OK for both country consumer/business markets, but Canadian government tends to give precidence to CSA marked ITE when bidding for its own use. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. Ralph Cameron ralphc%igs@interlock.lexmark.com on 09/10/2001 09:33:00 AM Please respond to Ralph Cameron ralphc%igs@interlock.lexmark.com To: Horst Haug innova.ps%t-online...@interlock.lexmark.com, Peter Merguerian pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com, amund%westin@interlock.lexmark.com, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: UL vs CSA (IT product) CSA accepts approval by ULC. The C is indicative of Canadian UL. UL is normally not accpetable by itself in Canada Ralph Cameron EMC Consulting and Suppresion of Consumer Electronics (after sale) - Original Message - From: Horst Haug innova...@t-online.de To: Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il; am...@westin.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 5:24 AM Subject: AW: UL vs CSA (IT product) Amund, UL accept components approved by CSA and CSA accepts components approved by UL. A CSA approved Power Supply within an end product with UL approval is no problem any more (that is my experience). The UL PAG practical application guide about is 1.5.002. I send it to you in a separate EMAIL. With best regards Horst Haug -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]Im Auftrag von Peter Merguerian Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2001 09:44 An: 'am...@westin.org'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Betreff: RE: UL vs CSA (IT product) Amend, See my answers in body of your message. UL and/or CSA certification are mandatory within the electrical safety area,to have access to the US and Canadian marked. Right ? I know there are some differences between them, the certification fee, the certification-handling period and the number of audit/year. My questions are: 1.Do they have the same status? Peter: Yes, to a certain extent. You must check the scope of their acceditations in OSHA's and Standard Council of Canada's websites. 2.What requirements do the end users/ buyers have, do most of them prefer one of the approvals? Peter: Depends on the categories. But most end-users are not aware that other NRTLs are capable of giving the same Listing service. You must educate them. 3.Do we have to go for both of them? Peter: One is enough, but as I said above, you must educate end-users to accept and also check if the test house is accredited for the particular standards. Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway
Burn-in methods
First, I am no expert on accelerated life testing. However, I do know that life testing depends a good deal on the nature of the product. In other words, how will it be used, how often will it be used, and what are its failure modes? An electric pencil sharpener may be used only five to ten times a day for about five seconds each time, and has as much mechanical content as electrical content. An electronic control system may have no mechanical failure modes, but run continuously (24/7). I do recall from the early days of solid state electronics that there were three principle aging factors: (1) on-off cycles, (2) power on hours, and (3) calendar hours. On-off cycles cause heat expansion/contraction at all of the electrical interfaces (e.g. solder joints) that lead to stress fractures due to differing thermal coefficients of expansion in the joint materials. Power on hours age the solid state junctions at a temperature dependent rate (each 10oC halves the lifetime). The calendar age of the electronics, whether ever powered on or not, will result in some natural death failures of the components. Since most products can be repaired (if they are worth it), each repair extends the useful life of the product. Think about your automobile. Extreme rusting of the chassis is about the only failure that cannot be easily repaired. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Old Appends on Hi-Pot Testing
Roughly one year ago, there were a number of excellent appends to this listserver on the basis for hi-potting, and what is and is not proven by the hi-pot test. The recent discussion makes these of current interest for those wanting a better understanding of the electric strength tests cited in section 5.3.2 of any ITE 60950 standards. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Manufacturing Hipot Testing
Raymond, The standards (e.g. IEC 60950 section 5.3.2) allow production hi-pot testing to be reduced to 1 sec., but does not address any change in voltage, up or down. It usually takes more than 1 sec. for a hi-pot to ramp up, stabilize, then ramp down. We used to use about 3 secs to ensure at least 1 sec of full hi-pot voltage. We have usually elevated our production hi-pot voltages for several reasons: - reduced test time - power line variations affecting hi-pot output - hi-pot calibration variances - etc. For example, we would use 1750Vac with an arc detect option for the specified 1500V test, and 3750Vac with arc detect for the specified 3000V test. Sometimes we ran all units at the higher 3750Vac to avoid changing hi-pot settings and introducing errors. Most well designed ITE will easily pass a 3750Vac hipot without damaging or weakening internal insulation. If the insulation is damaged by such values, then it is unlikely it would survive a single lightning strike surge, often well above 3750V. George Alspaugh raymond.li%omnisourceasia.com...@interlock.lexmark.com on 08/22/2001 10:25:43 AM Please respond to raymond.li%omnisourceasia.com...@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc: owner-emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: Manufacturing Hipot Testing Dear All, I have read one BSEN standard suggesting not to perform hipot testing at the test voltage, 3kV, 1.25kV or 3.75kV in mass production. The reason is that it might introduce potential failure in future operation by the customer not immediate failure. It also suggests if hipot testing is done on production line, lower testing voltage, i.e., 1/2 of test voltage should be applied. I would like to have comments on this concern while doing hipot test on production line or other modern way to replace the hipot test on production line. Thanks and regards, .. Raymond Li Omni Source Asia Ltd. - Phone: +852-2542 5303 Email: raymond...@omnisourceasia.com.hk Fax: +852-2541 9067 John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordomSubject: Re: Manufacturing Hipot Testing o.ieee.org 22/08/01 01:39 a Please respond to John Woodgate I read in !emc-pstc that Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com wrote (in 001001c12a54$2b315f80$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com) about 'Manufacturing Hipot Testing', on Tue, 21 Aug 2001: IMHO, if I were to address the initial question regarding manufactoring testing of a product bound for Europe - unless there were some severe national deviation differences from a similar type of US domestic approval of the product, I'd continue along with hi-pot testing just as if the product were bound for a domestic (US) market. Well, you have come to the right conclusion but for two wrong reasons. In Europe, there are no longer any 'national approvals' like the old SEMKO etc. There is ONLY the Low Voltage Directive, and the European Standards (ENs) that have been 'notified' in the Official Journal as providing evidence of compliance. However, most if not all of these ENs have *mandatory requirements* for 100% production-line testing (confusingly called 'routine testing'), including a 'hi-pot' test. It is entirely the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the Declaration of Conformity for the product is true, and to do that he MAY, but does not have to, employ a test-house to produce a report and maybe an expensive certificate and grant permission, in return for more money, to apply a glamorous sticker to the product. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at:
Euro Agency Marks vs. CE Marking
Earlier exchange. In Europe, there are no longer any 'national approvals' like the old SEMKO etc. There is ONLY the Low Voltage Directive, and the European Standards (ENs) that have been 'notified' in the Official Journal as providing evidence of compliance. Not so, the SEMKO S mark along with NEMKO, DEMKO and FIMKO and many others (TUV?) is alive and well. These marks not only demonstrate compliance with the LVD and EMCD (if applicable) but also that some form of manufacturing quality contol is exercised which is audited by the mark's owner. Critical components will be checked and hi pot testing must be performed. For the European Union, only the CE marking is required, indicating conformity to all applicable Directives, for ITE this would be the EMC and LV Directives. It is correct that this marking is not issued by any test agency, and does not, in itself, stipulate required production tests. It is true that all of the former local country approval agencies are still alive, and attempt to sell the importance of their marks to their country residents as the only true sign of safety. They often point out, and rightly so, that the CB Scheme does not actually require the equivalent of a type test to the applicable standard, allowing a manufacturer to submit a Technical Construction File (TCF) or self- declaration of conformity, and with little production oversight required. Due to this and local preferences, many manufacturers still obtain one of more of these redundant, but traditional, marks. In some respects, these many test houses contributed to their own demise. How many type tests from multiple agencies does it take to affirm meeting EN60950? How many agency inspectors does it take to inspect the same factory? When all is said and done, only one type test and one routine factory follow-up inspection is required to ensure the safety quality of a product. The CB Scheme is the common sense approach, but still has a few flaws. The CB Scheme should include a requirement for one, and only one, agency factory certification and follow-up inspections. This would remove the continuing redundancy of multiple agencies inspecting the same factory for the same safety related processes. My opinion... George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Manufacturing Hipot Testing
Don, IEC 60950, section 5.3, is specific regarding electric strength testing. It does not require testing between secondary circuits, as it is the primary to secondary, and primary to ground insulation that provides protection against electric shock. Type testing is performed for 1 minute, although production testing is permitted for 1 sec. It usually requires several seconds for the high-pot to ramp up, stabilize at the desired votage, and then ramp down, so it normally takes 3+ seconds to assure a full second at the max voltage. Of course, you may be working with a non-ITE product, with a different standard, requiring secondary intra-circuit testing. George Alspaugh don_macarthur%selinc@interlock.lexmark.com on 08/17/2001 02:12:51 PM Please respond to don_macarthur%selinc@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Manufacturing Hipot Testing Dear Group: A Hipot standard which we must run for CE compliance requires that circuit-to-circuit and circuit-to-ground testing be performed on a routine basis. The test is applied for 10s. The products I deal with have many circuits (Inputs, outputs, etc.) so test time is excessive . To speed test time the standard allows for grouping of similar circuits and decreasing the test time to 1s (with increased voltage). There is a problem with the grouping method because faults between circuits in the group are masked. A better way of performing dielectric strength testing would be to automate a process where each individual circuit is hipot tested to ground for 1 second. The problem is that this method doesn't match what the CE standard requires. Some of you have probably been in similar circumstances. What did you do? What do you suggest? Do I meet the standard no matter the cost? What is the risk of having my CE Mark pulled and perhaps my company sued if I do not meet the entire standard? Regards, Don MacArthur --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
EMC and power supply
When I managed both EMC and power supply design groups in the '80's, I found the many tech magazine ads for open frame power supplies quite amusing. These always stated that the power supplies met FCC and other EMI requirements. How were these tested? A dummy d.c. load does NOT impose a particular challenge on a power supply. Real life loads are dynamic in nature, and can significantly alter the total EMI measured. From my knowledge of EMI testing, it became apparant that changing ANY part of a system that could conduct electrons could alter the EMI profile. One basic law holds true for electrons in a system; viz. they will always take the path of least resistance in getting from A to B. However, the least resistive path changes with increasing frequency. At the higher frequencies of interest, it is not unusual for the electrons to be racing through the metal covers rather than the intended paths. The reason that CE + CE = CE is not typically true is that a combination of units can produce EMI results that are: A. better than the sum of the individual components B. same as the individual components C. worse than any of the individual components Since global EMC requirements are based on the complete system as it will be used (e.g. PC, monitor, keyboard, mouse, printer,...) it is always best to test the complete system the the very components that will be used. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
ESD Testing
As I recall, our facility (IBM at the time) first dealt with field ESD issues long before there were the present FCC EMI rules for digital devices. This was back in the '60's. At the time we made typewriters, some with internal magnetic cards for storing typed documents. In low humidity regions, it was not uncommon for two types of ESD problems. One was the effect on moving media (paper or mylar based cards) within the product, which could build up excessive ES charges, and stick to one another, viz. a jam. Do you recall when many early copiers (probably Xerox) had visible conductive brushes at the output paper tray to bleed off some of the stored charge so that the sheets did not stick together. Charges on the media could also arc to grounded parts in the machine, causing functional problems. The other major field problem was that of office personnel walking across wool carpets to operate our equipment, sometimes drawing a tidy arc when they first touched the equipment. This was distasteful to the users and could often lock up the machine electronics. At times all we could do was recommend a different carpet fabric. So, how much ESD immunity should be designed into a product and tested? This depends a lot on where and how the equipment will be used, and the importance of its function. A glitch (wrong character) on a typed page was not the end of the world for a typical typewriter user. However, a serious ESD event on an air traffic controller's monitor in Tuscon (or other dry climate) could lead to mid-air collisions. Although not an ESD problem, I recall an interesting EMS field incident that Donald Bush (now retired) investigated. We had recently gone to electronic keyboards to replace the older mechanical keyboards on our electronic typewriters. A machine located in the Southwest (as I recall) was behaving badly. Don went to the site, and found that there was a nearby airport with a large radar dish within sight of the typewriter. The radar signal was being picked up by the traces (acting as antennae) in the keyboard PCB, and typing whatever the random noise caused the unit to type. The user claimed it would even occassionally type something when it was turned off? Adding a grounded plane under (or over?) the keyboard in the form of a coated mylar sheet provided enough shielding to resolve the problem. Ah, isn't it great to remember events from 30+ years ago and not be able to remember what you had for lunch? George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: North American test house
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) owns DEMKO. You may be able to use the DEMKO / UL connection to your advantage. However, I am not sure that UL does any EMC testing / verification. George Kim Boll Jensen kim.jensen%eicon@interlock.lexmark.com on 08/14/2001 04:34:26 AM Please respond to Kim Boll Jensen kim.jensen%eicon@interlock.lexmark.com To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, TREG (E-mail) treg%world.std@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: North American test house Hi all I need URGENTLY a test house in North America which will accept a Danish accredited test report for a Bluetooth product for FCC and IC approval. The Danish test house is accredited my national government and have just applied for FCC approval concerning Bluetooth but we can't wait for that. Can some one give me names of possible test houses so we don't have to retest it all. Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Approval manager Eicon Networks Denmark --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
board scanning on the cheap (sort of)
Well, this discussion has reached the point where I must add something I read about some years ago. It goes something like this: For many years, Russia was known to conduct many experiments involving paranormal activity, probably to determine if there were any military value in such phenomena as psychic communications etc., if in fact they existed. I was surprised to see an article in a National Geographic years ago that told of one such experiment. It involved photography of the aura (presumably electromagnetic fields) that surround the human body. The peaks in this aura, or field were found to be consistent with the primary acupuncture points long before identified by the Chinese. A faith (hand-on) healing was photographed, revealing that the aura of the healer diminished during the process while the aura of the person being healed increased, i.e. a possible transfer of energy. The point of all this is if the Russians truly developed a means to photograph the low power EMF surrounding humans, it would seem that the same technique would also photograph the EMF surrounding PCBs etc. I have no comment on whether any of the above is true science, but I DID read it in the generally respected National Geographic, albeit not a scientific journal. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: Safety
Dear KC, In general, you will not find complete safety standards on the internet, as these are typically sold by the international or country safety agencies. You can use http://www.safetylink.com/ as an excellent directory to many safety and EMC related websites. If you plan to market an ITE world-wide, you should specifically study the CB Scheme at http://www.cbscheme.org/ . 60950 is becoming the global safety standard for ITE, whether it is preceded by IEC, EN, UL, etc. The CB Scheme site lists the standard for each participating country, but many (such as China GB 4943) are identical to IEC/EN 60950. Regards, George Please respond to KC CHAN [PDD] kcchan%hkpc@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Safety Members I am responsible for EMC stuff, but I need to know something about Safety. Could anyone advises some good reference materials from the internet about safety? such as basic concept, definitions, EN60065, EN60950 and UL. Thank you KC Chan --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Australia Standards
I appreciate the many on-line and off-line reponses you provided! However, many have cited http://www.standards.com.au/ as the place I need. Unfortunately, I had already been there, done that, and it is merely the amazon.com equivalent for Australia standards. I don't need to order any standards, but needed to communicate with a real live product safety standards engineer relative to a limited number of external power supplies (AC/DC adapters) being used for test purposes prior to offiical AS/NZ certification. Sufficient information was received that I may be able to get the answer to my question. Thanks, George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Australia Safety Agency Contact
Fellow PSEs, I need to ask a question about exporting a prototype AC/DC Adapter to Australia for evaluation prior to official certification of the equipment. It is my understanding that I need to contact the Standards Association of Australia (SAA), but cannot find a website or other contact info via the internet. Does anyone have such information at hand? Regards, George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Detachable AC Cordset Selection for the EU
My old Feller catalog shows a Euro plug rated 16A-250V. It is listed as Type VII G, CEE (7) VII, 16A-250V. It is a three wire (Class I) variety, with two male pins and a female ground socket. Since Feller (HQ in Austria) produces line cord sets, I would guess there are 16A line cord sets available for Europe. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: CE or CB ?
Doug, My responses in brackets [] below. Doug McKean dmckean%corp.auspex@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/08/2001 12:57:33 PM Please respond to Doug McKean dmckean%corp.auspex@interlock.lexmark.com To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: CE or CB ? Perfect time to ask this question. A few years ago, I went the CB scheme with a product that was ITE under the IEC-950 umbrella. At that time, the CB scheme would only cover power supplies and not the entire product approval. Having not done the CB scheme before or since I've not much experience with it. So here's some questions. 1. Does the CB Scheme actually approve entire product now instead of just components such as power supplies? [yes] 2. Does the CB Scheme cover products outside the IEC-950 ITE category? [yes. see www.cbscheme.org ] 3. When using the CB Scheme for products, a TCF (Technical Construction File) has to be constructed, correct? [no. you can use either CB assessment or a TCF.] 4. Will member countries of the CB Scheme accept testing and a TCF which has been done entirely in another country? In other words, can I do all my CB Scheme tests here in the US to include national deviations of the intended country of sale, generate a TCF, then send it off without further testing to another country? Or, will there be further testing required? [You cannot do most of the CB testing. This must be done by one of the listed authorized CB agencies, e.g. UL, CSA, TUVR, SEMKO, . The resulting CB Test Report, if done thoroughly and accurately, will be automatically accepted in many countries. However, all CBs being asked to recognize the report of another CB have the right to request a sample to compare to the report. Any further testng they may do is not billable to you as you have already paid the original CB agency for all the IEC 60950 tests. An exception is if you failed to ask the issuing CB to include all CB country differences.] - Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Product Safety: A Matter of Law or Litigation?
Some discussions relative to CE marking and the EU Directives tend to overlook a key point. The European Union Directives are directed not to manufacturers, but to the member states of the EU, establishing requirements for products entering the EU via their borders. This is simply because the governing body of the EU only has authority over its own members. The governing body has neither the mission nor resources to monitor what enters the EU borders. This burden is placed on the member states via the Directives. The Directives themselves are often worded very generically, i.e. motherhood and apple pie. Take the Low Voltage Directive as an example. It does not cite specific standards etc., but states that the applicable products must be safe to humans and so on. Various Directives such as those for CE marking, suggest means by which EU members can evaluate in-coming products, such as meeting specified standards. This is why there are several paths by which manufacturers can prove that their product(s) meets these generic requirements. The most obvious and straightforward method is to test to an established, harmonized, and IECEE recognized standard, e.g. IEC 60950 for ITE. The Technical Construction File route via a Notified Body can also be used, but can actually require more time and effort than a third party CB assessment. Of course, for products without harmonized and/or accepted standards, the TCF route may be the only alternative. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: CE or CB ?
Dan, There is no CB mark. The CE marking is required for the EU, indicating compliance with all applicable EU Directives for the product involved. This is accepted by the 15 member states and by Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. Several Eastern European countries are waiting to be accepted into the EU, and may begin accepting the CE mark prior to membership, viz. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Having a product, typically ITE, assessed to IEC 60950 via the CB Scheme is one of several methods to satisfy the safety aspect of the CE marking, viz. the Low Voltage Directive. You can see more on the CB Scheme at www.cbscheme.org . George Alspaugh Lexmark Dan Pierce dpierce%openglobe@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/07/2001 09:31:11 AM Please respond to Dan Pierce dpierce%openglobe@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc: 'dan.kin...@heapg.com' dan.kinney%heapg@interlock.lexmark.com, 'brian.stuc...@heapg.com' brian.stuckey%heapg@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: CE or CB ? I am in the process of introducing product into the EU and possibly world wide. I was shown that the CB mark testing covers all the countries in the EU that we plan to sell to and other countries as well. Is this a new mark? Would I be better off getting the CE mark and then test to other countries applicable standards or the CB mark? The test facility that provided me with the information was Intertek Testing Services, in California USA. I planned to test to: EN55013 EN55020 TBR21 61000-3-2 61000-3-3 Daniel J. Pierce Sr. Design Engineer OpenGlobe, Inc. (An Escient Technologies Affiliate) 6325 Digital Way Indianapolis, IN 46278 mailto:dpie...@openglobe.net P: (317) 616.6587 F: (317) 616.6587 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Secondary Grounding
The Product Safety standards for ITE are generally based on the single fault rule. That is, the device can withstand a single fault and still be safe. If a Class I (earth grounded design) device loses its earth ground path, for whatever reason, internal or external, this is a single fault, and the device is still safe. A shock hazard can occur only through a second fault, e.g. a failure of the required basic insulation. This is why it is a safe practice to employ Class II double / reinforced insulation for Class I designs, as the initial fault (loss of ground) may be due to the house wiring or other external factor. Using Class II insulation would require a third fault, i.e. a failure of the supplemental insulation, for a shock hazard to occur. Applying the principles above, there would be no need to provide parallel or secondary grounding paths. George Alspaugh Lexmark --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: US Mains Plug/Earthing
Enci, Simply put, any electrical appliance marketed in the U.S. should conform to UL standards. You did not state what type of product this is, so I cannot say what standards apply. However, in general, I would be very surprised if any UL standard permitted a two wire plug on a Class 1 (earth grounded) design. George Enci enci%cinepower@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/16/2001 11:47:06 AM Please respond to Enci enci%cinepower@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: US Mains Plug/Earthing I am in the UK, a customer in USA wants us to fit 2 pin mains plugs to the Class 1 appliances he is going to be buying from us. He is very firm that there are no regulations in US that requires this to be so. Is that true? Thank you. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: China
Richard, You cannot go wrong if you comply to IEC 60950 for both ITE and power supplies for ITE. To my knowledge, the China standard is identical to IEC except that testing is done to +10/-10 percent vs. the usual +6/-10. If the units are made in China for use in China, you need CCEE certification. CCEE is China's listed CB. If the units are made in China, but later imported into China, you will need CCIB certification. Both CCEE and CCIB apply the same IEC-like standard. George Alspaugh woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/14/2001 12:05:37 PM Please respond to woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: China I am aware of China's requirements for safety and EMC approvals for imported equipment, but I have no clue as to the requirements for products manufactured in China. Can someone enlighten me, particularly about ITE and power supplies? Richard Woods --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Voltage vs. Power
Some posts seemed to suggest that lowering the distribution voltage could cause the power to increase. I doubt this can occur, as it would require a new basic device with operating characteristics opposite that of a resistor. As one posted noted, power = V**2 / R. So, as V decreases, R would have to decrease rather rapidly for the input power to remain the same or increase. It is true that most heavy RLC loads would operate less efficiently at less than intended voltages, but the power would still be less. I doubt the efficiency would fall greatly at 5% or so reduction in nominal line voltage. Merely my personal opinions. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Product Safety - Japan
The new Japan DENAN requirements are not completely clear, and I know of no on-line source in English to clear up certain aspects. For example, in the past, AC/DC adapters have required certification and the application of the Dentori-T mark with cert. number. However, there was no mandatory Japan certification for most ITE end products, e.g. the laser and inkjet printers we market. The attached MS Word file refers to specified products (SP) and non-specified products (NSP), and lists 19 product categories. However, it does not reveal if ITE might be included in categories 17 (electronic appliances) or 18 (other electronic apparatuses), or even incuded at all as an SP or NSP product requiring certification. George (See attached file: Japan DENAN Scheme.doc) Japan DENAN Scheme.doc Description: Mac Word 3.0
Re: definition of type certification
Susan, Simply put, a type certification is a 100% test by an independent certification agency against the applicable standard, of a single sample unit representative of future production units. The key words are single sample. Typically, forthcoming production units are tested during manufature only to a few key standard items, e.g. hi-pot and earthing resistance for ITE. This is NOT type testing. George Beard, Susan (TRANS, GEHH) susan.beard%gehh.ge@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/02/2001 03:13:09 PM Please respond to Beard, Susan (TRANS, GEHH) susan.beard%gehh.ge@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: definition of type certification Forgive me if this is a naive question (given my background of compliance to MIL-STDs), but I keep hearing references to type certification which seems to be relative to generic FCC, ACA, etc. type compliance testing of comm devices. I am more familiar with references to specific FCC Part 15 or other ... are these references synonymous? Susan H. Beard 321-435-7762 Fax 321-435-7957 susan.be...@gehh.ge.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Regulatory Information
Luiz, If you go to www.safetylink.com you will find websites for some of the country certification agencies you are interested in. I cannot comment on EN60335-1 products as we do only EN60950 products. George Chris Maxwell chris.maxwell%gnnettest@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/01/2001 07:39:58 AM Please respond to Chris Maxwell chris.maxwell%gnnettest@interlock.lexmark.com To: 'emc-pstc' emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Regulatory Information Luiz, I can only help with a couple of pieces of information that you want. Check out the website for Panel Components.They are a company that makes international cordsets, plugs sockets ... I'd give you the URL, but our internet service is down this morning. Panel Components catalog and website has a table of the voltage limits, frequency and the proper plug/socket for just about any country that you can think of. In their catalog, this information is in the Export Designer's Reference Section If I recall correctly, the table also lists the marking symbol of each country's safety certification agency. I hope this helps. Chris Maxwell Design Engineer NetTest 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica,NY 13502 email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com phone: 315-266-5128 fax: 315-797-8024 -Original Message- From: Luiz Claudio [SMTP:luizboni...@ig.com.br] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 7:04 PM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: Regulatory Information Dear colleagues, My company's products are under the EN60335-1 (household appliance safety requirements). Since some countries have particular deviations from this standard, I am trying to gather information about these deviations in a single file. I would be very grateful if someone could send me any information concerning this subject particularly in the following countries: Australia Hong Kong Korea Philippines Saudi Arabia Singapore Taiwan Thailand I would also appreciate receiving information about: Voltage max/min limits Frequency Product Safety Certification Schemes Energy Efficiency Requirements (labeling / targets) EMC Requirements Environmental Requirements Any single note will be highly appreciated. Regards, Luiz --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: EN60950 (UL1950, IEC 60950) On off switch marking.
Rick,
My opinion based on my understanding of IEC 60950.
Whether an on/off switch breaks one or both sides of the line, the
equipment will be either on or off respectively, as either breaks the
electron path.
It is true that breaking only one side may leave the electronics hot
if the plug or socket allow for the neutral to be the open side. However,
the device will be off.
As I recall, the marking instructions you referenced make no mention of
whether one or both of the mains leads are opened by the switch. Therefore,
the I or O apply only to whether the device is on or off, which results from
breaking either or both sides of the line.
George Alspaugh
Lexmark International Inc.
Rick Linford rlinford%sonicwall@interlock.lexmark.com on 04/27/2001
12:25:19 PM
Please respond to Rick Linford rlinford%sonicwall@interlock.lexmark.com
To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: EN60950 (UL1950, IEC 60950) On off switch marking.
Hi All,
When a switch opens only one leg of the mains to control power to
equipment should it be marked with the l and O?
Background:
Three different engineers from three different NRTLs indicated it is
permitted, two even required it. A different engineer for one of the
NRTLs and two other respected individuals indicate it is prohibited. It
will be interesting if members of this list will have the same 50/50
split or if there is a correct answer.
(single phase 100 to 240 VAC, 2A, 50-60 Hz, intended to be shipped US,
Canada, EU and generally internationally)
To help, IEC 60950 (1999), section 1.7.8.3 Symbols, is shown below.
Where symbols are used on or near controls, for example switches, push
button, etc., to indicate ON OFF conditions, they shall be the line
l for ON and the circle O for OFF (60417-1-IEC-5007 and
60417-1-IEC-5008). For push-push type switches the symbol {line in side
the circle} shall be used (60417-1-IEC-5010).
It is permitted to use the symbols O and l to indicate the OFF and
ON positions of any primary or secondary power switches, including
isolating switches.
A STAND-BY condition shall be indicated by the symbol {line breaking
the circle at the top} (60417-1-IEC-5009).
My bias was not included in the 50/50 statistics noted above but I
believe it is required.
Rick Linford
Regulatory Engineer
SonicWALL
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
ESD generators max Contact discharge level
This is merely a comment on the distant past regarding ESD. I joined IBM in 1963, well before the present FCC regulations for EMI of ITE and other digital products operating at 10kHz or above. As I recall, the predominant EMC problem in those days was ESD between operators of office equipment and our products. The combination of carpet fabrics, shoe sole material, dry climates, and high EMS of the products resulted in numerous field complaints. It was not unusual for EMC engineers to make frequent field trips to determine the nature of pervasive ESD issues with a particular product, then spend many hours back in the lab trying to ESD- proof the product. As I recall, IBM (Poughkeepsie?) developed an internal ESD tester for tabletop discharges, the one with the four vanes etc. Other IBM development labs would order these units from the originating lab. Later on, IBM must have sold or given the design rights away as these were later offered for sale by outside vendors. Nowadays we tend to focus so much attention on EMI regulations that ESD seems a lesser evil until it results in rampant field problems. Just the recollections of an old timer.. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. p.s. Donald Bush, retired IBMer, knows far more of this history than I do as he spent his entire career in EMC at the IBM Lexington, KY facility. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: Job Description
Luiz, You can couch the following topics in whatever buzz words are in vogue in your company, but I see the following list as the Product Safety cycle of activities: - Understand the applicable global product safety design standards. - Establish any desirable company product safety policies/practices that exceed the global requirements. - Understand the applicable tests for proof of conformity - Understand individual country certification processes - Communicate requirements to those responsible for the design and/or certification processes (may be external to your company). - Review early and final designs for conformity to applicable standards. - Submit the product for the appropriate certifications, or monitor the process if not the actual applicant - Resolve or assist in resolving issues raised by certification bodies. - Ensure that all of the required certification documents are in place at the start of manufacture, including any agency FUS procdures. - Participate in resolving manufacturing and/or field issues as they arise. - Ensure that certifications are amended to reflect alternate components and/or manufacturing sites. - Use field performance as a measure of the soundness of the initial design parameters. - Be aware of any emerging significant changes to global requirements. - Factor all of the above into the requirements for the next product. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. Luiz Claudio luizbonilla%ig.com...@interlock.lexmark.com on 04/21/2001 08:28:36 AM Please respond to Luiz Claudio luizbonilla%ig.com...@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Job Description Dear Colleagues, I have been asked to write a complete new job description for a Product Safety / Codes Compliance Engineer. Although being familiar with this activity (I'm on it for almost 10 years), I would like to avoid describing my job, since this could lead to some kind of bias. If any of you has a job description of a product safety engineer who is responsible for getting compliance certifications of electrical products, I would be very thankful for receiving it. In order to avoid overflowing this list with attached files, I'd appreciate receiving the responses through my personal email address. Regards, Luiz --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Safety Incidents
You have raised a very important question that many of us must deal with in some way. I note you have received no replies via the listserver. I know of no documented legal requirements for the incident investigation process, although OHSA, CPSC, and others may have documented requirements for notification (external reporting) in the event of a pervasive product safety defect that could result in injury or property damage. Luckily, I have no reason to find out the details of these. Your question seems directed more at the reporting and documentation processes than the investigative process. However, it is the latter process that determines the data and information that would necessary in the event of a notification/reporting action. I have an incident investigation process that I use, but there is no one right method. First of all, the engineering aspect generally follows the same methods used to analyze any engineering problem, viz. (1) what evidence or data is available, (2) what are the symptoms of the problem, (3) what are the possible causes, (4) what is the most likely cause, (5) is the likely cause internal or external to the product, etc. My process is fairly simple, based on common sense, and includes the following: - Date, time, and location of the incident - Names and contact info for owner, operator, witness, etc. - Speak with any actual witness(es) of the incident - What did the witness(es) see, hear, smell, touch, etc.? - What was the perceived risk; shock, fire, sharp edges,? - Did any injury or property damage occur? - Does the incident resemble prior incidents for which we know the cause? - Initial assessment of severity of the incident based on initial data. - Does initial assessment warrant a stop-ship pending conclusions? - Are there any photographs or official reports of the incident? (e.g. fire dept., insurance investigator, medical, etc.) - Where is the unit located at this time? - Do we need to see the unit? - If so, can the unit be shipped to us? - If the unit cannot be shipped to us, do we need to go to the unit? - What external factors are pertinent; i.e. other ITE, UPSs, thunderstorms, outlet strips, nearby open flames or heaters, gross misuse, .? - What is the service history of this unit? - Examine the unit. - What, if any, damage is visible? - What other clues are visible, e.g. arcing, overheated component, etc...? - What portions of the unit are operable, and which are not? - What are the final conclusions as to the cause and whether a hazard did or did not exist? - If appropriate, inform the customer of the findings. - If a hazard was exposed, was it due to a random event or to a product design and/or manufacturing defect? - What, if any, actions should be taken to avoid a similar occurance? - Do the probabilty and severity of the incident warrant notification (external reporting) and/or recall actions? Final note: In general, I have found that most reported incidents did not result in a hazard and were not caused by product or manufacturing defects. For example, smoke and/or odors from a failing component will often be perceived as a fire. Shocks from simple electrostatic discharge (ESD) may be viewed as a serious shock threat. The above are my personal views based on 38 years of engineering experience. George Alspaugh woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com on 04/19/2001 10:19:32 AM Please respond to woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Safety Incidents My company has a standard process for the reporting and follow up of alleged safety incidents concerning our products. We are now attempting to create a standard format for the final report to ensure that all of the necessary aspects of the investigation are complete and adequately documented from both an engineering and legal aspect. Is there anyone out there that would share with us any information they have in this regard? Or, can you point me in the right direction to find the information? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Repeat Postings
Has anyone noticed that postings to this listserver repeat several days later? For example, Chris Colgan's question about switching NRTLs first posted about 3/6/01 appeared again this afternoon? George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Re: T marked power supply
Joe, SMPS AC/DC adapters are not uncommon in the marketplace today. With a SMPS, it is usually easy to cover the voltage range from 100- 127Vac or 100-240Vac. Any units approved for these ranges would likely bear the Japan Dentori-T mark. Our own external power supplies are provided as unique Lexmark P/Ns to meet specific specs, but all the low volt units do have the Dentori-T mark. George Alspaugh Corporate Product Safety Lexmark International Inc. burchj%andovercontrols@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/14/2001 11:31:49 AM Please respond to burchj%andovercontrols@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: T marked power supply Hi Group, Does anyone know of a power supply manufacturer that supplies lap top type power supplies that have the Japanese T mark for safety certification on them? Thanks for your help in advance. Joe Josiah P. Burch Compliance Engineer II Andover Controls Corporation 300 Brickstone Square Andover,Ma 01810 (978)-470-0555 x335 (978)-470-3615 Fax Title: T marked power supply Hi Group, Does anyone know of a power supply manufacturer that supplies lap top type power supplies that have the Japanese T mark for safety certification on them? Thanks for your help in advance. Joe Josiah P. Burch Compliance Engineer II Andover Controls Corporation 300 Brickstone Square Andover,Ma 01810 (978)-470-0555 x335 (978)-470-3615 Fax
Re: 230 Vac or 240 Vac?
David, Here is my understanding based on an earlier discussion on this forum and some of our business experiences. The agreement amongst many high volt countries was on a 220-240V range. This implies a 230V nominal. The 240V countires agreed, but never changed their nominals, as this would have involved serious changes to their power generation equipment. Their reasoning was that a product rated at 220-240V is required under IEC 60950 and like standards to be tested up to 6% over rated voltage, i.e. a max of 254V. They assumed they could deliver power to the end users within this range without changing their nominals. I'm beginning to doubt this assumption as we have had numerous reports of our direct plug-in external power supplies running hot in two geographies only, viz. the U.K. and Australia/New Zealand. Since we have specified and tested up to 254V without problems, it is my belief that the end users may be seeing over 254V on low periods of the day. High usage periods result in more IR drop along the transmission paths, and reduce the end voltage. This is just my opinion based on my experiences. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. gelfand%memotec@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/02/2001 10:56:22 AM Please respond to gelfand%memotec@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: 230 Vac or 240 Vac? Group, I seem to remember that Australia was changing their nominal voltage from 240 to 230 V. Is this true? Are there other countries that have nominal voltages of 240 V? I want to determine the maximum voltage for leakage current tests. Best regards, David. David Gelfand Regulatory Approvals Memotec Communications Inc. Montreal Canada --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: FCC for PCs
I recall from my days of managing EMC that the FCC does not allow a manufacturer to declare if an ITE product is Class A or B. They look at the price, and where the product is advertised and sold as well. If the product is within the price range consumers are willing to pay, advertised in consumer publications, and sold through routine consumer outlets, then it is Class B. Note that consumers are far more familiar with PCs now, and many are willing to pay up to $3K or more for a home PC. George prao%tennyson.com...@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/01/2001 07:04:50 PM Please respond to prao%tennyson.com...@interlock.lexmark.com To: woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: FCC for PCs You are right, they should be Class B unless they excusively specify that the PC is not for home use. You will need them to be Class B to start with and when you load them with custom option cards there is a high chance that the EMI characteristics will worsen and you'll at least meet Class A. Praveen -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, 2 February 2001 2:08 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC for PCs We are purchasing a PC loaded with custom option cards from a supplier that obtains the PC from a third party. The end unit as sold to us and resold by us is not intended for home use. However, the base PC initially sold by the third party is sized and priced such that it could potentially be used in the home. The computer does not display the FCC mark, but is marked according to Class A requirements. I am concerned that the computer may not be in compliance with FCC marking requirements. What are the current rules that would apply in this case? Richard Woods --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: GS # 2
I believe the 2 designates TUV Rheinland. However, numeric designations are no longer permitted, and are replaced by the logo and/or name of the testing agency. George Alspaugh pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/31/2001 03:16:58 AM Please respond to pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: GS # 2 Hello Group, Anyone knows which German test lab carries the GS logo with the nuimber 2 in it? Thanks in advance, Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Product Marking
I see no cETL listed at http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html I did see ITS listed. bolintic%dscltd@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:52:35 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Product Marking Dear George, Just a small clarification: in regard to item 5, one of the following.., are mixed-up TESTING AGENCIES(NRTLs) with MARKS. In Canada, are acceptable the following MARKS: CSA, cETL (issued by ITS - Intertek Testing Services, formerly Inchcape T.S.), cUL and ULC. (for CERTIFICATION purposes.) Respectfully yours, Constantin Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng. DIGITAL SECURITY CONTROLS LTD. 3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2 CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA e-mail: bolin...@dscltd.com telephone: 905 760 3000 ext 2568 www.dscgrp.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:49 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Product Marking Courtland, You raise a very interesting question, prompted by the usual Dilbert marketing thinking. Here are some comments, in no particular order, nor do I draw a conclusion: 1. As you know, OSHA has approved multiple NRTLs to issue certifications to UL 1950 and other standards. We were once acquiring a product which used the CSA/NRTL mark, i.e. perfectly acceptable. Marketing thought the world would come to an end, as they would not be able to respond to bids (particularly gov't bids) specifying UL approval. I personally assured marketing that if a U.S. gov't bid held to the UL approval requirement they would be at odds with OSHA, i.e. the Code of Federal Regulations. We wrote a statement for them to the effect that the product was tested as conforming to UL 1950 etc. without specifying the agency. They finally accepted our position, but we still get the UL mark on most products. 2. Similarly, Canada will accept a CSA or c-UL mark. However, it seems that the Canadian gov't prefers the CSA mark when bidding for their use. Hence, we normally require the CSA mark for models that would most likely be candidates for gov't office use. 3. It is my observation and position that customers buying off-the- shelf or over the internet have no clue what a power rating label is nor do they look at it after purchase. Therefore, for the average consumer, the particular marks or absence thereof matters little. 4. Large customers of business products do often want know the details of marks and approvals, but do not necessarily understand that UL = CSA/NRTL = ITS = MET etc. if tested to the same UL/CSA standards. 5. If you do NOT market to Canadian gov't, I suggest using any one of the following, acceptable for other customers in both countries, assuming your marketing can live with any of these: - c-UL-us - MET - ITS - TUVR George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 01/24/2001 03:35 PM --- cthomas%patton@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:05:09 PM Please respond to cthomas%patton@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute:
Product Risks
Allow me to make one addendum to my prior note before I get blasted by the readers. I implied that virtually all traffic accidents are due to bad drivers. I overlooked the infamous Firestone tire episode. However, this does not alter my position. If you had a pie diagram indicating the accidents vs. (1) bad driver choices, and (2) vehicle defects, the latter would be a barely discernable sliver. George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Product Risks
Product safety is a relative term. It usually means that a product meets the public's generally accepted level of risk for the benefits it provides. My plastic coffee mug is quite safe, aside from the stuff that I sometimes allow to grow inside. My chain saw is a nightmare waiting to happen, but it provides benefits well beyond the hand powered bow saw I once used. Humans are willing to take many risks which have some rewards, driving a car, flying in a plane, skiing, filling up their gas tank, etc. In my opinion, even if cellphones are someday found to increase the risk of cancerous brain tumors, the public will not let that stop them from suing what has become a part of the culture, moreso in underdeveloped countries, as their existing land line phone systems suck. However, there are some products we purchase and use all the time for which we assume there is little or no risk. A good example might be the home or office ITE devices we use. Do you really think of possible injuries when using your PC, printer, scanner, etc.? Aslo, look at how many CPSC recalls are for seemingly benign products; pajamas, plastic toys, curtains, ..? Speaking of vehicle safety, when was the last time you heard of an accident that was totally due to a defective part. Accidents are largely due to bad drivers. When we speak of car safety, don't we usually mean that when a bad driver causes an accident, the car's design should protect us from any serious consequences? Most folks in first world countries have enough drugs in their medicine cabinet, and flammable liquids in their garage to either poison or burn down the entire neighborhood. Is this safe? I don't think so, but these are products we have accepted as a part of everyday life. Go figure George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: AC Adapters in Australia
Richard, Yes, most likely the adapter will require a safety approval. EMC is also required unless the unit ONLY comes with its powered product, and is not to be commercially available independently. George woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/15/2001 04:41:45 PM Please respond to woods%sensormatic@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: AC Adapters in Australia The subject is an AC adapter imported into Australia as part of non-telecom ITE for business use only. Is the AC Adapter for this particular application considered to be declared and thus subject to safety approval? Richard Woods --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
TCF's
Courtland, you asked: I would like to know the intent of TCF's for CE. There are numerous standards such as Radiated Emissions, Conducted Emissions, ESD, Radiated Immunity, Fast Transients, Surge, etc..., that apply. What actually is the intent of the TCF? Is it to allow the manufacturer to select only certain standards in lieu of testing to all the standards? My understanding is as follows: The CE marking attests to compliance with all applicable Directives. The Directives do not specify standards, only the results, e.g. non-interference. BTW, the Directives are imposed on the member states, not manufacturers. Obviously, if a manufacturer wants to enter the EU with a product, it must be CE marked. The manufacturer can choose to conform to harmonized standards listed in the Official Bulletin, or can use a TCF to demonstrate the desired results in lieu of a particular standard. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts
We might be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. The basic intent of the various standards is to ensure that power rating information is not easily rubbed off. The international standards IEC/EN60950 (sec. 1.7.15) stipulate 15 second rub tests using water and petroleum spirits. The makeup of these spirits is stipulated. However, if a label withstands the rub test with any of the usual household spirits, e.g. kerosene, isopropyl alcohol, rubbing alcohol, lamp oil, lighter fluid, gasoline etc., it will probably withstand the test same with any of the uniquely specified petroleum spirits. I assume each of us has at one time tried to remove printing or the complete label from a jar or bottle for other uses. My own experience is that if one spirit will work, so will the others. Some (gasoline) will work faster than others (lighter fluid). Conversely, if a randomly chosen spirit will not work, it is time to try a knife blade or blow torch (just kidding about the torch). George Alspaugh kmccormickinc%hotmail@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/02/2001 03:40:42 PM Please respond to kmccormickinc%hotmail@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts Thanks guys...BUT, I am not trying to convince UL that I am correct. This is all internal to the company I am working with. Just to give you an idea of how confusing this issue is, I have privately received responses stating that all the following are acceptable: Kerosene Isopropyl alcohol Rubbing Alcahol Lamp Oil Hexane Now I am not a chemical expert, but the chemical properties of these chemicals are not similar to one another (the simplest comparison is the boiling point, the above range from 60C - 300C). Calling UL and asking them what they use is easy...the hard part is proving that whatever the subject chemical is, it complies with the standard. Just wondering if anyone has had this experience before. From: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com To: 'oover...@lexmark.com' oover...@lexmark.com, kmccormick...@hotmail.com CC: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:24:17 -0800 Not only cheap, but sometimes it is much easier just to do it their way than argue with them that you material should or should not be acceptable. Pick your battles. Let them win this one. Gary -Original Message- From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:46 AM To: kmccormick...@hotmail.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Seeking assistance from Chemical Experts From the UL Test Data Sheets provided to me by my UL engineering office, the material listed in the text of the test data sheet is kerosene. I don't know what the actual physical characteristics are, but if UL uses this for their test I would assume that it is acceptable for me to use. Kerosene is an easy product to obtain and is not that expensive. I have included an excerpt of the UL 1950 test data sheet that I was given by UL. Oscar # Excerpt from the UL 1950 Test Data Sheets # 1.7.15 - PERMANENCE OF MARKING TEST: METHOD A sample of the marking label was subjected to this test. The surface of each marking as noted below was rubbed by hand for a period of 15 seconds with a water soaked cloth, and again for a period of 15 seconds with a cloth soaked with the petroleum spirit noted below. RESULTS TEST CONDITIONS: Use of Marking _ Material_ Held by _ Applied Surface Material_ OBSERVATIONS: Water Kerosene Any Damage? _ _ Legible? _ _ Curled? _ _ Edge Lifted? _ _ Easily Removed Intact?_ _ The marking was/was not durable and legible. Comments:___ _ Document: 060.Eng # End of Excerpt from UL 1950 # --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Meaning of earthed low voltage secondary circuits (SELV)
Dear Huu Dung, Allow me to express my understanding of the standards, and various practices. Section 2.3.1 requires that SELV circuits must be safe to touch, even after a single fault in basic insulation. As a result, SELV circuits must be either double insulated from hazardous votages, as in Class II, or separated by basic insulation and earth grounded, as in Class I. These are shown as R1 and B2 respectively in Figure 5A of IEC 60950. Sections 2.3.3.1 thru 2.3.3.3 discuss three allowable methods for protecting an operator from electric shock from SELV circuits. However, because many countries do not guarantee reliable earth grounded outlets, we prefer to double insulate both primary to SELV and primary to accessible conductive parts. The secondary of Class II circuits do not truly float, i.e. drift to any level voltage. The secondary circuits are coupled to the primary via parasitic or virtual resistance, capacitance, and inductance. Typically the output of a Class II device will measure about half the mains voltage when a high impedance voltmeter is used. However, since the impedance back to the primary is so high, the measured voltage will disappear if touched, or a low impedance meter is used. Regards, George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc huu.dung.dinh%dnv@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/21/2000 02:52:30 AM Please respond to huu.dung.dinh%dnv@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Meaning of earthed low voltage secondary circuits (SELV) Dear All, Many thanks for this year and all good wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you and your families. I would like to ask you a question and will thank for any comments. Low voltage secondary circuits of class II equipment usually float and have to be insulated from primary mains by reinforced insulation. Low voltage secondary circuits of class I equipment most of the time are directly earthed or referred to earth by some components. My understanding is that only basic insulation and good earth protection are needed between these circuits and primary mains if reinforced insulation is provided in the transformer. Am I right ? Best regards to all of you, Huu Dung Dinh DET NORSKE VERITAS, RN 413 Testing and Certification of Electrical Equipment Division Nordic Countries *+47 67 57 95 91 FAX +47 67 57 89 60 *Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Høvik, Norway *huu.dung.d...@dnv.com mailto:huu.dung.d...@dnv.com Web http://www.dnv.com/eltestlab/ http://www.dnv.com/eltestlab/
Re: Singapore
Bill, From one of the PSB webpages: Administration of the Singapore Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Registration Scheme. The scheme is mandatory for all consumer products designated as controlled goods. The Singapore Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) requires us to submit our consumer level printers for safety certification. They will accept, and may now require, a CB Report. Since the PSB is a bit like the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, they do not require certification of our business level printers. George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 12/19/2000 08:59 AM --- acarson%uk.xyratex@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/19/2000 08:07:13 AM Please respond to acarson%uk.xyratex@interlock.lexmark.com To: bills%eliz@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: Singapore Bill Try http://www.psb.gov.sg/awards/cps/index.html it will give a list of products that require mandatory approval, but basically all IT and Telecoms equipment requires the Singapore Safety mark and as of 1st May 2000, all telecoms equipment requires EMC emissions testing. Bill Somerfield wrote: Hello Group, Could anyone point me in the right dirrection for info on EMC and Safety Conpliance for Singapore? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you, Bill Somerfield QA/Compliance Manager Elizabeth-Hata International North Huntingdon, PA USA 412-829-7700 fax 412-829-7330 bi...@eliz.com Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: International Equivalent of EN50116
Tony, My understanding is that there is no international equivalent to EN50116. It is also my understanding that IEC 60950 incoporates the essential production testing requirements of EN50116 for ITE, viz. earthing resistance and electric strength. But then I have been wrong before George reynolto%pb@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/07/2000 10:47:41 AM Please respond to reynolto%pb@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: International Equivalent of EN50116 All, Can anyone point me in the right direction of an International Equivalent of the European Standard EN50116:1996 Information Technology Equipment - Routine Electrical Safety Testing in Production. Thanks Tony Reynolds Pitney Bowes Ltd The Pinnacles Harlow Essex CM19 5BD UK Tel +44 (0) 1279 449479 Fax +44 (0) 1279 449118 E-Mail: reyno...@pb.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
