[PSES] 2013 IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering Sponsored by the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
Both IEEE and non-IEEE members: October 7- October 9, 2013 Austin, Texas, USA www.psessymposium.org The special edition of the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society newsletter is available and contains a preliminary list of presenters with abstracts as well as a list of vendors that will be at the conference. Closer to the conference a second special edition newsletter will be published with more detailed and finalized information. http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/Downloads/newsletters/13V9Nse1.pdf http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewh%2Eieee%2Eorg%2Fsoc%2F pses%2FDownloads%2Fnewsletters%2F13V9Nse1%2Epdfurlhash=4ozx_t=tracking_ane t Registration for ISPCE 2013 - IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering is open. Register online by clicking on the registration tab on the ISPCE website. http://www.psessymposium.org/general/registration-0 http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epsessymposium%2Eorg %2Fgeneral%2Fregistration-0urlhash=SGBb_t=tracking_anet __ Dan Roman, N.C.E. VP of Communications Services IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society mailto:dan.ro...@ieee.org mailto:dan.ro...@ieee.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Expert for the Japanese Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Act
Hello, we are looking for an expert/consultant for the Japanese Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Act (DENAN Law) especially with a detailed question for electric ovens in acc. to IEC 60335-2-42 and the approval process. You can contact me offline. Best regards Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist Globalnorm GmbH Kurfürstenstr. 112 10787 Berlin Phone +49 30 3229027-51 Cell +49 170 3229027 Fax +49 30 3229027-59 Mail mailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de michael.loer...@globalnorm.de http://www.globalnorm.de/ » globalnorm.de Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448 Von: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Im Auftrag von Doug Smith Gesendet: Montag, 22. Juli 2013 02:20 An: Si-List; emc-pstc Betreff: Further investigation about hand-metal ESD Hi Everyone, I just posted my Technical Tidbit for July. Here is the information: Technical Tidbit - July 2013 Human Metal ESD Characteristics, Size of Metal Object (Intensity of ESD from a metal object in a human hand is not significantly affected by the size of the metal object) This month's Technical Tidbit presents data showing that the size of a metal object in a human hand does not strongly affect the intensity of EMI generated by the ESD event. Abstract: The intensity of an ESD event from a human hand is affected strongly by the presence of metal held in the hand. Data is presented to show that the peak amplitude of the EMI generated by a discharge directly from a metal object in a human hand is not strongly affected by the size of the metal object held. Any size piece of metal intensifies the ESD event significantly. The link to the article is: http://www.emcesd.com/tt2013/tt072113.htm Your computer may corrupt the link above by appending [1] to the .htm. Just remove the [1] and the link will work. So far only Windows computers seem to have this problem. Let me know if this occurs on a different operating system. I have not used Windows for over ten years now. Doug -- -- ___ _Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 60941 = Boulder City, NV 89006-0941 _ / \ / \ _TEL/FAX: 702-570-6108/570-6013 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o | Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Web: http://www.dsmith.org -- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Expert for the Japanese Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Act
Michael Send me the test reports including the Emc reports and I can tell you the delta Sent from my iPhone Peter S. Merguerian pe...@goglobalcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. www.goglobalcompliance.com (408) 931-3303 On Jul 21, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Michael Loerzer loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de wrote: Hello, we are looking for an expert/consultant for the Japanese Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Act (DENAN Law) especially with a detailed question for electric ovens in acc. to IEC 60335-2-42 and the approval process. You can contact me offline. Best regards Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist Globalnorm GmbH Kurfürstenstr. 112 10787 Berlin Phone +49 30 3229027-51 Cell +49 170 3229027 Fax +49 30 3229027-59 Mailmichael.loer...@globalnorm.de » globalnorm.de Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448 Von: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Im Auftrag von Doug Smith Gesendet: Montag, 22. Juli 2013 02:20 An: Si-List; emc-pstc Betreff: Further investigation about hand-metal ESD Hi Everyone, I just posted my Technical Tidbit for July. Here is the information: Technical Tidbit - July 2013 Human Metal ESD Characteristics, Size of Metal Object (Intensity of ESD from a metal object in a human hand is not significantly affected by the size of the metal object) This month's Technical Tidbit presents data showing that the size of a metal object in a human hand does not strongly affect the intensity of EMI generated by the ESD event. Abstract: The intensity of an ESD event from a human hand is affected strongly by the presence of metal held in the hand. Data is presented to show that the peak amplitude of the EMI generated by a discharge directly from a metal object in a human hand is not strongly affected by the size of the metal object held. Any size piece of metal intensifies the ESD event significantly. The link to the article is: http://www.emcesd.com/tt2013/tt072113.htm Your computer may corrupt the link above by appending [1] to the .htm. Just remove the [1] and the link will work. So far only Windows computers seem to have this problem. Let me know if this occurs on a different operating system. I have not used Windows for over ten years now. Doug -- -- ___ _Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 60941 = Boulder City, NV 89006-0941 _ / \ / \ _TEL/FAX: 702-570-6108/570-6013 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o | Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Web: http://www.dsmith.org -- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Re: [PSES] Power distribution submetering application - Safety standard for Instrument Current Transformers on mains relative to IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd 61010-2-030?
Thanks John Besides IEC 60044-8. the general transformer standard IEC 61558-1, -2.4 and -2.6 I was also advised to consider EN61869-1:2009 - Instrument Transformers, General Requirements EN61869-2:2012 - Instrument Transformers, Additional Requirements for Current Transformers. Chris Wells Eaton -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 9:15 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Power distribution submetering application - Safety standard for Instrument Current Transformers on mains relative to IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd 61010-2-030? In message 4DA8FE10C88F443E988CA5E66A960CE9@christopher, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Chris Wells radioactive55...@comcast.net writes: what standard would be best to use to validate/control the CT production as a separate independent component? There is an IEC standard specifically for current transformers and it does address safety issues. IEC 60044-8. There is also the general transformer standard, of which IEC 61558-1, -2.4 and -2.6 may be applicable. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Power distribution submetering application - Safety standard for Instrument Current Transformers on mains relative to IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd 61010-2-030?
In message A55CB212C030418F8FD1EC87CC2A5E4B@christopher, dated Fri, 19 Jul 2013, Chris Wells radioactive55...@comcast.net writes: I was also advised to consider EN61869-1:2009 - Instrument Transformers, General Requirements EN61869-2:2012 - Instrument Transformers, Additional Requirements for Current Transformers. I agree; the original IEC documents were not shown in a search for relevant IEC standards. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Power distribution submetering application - Safety standard for Instrument Current Transformers on mains relative to IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd 61010-2-030?
In load side power distribution industrial/commercial electrical sub-metering applications (feeder and branch circuits)we use IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd (plus 61010-2-030 for the current transformers (CT)) to evaluate our meter's safety design. In this application the instrument current transformer sensors typically sit on the power load cables of 120-347VL:N /208-600VL:L mains in panel boards and switch panels at the feeding breaker. The CT goes over the power cable's insulating sheath but may be located near the point where the power cable is stripped and inserted into the breaker lug and so the value of the cable's sheath is not considered in this evaluation. The meter's input is the secondary of these CT circuits without any additional isolation; therefore the CT must provide all of the isolation. Safety design wise this ends up requiring double/reinforced isolation for 600V and Over Voltage CAT III (metering category CAT III) between the primary and secondary circuits of the CT. We have evaluated a group of CTs along with our submeter as a system however I would like to have some independence from this system approach with our CT vendors. In review with UL they said if we required the CTs to be validated to provide double/reinforced isolation for 600V CATIII then we should satisfy the requirements of our submeter. Many of the CT vendors in the USA use IEEE C57.13 to evaluate their CTs. This is not an European safety standard with the concept of isolation redundancy in it. Some of the designs may meet the physical requirements of providing double/reinforced isolation for 600V CATIII but need a standard to be reviewed/validated to. 61010 works for the submeter and the CTs as a system but what standard would be best to use to validate/control the CT production as a separate independent component? Chris Wells Eaton - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Power distribution submetering application - Safety standard for Instrument Current Transformers on mains relative to IEC/EN/UL61010-1 3rd 61010-2-030?
In message 4DA8FE10C88F443E988CA5E66A960CE9@christopher, dated Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Chris Wells radioactive55...@comcast.net writes: what standard would be best to use to validate/control the CT production as a separate independent component? There is an IEC standard specifically for current transformers and it does address safety issues. IEC 60044-8. There is also the general transformer standard, of which IEC 61558-1, -2.4 and -2.6 may be applicable. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Is a Notified Body really needed to assess electrical safety for a 12VDC RTTE device?
Dear Group, Some correction is needed here. Notified body involvement is mandatory when harmonized standards can not be used or are not available for the equipment at hand. Or if the manufacturer wants to use its own testing routine. In all these cases the NB needs to assess the equipment against the essential requirements (annex IV). Self declaration is only allowed if all applicable harmonized standards are being (fully) followed. Kind regards, Willem Jan Jong Manager Product Certification Telefication From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen Sent: zaterdag, 22 juni, 2013 4:20 PM To: Crane, Lauren; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Is a Notified Body really needed to assess electrical safety for a 12VDC RTTE device? Hi Lauren, As far as my understanding goes, without any further study regarding your arguments, I remember that for NO RTTED equipment a NoBo is mandatory. Said differently, the intention of the RTTED has always been (and I was always learned ) that the manufacturers declaration is sufficient for all. NoBo's are mandatory for some machines, medical equipment class 2 and higher and a number of other directives that cover high risk equipment. The same is true for the EMCD and the LVD. In general the tendency in Europe is to reduce the role of the NoBo's. The fault you make in my view, is that you state that the product is not in the scope of the LVD (12V), so you need to apply annex III, IV or V (instead of II, IV or V), but as the voltage requirement is removed, all equipment falls in the (modified) LVD scope. In my experience most equipment is assessed as office equipment (EN 60950) Hope this helps... Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc g.grem...@cetest.nl www.cetest.nl Kiotoweg 363 3047 BG Rotterdam T 31(0)104152426 F 31(0)104154953 Before printing, think about the environment. Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Crane, Lauren Verzonden: Friday, June 21, 2013 11:59 PM Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Onderwerp: Is a Notified Body really needed to assess electrical safety for a 12VDC RTTE device? Dear Experts, I am looking for help in understanding how to correctly address LVD concerns within the RTTED. The RTTED has three main concerns (essential requirements), 1. Radio spectrum issues [art. 3.2] 2. Low voltage safety [art. 3.1.a] - LVD 3. Electromagnetic compatibility [art. 3.1.b] - EMCD EU guidance says each of these concerns may be addressed separately. [Csion guide Apr 2009 6.1 first para] The low voltage directive (LVD) as a stand alone requirement, doesn't apply until DC input voltages reach 75V, but the RTTED requires the LVD to apply regardless of voltage [art. 3.1.a -end]. RTTED also says that the conformity assessment procedures of the LVD may be used where the item is within scope of the LVD (e.g., electrical equipment operating from 80VDC) [art. 10.2]. If a product is not within scope of the LVD on its own (e.g., operating from 12 VDC), one must use the conformity assessment procedures defined in the RTTED (I think). In the RTTED the only assessment procedure that does not require a notified body is 'production control' (Annex II). The Production Control method (Annex II) is *not* allowed for equipment with radio transmitters [art. 10.3,4,5]. So if I have a very low voltage device (e.g. 12 volts) with a data transmission function I must, at first glance, use RTTED conformity assessment methods (and thereby a Notified Body), to assess the LVD concerns. I have already had my widget assessed for radio spectrum issues and EMC issues by Notified Bodies. It looks like I need a notified body for the LVD stuff too. If the voltages were higher, I could self declare LVD compliance. This does not make sense. What am I misunderstanding? Regards, Lauren Crane KLA-Tencor - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE
[PSES] Is a Notified Body really needed to assess electrical safety for a 12VDC RTTE device?
Dear Experts, I am looking for help in understanding how to correctly address LVD concerns within the RTTED. The RTTED has three main concerns (essential requirements), 1. Radio spectrum issues [art. 3.2] 2. Low voltage safety [art. 3.1.a] - LVD 3. Electromagnetic compatibility [art. 3.1.b] - EMCD EU guidance says each of these concerns may be addressed separately. [Csion guide Apr 2009 6.1 first para] The low voltage directive (LVD) as a stand alone requirement, doesn't apply until DC input voltages reach 75V, but the RTTED requires the LVD to apply regardless of voltage [art. 3.1.a -end]. RTTED also says that the conformity assessment procedures of the LVD may be used where the item is within scope of the LVD (e.g., electrical equipment operating from 80VDC) [art. 10.2]. If a product is not within scope of the LVD on its own (e.g., operating from 12 VDC), one must use the conformity assessment procedures defined in the RTTED (I think). In the RTTED the only assessment procedure that does not require a notified body is 'production control' (Annex II). The Production Control method (Annex II) is *not* allowed for equipment with radio transmitters [art. 10.3,4,5]. So if I have a very low voltage device (e.g. 12 volts) with a data transmission function I must, at first glance, use RTTED conformity assessment methods (and thereby a Notified Body), to assess the LVD concerns. I have already had my widget assessed for radio spectrum issues and EMC issues by Notified Bodies. It looks like I need a notified body for the LVD stuff too. If the voltages were higher, I could self declare LVD compliance. This does not make sense. What am I misunderstanding? Regards, Lauren Crane KLA-Tencor - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits - 13A plugs
Joe, My memories of the early 13 A plugs in the UK is their consistency rather than inconsistency. I was in TV design at that time. Traditionally the early TV power supplies used a half-wave rectifier, so the chassis was either L or N. When the 13 A plug became widely used the chassis was inevitably poled as N. Good is some respects, but bad for the electricity supply as only current was drawn during the positive a.c. cycle. With all the 13 A plug TVs drawing a d.c. component from the a.c. mains that really upset the power distribution transformers. It was therefore decreed that half-wave rectification was banned and only full-wave rectifiers could be used in the TV power supplies. Mick On 05/06/2013 23:08, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: /SNIP /CLAUSE 6.1.2 Clause 6.1.2 is the one that addresses the problem of hazards within the equipment getting onto the phone line and injuring a telephone service person who is working on the network. I think the origin of this requirement comes from the old UK standard BS 6301, and was based on the possibility that a mis-wired mains plug could result in the equipment ground wire being connected to a live mains wire (this fault mechanism is more common in the UK than in most other countries due to the way consumers deal with conflicting plug configurations). So, in this case, an equipment chassis that is supposed to be grounded becomes hot. SNIP - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits - 13A plugs
In message 6.1.0.6.2.20130618130138.056f9...@pop.randolph-telecom.com, dated Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Joe Randolph j...@randolph-telecom.com writes: Someone from the UK explained to me that in the UK, there was a time when two different mains plug styles were widely used. When a customer went to a store and bought an AC mains-powered product, the product was delivered with no plug on the mains cord. The customer was then expected to proceed to a station within the store where a store employee would attach the type of plug that the customer needed for their particular home. Some customers would skip this step and attach the plug themselves at home. Whoever told me this story said that there were many cases of users being harmed due to mis-wiring their plugs. Your informer must have been very young. There used to be at least five different mains plugs in use in Britain, and a plug-fitting station in a store was a very rare beast indeed. On the other hand, we didn't have 'cheater adapters' to any significant extent. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits - 13A plugs
In message 009d01ce6c4c$71a42460$54ec6d20$@blueyonder.co.uk, dated Tue, 18 Jun 2013, John Allen john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk writes: BTW, a lot of the imported products actually arrive at the UK consumer with a Continental 2.5A two-pin plug fitted and a Schuko to BS1363 adaptor to adapt that plug to the UK ring-main sockets. So, mis-wiring of the Live or Neutral conductor to the Earth/Ground pin of the p Products fitted with the 6 A 2-pin connector MUST be Class II, so there is no real distinction between L and N as far as the product is concerned, and no safety issue. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits - 13A plugs
Mick And then there was that small projection TV company that we both worked for in 1975/76 where some designer (absolutely NOT yourself!) wired up the operator control panel with about a dozen Neon indicators across the Mains from Live to Ground instead of to Neutral (before I put right!). Now that's what I call leakage current! J John From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mick Maytum Sent: 18 June 2013 15:31 To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org Cc: Joe Randolph Subject: Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits - 13A plugs Joe, My memories of the early 13 A plugs in the UK is their consistency rather than inconsistency. I was in TV design at that time. Traditionally the early TV power supplies used a half-wave rectifier, so the chassis was either L or N. When the 13 A plug became widely used the chassis was inevitably poled as N. Good is some respects, but bad for the electricity supply as only current was drawn during the positive a.c. cycle. With all the 13 A plug TVs drawing a d.c. component from the a.c. mains that really upset the power distribution transformers. It was therefore decreed that half-wave rectification was banned and only full-wave rectifiers could be used in the TV power supplies. Mick On 05/06/2013 23:08, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: SNIP CLAUSE 6.1.2 Clause 6.1.2 is the one that addresses the problem of hazards within the equipment getting onto the phone line and injuring a telephone service person who is working on the network. I think the origin of this requirement comes from the old UK standard BS 6301, and was based on the possibility that a mis-wired mains plug could result in the equipment ground wire being connected to a live mains wire (this fault mechanism is more common in the UK than in most other countries due to the way consumers deal with conflicting plug configurations). So, in this case, an equipment chassis that is supposed to be grounded becomes hot. SNIP - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6420 - Release Date: 06/18/13 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Joe, I was asking the question like yours about 5 years ago here. Until now I'm not sure how to understand this all. My device was USB-RS485 interface powered from 12V DC (user should select himself some AC/DC or use 12V battery backuped power source). As RS485 can be up to 1200m and I assumed it can go out of building so it is TNV-? (don't remember number) and has to be isolated. My isolation was 4kV (ADuM series Analog Devices magnetic isolators with very thin (some um) isolation barrier inside). I was worry that if the device is connected to USB (potentially grounded) and someone touches RS485 than ESD from his finger can damage my isolation. I have read that in real live even 25V ESD from finger can happen (woman 35kV). This was my reason to use SPD. Reading 60950 I found that voltage of my SPD must be related to voltage powering my device so there is nothing against SMB 20V transil to be used. I was told that I'm not right and even in 60950 it looks that it is the voltage powering my device the standard tells about AC voltage system under which I am using the device. I didn't understood why I should understand standard differently than it is written but OK let it be. I can imagine that somewhere there is 12V (or 24, or 48) power distributed in building. In that situation 60950 calls for 1kV (not sure it was 5 years ago) isolation of out of building telecommunication lines allowing to short the isolation with for example 20V SPD. Like you I don't understand it. Piotr Galka - Original Message - From: Joe Randolph To: ri...@ieee.org Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:08 AM Subject: Re: safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits Hi Rich: Thanks for insight on this. I think your remarks, copied below, explain the logic behind clause 6.1.2, but still leave questions about the thinking behind clause 6.2. The hazard that is mitigated by the isolation barrier is that of a fault in the equipment across the isolation barrier to the telephone line. Down the telephone line, an unsuspecting telephone serviceman is working on the line expecting only normal telephone voltages. This isolation must be retained even in the event of a lightning strike on the telephone line that otherwise could damage the isolation barrier. So, we have three situations. First, isolation between equipment circuits and telephone circuits to prevent injury to a telephone serviceman. Second, preservation of that isolation in the event of a transient (lightning) voltage that could come into the equipment on the telephone line. Third, in the event of an over-voltage on the telephone line, the SPD prevents circuit damage within the equipment (but the SPD is expected to fail open). CLAUSE 6.1.2 Clause 6.1.2 is the one that addresses the problem of hazards within the equipment getting onto the phone line and injuring a telephone service person who is working on the network. I think the origin of this requirement comes from the old UK standard BS 6301, and was based on the possibility that a mis-wired mains plug could result in the equipment ground wire being connected to a live mains wire (this fault mechanism is more common in the UK than in most other countries due to the way consumers deal with conflicting plug configurations). So, in this case, an equipment chassis that is supposed to be grounded becomes hot. Clause 6.1.2 requires that any SPD connected across the barrier have a breakdown threshold that would not turn on for normal mains voltages. So, for clause 6.1.2, I would summarize your explanation as follows: 1) The actual goal of the requirement is to always maintain a barrier that will not break down for normal mains voltages (about 400 volts peak for Europe) . 2) If there is no SPD across the barrier to protect the barrier from lightning damage (or if the SPD is present but has failed open), the barrier must withstand an expected worst-case lightning surge of about 2100 volts peak (verified with a 1500 VRMS hipot test). The above rationale is interesting because it says that the purpose of the SPD is to protect the isolation barrier. This makes sense except that it ignores that possibility that the SPD could fail short. If all SPDs were gas tubes, ignoring the fail-short possibility might be a reasonable assumption, but with the solid state SPDs that are now in common use, a fail-short mechanism is actually more likely than a fail-open. In fact, many solid state SPDs are explicitly designed to fail short when overstressed. MOVs, which have been used for many years in various telecom protection circuits, also have a fail-short mechanism that is probably more common than fail-open. CLAUSE 6.2 Clause 6.2 is concerned with protecting equipment users from hazardous voltages that may appear on the phone network (presumably lightning and power cross
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Rich: Thanks for insight on this. I think your remarks, copied below, explain the logic behind clause 6.1.2, but still leave questions about the thinking behind clause 6.2. The hazard that is mitigated by the isolation barrier is that of a fault in the equipment across the isolation barrier to the telephone line. Down the telephone line, an unsuspecting telephone serviceman is working on the line expecting only normal telephone voltages. This isolation must be retained even in the event of a lightning strike on the telephone line that otherwise could damage the isolation barrier. So, we have three situations. First, isolation between equipment circuits and telephone circuits to prevent injury to a telephone serviceman. Second, preservation of that isolation in the event of a transient (lightning) voltage that could come into the equipment on the telephone line. Third, in the event of an over-voltage on the telephone line, the SPD prevents circuit damage within the equipment (but the SPD is expected to fail open). CLAUSE 6.1.2 Clause 6.1.2 is the one that addresses the problem of hazards within the equipment getting onto the phone line and injuring a telephone service person who is working on the network. I think the origin of this requirement comes from the old UK standard BS 6301, and was based on the possibility that a mis-wired mains plug could result in the equipment ground wire being connected to a live mains wire (this fault mechanism is more common in the UK than in most other countries due to the way consumers deal with conflicting plug configurations). So, in this case, an equipment chassis that is supposed to be grounded becomes hot. Clause 6.1.2 requires that any SPD connected across the barrier have a breakdown threshold that would not turn on for normal mains voltages. So, for clause 6.1.2, I would summarize your explanation as follows: 1) The actual goal of the requirement is to always maintain a barrier that will not break down for normal mains voltages (about 400 volts peak for Europe) . 2) If there is no SPD across the barrier to protect the barrier from lightning damage (or if the SPD is present but has failed open), the barrier must withstand an expected worst-case lightning surge of about 2100 volts peak (verified with a 1500 VRMS hipot test). The above rationale is interesting because it says that the purpose of the SPD is to protect the isolation barrier. This makes sense except that it ignores that possibility that the SPD could fail short. If all SPDs were gas tubes, ignoring the fail-short possibility might be a reasonable assumption, but with the solid state SPDs that are now in common use, a fail-short mechanism is actually more likely than a fail-open. In fact, many solid state SPDs are explicitly designed to fail short when overstressed. MOVs, which have been used for many years in various telecom protection circuits, also have a fail-short mechanism that is probably more common than fail-open. CLAUSE 6.2 Clause 6.2 is concerned with protecting equipment users from hazardous voltages that may appear on the phone network (presumably lightning and power cross). In this clause, a 1500 VRMS barrier is called out for parts of the equipment that are hand-held. Significantly, SPDs placed across this barrier may not be removed during the test. This makes sense as long as the only possible failure mechanism of the SPD is fail-open. For other parts of the equipment, a 1000 VRMS barrier is required, but this barrier is allowed to be bridged by an SPD of any voltage whatsoever. It is allowable to remove the SPD for the 1000 VRMS test. In this case, I do not see what value the 1000 VRMS barrier has if, during normal use, the barrier can be bridged by an SPD. SUMMARY Your explanation of the rationale used in the standard makes sense for clause 6.1.2 (protection of service personnel) as long as the only possible failure mechanism of the SPD is fail-open. However, I think the assumption that SPDs can only fail open is flawed. For 6.2 (protection of equipment users), I do not see how the 1000 VRMS barrier provides any degree of safety protection if it can be bridged by an SPD in normal use. This still makes no sense to me. Do you think it is possible that the theory I advanced in my last posting is at the root of this discrepancy? Namely, that the authors of the standard inadvertently assumed that all SPDs are connected to a reliable earth, which would make it okay to have them in place? The problem I see is that clause 6.2 does not require that the SPD be connected to a reliable earth. The SPD can simply bridge the required 1000 VRMS barrier, which effectively defeats the barrier during normal use. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com Hi Joe: On 5/31/2013 8:16 PM, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: Thanks for responding to my request for an explanation of the logic behind
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Joe: On 5/31/2013 8:16 PM, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: Thanks for responding to my request for an explanation of the logic behind allowing SPDs across isolation barriers. Overall, the principles you outline seem reasonable if the equipment has a reliable earth connection. I'm not yet convinced that these principles adequately address equipment where the SPD is not connected to a reliable earth. I will try to illustrate with a simple example. While my example will be based on equipment that has no connection to protective earth, I should note that I also have concerns about equipment that uses what I call an "unreliable earth," which is an earth connection obtained solely through the ground pin on a Type A plug. However, to keep things simple, I will not address that case here. Since I work mostly with telecom equipment that has to comply with clause 6 of 60950-1, I will focus on how clauses 6.1.2 and 6.2 address the placement of an SPD across a required isolation barrier. A typical example might be a fax machine that uses a class 2 power supply with no connection to protective earth. This fax machine connects to a phone line and also connects to a computer via a USB port. Clause 6.1.2 requires 1500 VRMS isolation between the phone line and the USB port. However, this 1500 VRMS barrier is allowed to be bridged by a 400 volt SPD. So, in normal use, the effective isolation is 400 volts. If the SPD fails short, the isolation is zero. Since the equipment has no connection to earth, protective earth has no role in the operation of the SPD. Clause 6.2 requires a 1000 VRMS barrier between the phone line and accessible parts, and also between the phone line and the USB port. However, these two barriers are allowed to be bridged by an SPD of any voltage whatsoever. For purposes of discussion, let's assume the designer chose to use a 200 volt SPD. So, in normal use, the effective isolation would be 200 volts. If the SPD fails short, the isolation is zero. Since the equipment has no connection to earth, protective earth has no role in the operation of the SPD. Okay. If the USB port is connected to a grounded PC (for example), then the SPD is between the phone line and electrical earth (regardless whether the earth is reliable). If the USB is connected to a Class II (double-insulated PC), then the SPD is connected between the phone line and... an open earth connection. In the event of a common-mode transient over-voltage on the phone line, then no current can pass through the SPD. (Of course, there is some very small current due to the stray system capacitance to earth through the mains transformer.) DISCUSSION My principal question is why a safety standard would go to the trouble of calling out an isolation barrier of 1000 or 1500 VRMS, and then immediately state that it is okay to bridge this isolation barrier with an SPD. The rationale is that the SPD is expected to fail open. In this event, the isolation barrier must withstand the transient voltage. SPDs are considered unreliable. They will fail. They can fail as a short-circuit, or as an open- circuit, or any value of resistance between the two extremes. In normal use, the effective isolation barrier is the breakdown threshold of the SPD. So what is the point of specifying an isolation barrier and then allowing it to be defeated in normal use? If the isolation requirement is trying to address a perceived safety hazard, why doesn't that hazard exist in normal use (with the SPD installed)? The hazard that is mitigated by the isolation barrier is that of a fault in the equipment across the isolation barrier to the telephone line. Down the telephone line, an unsuspecting telephone serviceman is working on the line expecting only normal telephone voltages. This isolation must be retained even in the event of a lightning strike on the telephone line that otherwise could damage the isolation barrier. So, we have three situations. First, isolation between equipment circuits and telephone circuits to prevent injury to a telephone serviceman. Second, preservation of that isolation in the event of a transient (lightning) voltage that could come into the equipment on the telephone line. Third, in the event
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Rich: Thanks for responding to my request for an explanation of the logic behind allowing SPDs across isolation barriers. Overall, the principles you outline seem reasonable if the equipment has a reliable earth connection. I'm not yet convinced that these principles adequately address equipment where the SPD is not connected to a reliable earth. I will try to illustrate with a simple example. While my example will be based on equipment that has no connection to protective earth, I should note that I also have concerns about equipment that uses what I call an unreliable earth, which is an earth connection obtained solely through the ground pin on a Type A plug. However, to keep things simple, I will not address that case here. Since I work mostly with telecom equipment that has to comply with clause 6 of 60950-1, I will focus on how clauses 6.1.2 and 6.2 address the placement of an SPD across a required isolation barrier. A typical example might be a fax machine that uses a class 2 power supply with no connection to protective earth. This fax machine connects to a phone line and also connects to a computer via a USB port. Clause 6.1.2 requires 1500 VRMS isolation between the phone line and the USB port. However, this 1500 VRMS barrier is allowed to be bridged by a 400 volt SPD. So, in normal use, the effective isolation is 400 volts. If the SPD fails short, the isolation is zero. Since the equipment has no connection to earth, protective earth has no role in the operation of the SPD. Clause 6.2 requires a 1000 VRMS barrier between the phone line and accessible parts, and also between the phone line and the USB port. However, these two barriers are allowed to be bridged by an SPD of any voltage whatsoever. For purposes of discussion, let's assume the designer chose to use a 200 volt SPD. So, in normal use, the effective isolation would be 200 volts. If the SPD fails short, the isolation is zero. Since the equipment has no connection to earth, protective earth has no role in the operation of the SPD. DISCUSSION My principal question is why a safety standard would go to the trouble of calling out an isolation barrier of 1000 or 1500 VRMS, and then immediately state that it is okay to bridge this isolation barrier with an SPD. In normal use, the effective isolation barrier is the breakdown threshold of the SPD. So what is the point of specifying an isolation barrier and then allowing it to be defeated in normal use? If the isolation requirement is trying to address a perceived safety hazard, why doesn't that hazard exist in normal use (with the SPD installed)? My theory is this: At some point long ago, safety experts determined that bridging an isolation barrier with an SPD would be okay if the SPD was connected to a reliable earth. Over time, this constraint (connecting the SPD to a reliable earth) got lost, and the SPD exemption found its way into requirements such as 6.1.2 and 6.2 that do not explicitly require any earth connection whatsoever. So, even though the SPD is not connected to a reliable earth, it has somehow been allowed anyway. I think this may be an oversight in the standard. It seems to me that the *only* technical justification for allowing an SPD to bridge an isolation barrier is if the SPD is connected to a reliable earth. That explanation makes sense to me and seems defensible. However, in the absence of this constraint , allowing an SPD to be connected across an isolation barrier does not seem to make any sense at all. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com Hi Joe: Sorry for the delay in my reply to your questions. SPDs are used on mains circuits, both between the poles and poles to earth. In this latter application, the SPD is in parallel with basic insulation. SPDs are also used on low-voltage external circuits that are subject to transient over-voltages such as antenna circuits and telephone circuits. The SPDs are between the external circuit and earth, or between the external circuit and the mains circuit. In this latter case, for the purposes of a transient over-voltage originating in the external circuit, the mains circuit is a connection to earth. Usually, within the equipment, these external circuits are isolated from earth and from equipment secondary circuits. Indeed, the standards require such isolation (to protect personnel touching such circuits downstream from the equipment). But, because these circuits are low voltage, the isolation system is not a safety isolation, i.e, is not a basic insulation. Nevertheless, because the external circuits are subject to transient over-voltages, the isolation system must withstand such over-voltages. Therefore, the isolation system is subject to an electric strength test. And, the isolation system can be bridged by an SPD at the discretion of the designer. The principle I described in my previous message on this subject applies
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Joe: Sorry for the delay in my reply to your questions. SPDs are used on mains circuits, both between the poles and poles to earth. In this latter application, the SPD is in parallel with basic insulation. SPDs are also used on low-voltage external circuits that are subject to transient over-voltages such as antenna circuits and telephone circuits. The SPDs are between the external circuit and earth, or between the external circuit and the mains circuit. In this latter case, for the purposes of a transient over-voltage originating in the external circuit, the mains circuit is a connection to earth. Usually, within the equipment, these external circuits are isolated from earth and from equipment secondary circuits. Indeed, the standards require such isolation (to protect personnel touching such circuits downstream from the equipment). But, because these circuits are low voltage, the isolation system is not a safety isolation, i.e, is not a basic insulation. Nevertheless, because the external circuits are subject to transient over-voltages, the isolation system must withstand such over-voltages. Therefore, the isolation system is subject to an electric strength test. And, the isolation system can be bridged by an SPD at the discretion of the designer. The principle I described in my previous message on this subject applies here. In the case of an open- circuit failure of the SPD, the external circuit isolation system must withstand the expected transient over-voltages. Hence, a separate voltage- withstand test of the isolation system without the SPD. While the equipment is not required to have reliable earth, many of the requirements are excluded if the equipment does have reliable earth. The standard does not address the short-circuit or low-resistance failure of an SPD that is connected between the external circuit and the mains. However, external circuits are normally isolated from earth, so no transient current can flow in the reverse direction, i.e., from mains to the external circuit. I suppose the SPD can bridge the isolation, i.e., from external circuit to secondary circuit. If the secondary circuit is connected to earth, then the SPD simply conducts to earth. If the secondary circuit is not earthed, then the SPD conducts through the primary-secondary capacitance to the mains. Further questions or objections? Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Bill: On 5/21/2013 7:34 PM, Bill Owsley wrote: A surge into a 300 volt SPD transfers that surge voltage to the open ground (chassis) and there is now a hazard !!! An SPD will not operate (conduct) into an open ground. One would have to be touching the chassis (and thus grounding it) at the instant the transient occurs in order to have current pass through the body. Some authorities might say that the transient would cause an OUCH! but not an injury. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Rich, Given your rational that surge protective components (SPCs), such as MOVs or GDTs, can have a fault mode anywhere between a short-circuit and an open-circuit, looks like there is a disconnect in the test levels. In the open-circuit situation, the SPC does not divert current and the full voltage is applied to the electrical insulation. That being the case and as TC 108 specifies MOVs are tested with a impulse generator voltage of 6 kV peak, why isn't the insulation tested with this 6 kV impulse? Regards Mick. On 20/05/2013 22:50, Richard Nute wrote: Hi Joe: Very quickly... SPDs are not considered reliable components or assemblies. The safety standards anticipate a failure -- anywhere from open-circuit to short-circuit. In the event of an open-circuit, there is no indication of such a failure. And, of course, all transients then pass through the open SPD. Consequently, the equipment safety insulations will be called upon to withstand the expected transient overvoltages. So, the standards require performing the voltage withstand test without the SPD in place. Best regards, Rich On 5/20/2013 1:40 PM, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: I'm hoping that you can provide one of your straightforward Rich Nute Explanations for the apparent contradiction behind the rationale that allows a surge protection component to be placed across a required safety isolation barrier, and then removed for the purpose of performing the hipot test. I have been involved with safety compliance for over 30 years, and this concept is one that has never made complete sense to me. On one level, I can just bump along and limit my attention to what the safety standard actually says, but I would like to understand what the thinking is behind that. This allowance (removing surge protection components for the hipot test) appears in a variety of standards and clauses within those standards, such as EN 60950-1, clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2.2. If you could help clarify the thinking behind this allowance, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com/ Hi Bill: SPDs, regardless of configuration, are notorious for being prone to failure, either short-circuit or open-circuit or any value of resistance between those two extremes. (One cannot predict the energy the SPD will be required to dissipate.) From a safety point of view, all such failures must be accounted for such that the safety of the equipment is not compromised by any failure of the SPD. If the SPD should fail open-circuit, then expected transients that are therefore not attenuated, must not cause the insulation to fail. Hence, the insulation must pass the hi-pot test without the SPD in place. As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. Best regards, Rich On 5/10/2013 10:11 AM, Bill Owsley wrote: I'm running into a dilemma. Not being a Safety Engineer myself, but rubbing elbows with them... On a piece of ITE equipment, I need some surge suppression for worldwide markets with one annoying requirement for 4 kV, otherwise just 2 kV line to earth, and using either plugable cords or permanent connection, whichever is worse. Now the Safety guys tell me that MOV's alone cannot bridge the insulation (Basic or Functional, I forget.) between primary and earth, when using one of power cable options mentioned above. But a proper qualified (GDT) gas discharge tube can do the bridging. So we figured to use them in series. On a quick and dirty bench test it works to 4 kV. Then the Safety guys pull out the rest of the story and point out 5.2.2 which seems to indicate that the GDT is to meet the Hi-Pot test, 1500 vac. Previously, section, 1.5.9.4 (?) indicates that the surge protection devices can be removed during the Hi-Pot test. But now I have a Surge suppression circuit that has to withstand the same Hi-Pot as the rest of the board. Question is how does a surge protection circuit protect the board when it has to meet the same Hi-Pot test? In other words, when a surge comes along, which is going to break over first? The surge protection or the board? Is the purpose of surge suppression is to keep the clamped voltage below a problem level? What am I missing in this? Thanks... - Bill - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Rich: The apparent contradiction that I was trying to describe can be summarized as follows: a) The safety insulation barrier must withstand a hipot test of, say, 1500 VRMS b) It is permissible to bridge this safety insulation barrier with a SPD that breaks down at, say, 300 VRMS In other words, in normal use, the safety insulation barrier can be bypassed by a SPD. For the seemingly artificial circumstances of the hipot test, the SPD can be removed in order to demonstrate compliance with the 1500 VRMS requirement. The 1500 VRMS safety isolation barrier would appear to be relatively useless if, in normal use, it is bridged by a 300 VRMS SPD. In the above example, I avoided specific reference to particular clauses in 60950-1, because I wanted to illustrate the basic scenario that seems to recur in a variety of places, but with differing details. In 60950-1, this scenario seems to appear in clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2. It also appears in TIA-968 for equipment connected to the telecom network. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com Hi Joe: Very quickly... SPDs are not considered reliable components or assemblies. The safety standards anticipate a failure -- anywhere from open-circuit to short-circuit. In the event of an open-circuit, there is no indication of such a failure. And, of course, all transients then pass through the open SPD. Consequently, the equipment safety insulations will be called upon to withstand the expected transient overvoltages. So, the standards require performing the voltage withstand test without the SPD in place. Best regards, Rich On 5/20/2013 1:40 PM, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: I'm hoping that you can provide one of your straightforward Rich Nute Explanations for the apparent contradiction behind the rationale that allows a surge protection component to be placed across a required safety isolation barrier, and then removed for the purpose of performing the hipot test. I have been involved with safety compliance for over 30 years, and this concept is one that has never made complete sense to me. On one level, I can just bump along and limit my attention to what the safety standard actually says, but I would like to understand what the thinking is behind that. This allowance (removing surge protection components for the hipot test) appears in a variety of standards and clauses within those standards, such as EN 60950-1, clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2.2. If you could help clarify the thinking behind this allowance, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com/ Hi Bill: SPDs, regardless of configuration, are notorious for being prone to failure, either short-circuit or open-circuit or any value of resistance between those two extremes. (One cannot predict the energy the SPD will be required to dissipate.) From a safety point of view, all such failures must be accounted for such that the safety of the equipment is not compromised by any failure of the SPD. If the SPD should fail open-circuit, then expected transients that are therefore not attenuated, must not cause the insulation to fail. Hence, the insulation must pass the hi-pot test without the SPD in place. As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. Best regards, Rich On 5/10/2013 10:11 AM, Bill Owsley wrote: I'm running into a dilemma. Not being a Safety Engineer myself, but rubbing elbows with them... On a piece of ITE equipment, I need some surge suppression for worldwide markets with one annoying requirement for 4 kV, otherwise just 2 kV line to earth, and using either plugable cords or permanent connection, whichever is worse. Now the Safety guys tell me that MOV's alone cannot bridge the insulation (Basic or Functional, I forget.) between primary and earth, when using one of power cable options mentioned above. But a proper qualified (GDT) gas discharge tube can do the bridging. So we figured to use them in series. On a quick and dirty bench test it works to 4 kV. Then the Safety guys pull out the rest of the story and point out 5.2.2 which seems to indicate that the GDT is to meet the Hi-Pot test, 1500 vac. Previously, section, 1.5.9.4 (?) indicates that the surge protection devices can be removed during the Hi-Pot test. But now I have a Surge suppression circuit that has to withstand the same Hi-Pot as the rest of the board. Question is how does a surge protection circuit protect the board when it has to meet the same Hi-Pot test? In other words, when a surge comes along, which is going to break over first? The surge protection or the board? Is the purpose of surge suppression is to keep the clamped voltage below a problem level? What am I missing in this? Thanks... - Bill
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Rich - Notwithstanding your statements about the safety insulation needing to meet the testing, I have always viewed the testing with the SPC removed or disabled to be an allowance, since in almost every instance, will cause a false indication of breakdown of the safety insulation by means of fulfilling their intended functions. This view is similar in concept to allowing a dc test when capacitances will allow excess currents to flow during the same tests. Your answer sells better in committee. Peter Tarver -Original Message- From: Richard Nute Hi Joe: Very quickly... SPDs are not considered reliable components or assemblies. The safety standards anticipate a failure -- anywhere from open-circuit to short-circuit. In the event of an open-circuit, there is no indication of such a failure. And, of course, all transients then pass through the open SPD. Consequently, the equipment safety insulations will be called upon to withstand the expected transient overvoltages. So, the standards require performing the voltage withstand test without the SPD in place. Best regards, Rich This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Throwing in my 2 cents: Hipot test values are based on expected transients. The concern with the transient overvoltages is that they could punch through insulation needed for safety and subsequently hazardous voltages can be allowed to reach areas where they should not. The function of an SPD is to limit the level of transient overvoltages that propagate through the equipment. If the SPD functions correctly, the insulation should not be stressed by the transients since the SPD shunts the surge current to ground. In other words, the function of the SPD makes it different from the other insulation barriers. While the other barriers must withstand the transient overvoltages, the SPD functions to limit them. Because of the difference in function, it is appropriate to test them differently, or to treat them differently during test. As Rich stated, an SPD may not be reliable in its function to limit the transient overvoltages (for example SPDs are often themselves protected by fusing which then leaves the SPD function inoperable if the fuse opens), so it is appropriate to test the rest of the insulation as if the SPD were not present. Scott Aldous Compliance Manager/Engineering Lab Manager AE Solar Energy +1.970.492.2065 Direct +1.970.407.5872 Fax +1.541.312.3832 Main scott.ald...@aei.com 1625 Sharp Point Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergyhttp://www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Joe Randolph Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:41 PM To: ri...@ieee.org Cc: Bill Owsley; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits Hi Rich: The apparent contradiction that I was trying to describe can be summarized as follows: a) The safety insulation barrier must withstand a hipot test of, say, 1500 VRMS b) It is permissible to bridge this safety insulation barrier with a SPD that breaks down at, say, 300 VRMS In other words, in normal use, the safety insulation barrier can be bypassed by a SPD. For the seemingly artificial circumstances of the hipot test, the SPD can be removed in order to demonstrate compliance with the 1500 VRMS requirement. The 1500 VRMS safety isolation barrier would appear to be relatively useless if, in normal use, it is bridged by a 300 VRMS SPD. In the above example, I avoided specific reference to particular clauses in 60950-1, because I wanted to illustrate the basic scenario that seems to recur in a variety of places, but with differing details. In 60950-1, this scenario seems to appear in clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2. It also appears in TIA-968 for equipment connected to the telecom network. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.comhttp://www.randolph-telecom.com/ Hi Joe: Very quickly... SPDs are not considered reliable components or assemblies. The safety standards anticipate a failure -- anywhere from open-circuit to short-circuit. In the event of an open-circuit, there is no indication of such a failure. And, of course, all transients then pass through the open SPD. Consequently, the equipment safety insulations will be called upon to withstand the expected transient overvoltages. So, the standards require performing the voltage withstand test without the SPD in place. Best regards, Rich On 5/20/2013 1:40 PM, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: I'm hoping that you can provide one of your straightforward Rich Nute Explanations for the apparent contradiction behind the rationale that allows a surge protection component to be placed across a required safety isolation barrier, and then removed for the purpose of performing the hipot test. I have been involved with safety compliance for over 30 years, and this concept is one that has never made complete sense to me. On one level, I can just bump along and limit my attention to what the safety standard actually says, but I would like to understand what the thinking is behind that. This allowance (removing surge protection components for the hipot test) appears in a variety of standards and clauses within those standards, such as EN 60950-1, clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2.2. If you could help clarify the thinking behind this allowance, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.comhttp://www.randolph-telecom.com/ http://www.randolph-telecom.com/ Hi Bill: SPDs, regardless of configuration, are notorious for being prone to failure, either short-circuit or open-circuit or any value of resistance between those two extremes. (One cannot predict the energy the SPD will be required to dissipate.) From a safety point of view, all such failures must be accounted for such that the safety of the equipment is not compromised
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Scott: Your explanation makes sense but it presumes the SPD shunts the current to ground. It would appear to me that the SPD is allowed to simply bridge the isolation barrier. That is the aspect that seems contradictory to me. In 60950-1 clauses 6.1.2 and 6.2 (the ones I work with most frequently) there is no explicit requirement that the SPD be connected to a reliable ground. Rather, it is simply allowed to bridge the isolation barrier. Based on quick read of clause 5.2.2, the situation would appear to be similar there as well. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com Throwing in my 2 cents: Hipot test values are based on expected transients. The concern with the transient overvoltages is that they could punch through insulation needed for safety and subsequently hazardous voltages can be allowed to reach areas where they should not. The function of an SPD is to limit the level of transient overvoltages that propagate through the equipment. If the SPD functions correctly, the insulation should not be stressed by the transients since the SPD shunts the surge current to ground. In other words, the function of the SPD makes it different from the other insulation barriers. While the other barriers must withstand the transient overvoltages, the SPD functions to limit them. Because of the difference in function, it is appropriate to test them differently, or to treat them differently during test. As Rich stated, an SPD may not be reliable in its function to limit the transient overvoltages (for example SPDs are often themselves protected by fusing which then leaves the SPD function inoperable if the fuse opens), so it is appropriate to test the rest of the insulation as if the SPD were not present. Scott Aldous Compliance Manager/Engineering Lab Manager AE Solar Energy +1.970.492.2065 Direct +1.970.407.5872 Fax +1.541.312.3832 Main scott.ald...@aei.com 1625 Sharp Point Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Joe Randolph Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:41 PM To: ri...@ieee.org Cc: Bill Owsley; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits Hi Rich: The apparent contradiction that I was trying to describe can be summarized as follows: a) The safety insulation barrier must withstand a hipot test of, say, 1500 VRMS b) It is permissible to bridge this safety insulation barrier with a SPD that breaks down at, say, 300 VRMS In other words, in normal use, the safety insulation barrier can be bypassed by a SPD. For the seemingly artificial circumstances of the hipot test, the SPD can be removed in order to demonstrate compliance with the 1500 VRMS requirement. The 1500 VRMS safety isolation barrier would appear to be relatively useless if, in normal use, it is bridged by a 300 VRMS SPD. In the above example, I avoided specific reference to particular clauses in 60950-1, because I wanted to illustrate the basic scenario that seems to recur in a variety of places, but with differing details. In 60950-1, this scenario seems to appear in clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2. It also appears in TIA-968 for equipment connected to the telecom network. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com Hi Joe: Very quickly... SPDs are not considered reliable components or assemblies. The safety standards anticipate a failure -- anywhere from open-circuit to short-circuit. In the event of an open-circuit, there is no indication of such a failure. And, of course, all transients then pass through the open SPD. Consequently, the equipment safety insulations will be called upon to withstand the expected transient overvoltages. So, the standards require performing the voltage withstand test without the SPD in place. Best regards, Rich On 5/20/2013 1:40 PM, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: I'm hoping that you can provide one of your straightforward Rich Nute Explanations for the apparent contradiction behind the rationale that allows a surge protection component to be placed across a required safety isolation barrier, and then removed for the purpose of performing the hipot test. I have been involved with safety compliance for over 30 years, and this concept is one that has never made complete sense to me. On one level, I can just bump along and limit my attention to what the safety standard actually says, but I would like to understand what the thinking is behind that. This allowance (removing surge protection components for the hipot test) appears in a variety of standards and clauses within those standards, such as EN 60950-1, clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2.2. If you could help clarify the thinking behind this allowance, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
So the Safety engineer said the single fault condition was an open ground... Now what? A surge into a 300 volt SPD transfers that surge voltage to the open ground (chassis) and there is now a hazard !!! Thus the position, I've been told while sticking my fingers in my ears, The SPD's have to also meet the hi-pot test and not fire until the surge exceeds the hi-pot value. I argue that I cannot assure that the SPD's will operate, or the insulation will break down and conduct. In the same arguement is that MOV's cannot be used alone, but must be connected in series with a GDT that meets appendix Q?? And the MOV now has to be thermal fuse protected, and that is not current fuse protected. 60950 reference clauses mentioned elsewhere. I'm just the EMC engineer tryng to get surge to pass, while enjoying the little lightning balls that are launched with 4 kV surges. ps. put up a blast shield but the damn pieces bouncing off the walls and ceiling still got to me! From: Aldous, Scott scott.ald...@aei.com To: Joe Randolph j...@randolph-telecom.com; ri...@ieee.org ri...@ieee.org Cc: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM Subject: RE: safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits Throwing in my 2 cents: Hipot test values are based on expected transients. The concern with the transient overvoltages is that they could punch through insulation needed for safety and subsequently hazardous voltages can be allowed to reach areas where they should not. The function of an SPD is to limit the level of transient overvoltages that propagate through the equipment. If the SPD functions correctly, the insulation should not be stressed by the transients since the SPD shunts the surge current to ground. In other words, the function of the SPD makes it different from the other insulation barriers. While the other barriers must withstand the transient overvoltages, the SPD functions to limit them. Because of the difference in function, it is appropriate to test them differently, or to treat them differently during test. As Rich stated, an SPD may not be reliable in its function to limit the transient overvoltages (for example SPDs are often themselves protected by fusing which then leaves the SPD function inoperable if the fuse opens), so it is appropriate to test the rest of the insulation as if the SPD were not present. Scott Aldous Compliance Manager/Engineering Lab Manager AE Solar Energy +1.970.492.2065 Direct +1.970.407.5872 Fax +1.541.312.3832 Main scott.ald...@aei.com 1625 Sharp Point Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy From:emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Joe Randolph Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:41 PM To: ri...@ieee.org Cc: Bill Owsley; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits Hi Rich: The apparent contradiction that I was trying to describe can be summarized as follows: a) The safety insulation barrier must withstand a hipot test of, say, 1500 VRMS b) It is permissible to bridge this safety insulation barrier with a SPD that breaks down at, say, 300 VRMS In other words, in normal use, the safety insulation barrier can be bypassed by a SPD. For the seemingly artificial circumstances of the hipot test, the SPD can be removed in order to demonstrate compliance with the 1500 VRMS requirement. The 1500 VRMS safety isolation barrier would appear to be relatively useless if, in normal use, it is bridged by a 300 VRMS SPD. In the above example, I avoided specific reference to particular clauses in 60950-1, because I wanted to illustrate the basic scenario that seems to recur in a variety of places, but with differing details. In 60950-1, this scenario seems to appear in clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2. It also appears in TIA-968 for equipment connected to the telecom network. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com Hi Joe: Very quickly... SPDs are not considered reliable components or assemblies. The safety standards anticipate a failure -- anywhere from open-circuit to short-circuit. In the event of an open-circuit, there is no indication of such a failure. And, of course, all transients then pass through the open SPD. Consequently, the equipment safety insulations will be called upon to withstand the expected transient overvoltages. So, the standards require performing the voltage withstand test without the SPD in place. Best regards, Rich On 5/20/2013 1:40 PM, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: I'm hoping that you can provide one of your straightforward Rich Nute Explanations for the apparent contradiction behind the rationale that allows a surge protection component to be placed across a required safety isolation
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Rich: I'm hoping that you can provide one of your straightforward Rich Nute Explanations for the apparent contradiction behind the rationale that allows a surge protection component to be placed across a required safety isolation barrier, and then removed for the purpose of performing the hipot test. I have been involved with safety compliance for over 30 years, and this concept is one that has never made complete sense to me. On one level, I can just bump along and limit my attention to what the safety standard actually says, but I would like to understand what the thinking is behind that. This allowance (removing surge protection components for the hipot test) appears in a variety of standards and clauses within those standards, such as EN 60950-1, clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2.2. If you could help clarify the thinking behind this allowance, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com Hi Bill: SPDs, regardless of configuration, are notorious for being prone to failure, either short-circuit or open-circuit or any value of resistance between those two extremes. (One cannot predict the energy the SPD will be required to dissipate.) From a safety point of view, all such failures must be accounted for such that the safety of the equipment is not compromised by any failure of the SPD. If the SPD should fail open-circuit, then expected transients that are therefore not attenuated, must not cause the insulation to fail. Hence, the insulation must pass the hi-pot test without the SPD in place. As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. Best regards, Rich On 5/10/2013 10:11 AM, Bill Owsley wrote: I'm running into a dilemma. Not being a Safety Engineer myself, but rubbing elbows with them... On a piece of ITE equipment, I need some surge suppression for worldwide markets with one annoying requirement for 4 kV, otherwise just 2 kV line to earth, and using either plugable cords or permanent connection, whichever is worse. Now the Safety guys tell me that MOV's alone cannot bridge the insulation (Basic or Functional, I forget.) between primary and earth, when using one of power cable options mentioned above. But a proper qualified (GDT) gas discharge tube can do the bridging. So we figured to use them in series. On a quick and dirty bench test it works to 4 kV. Then the Safety guys pull out the rest of the story and point out 5.2.2 which seems to indicate that the GDT is to meet the Hi-Pot test, 1500 vac. Previously, section, 1.5.9.4 (?) indicates that the surge protection devices can be removed during the Hi-Pot test. But now I have a Surge suppression circuit that has to withstand the same Hi-Pot as the rest of the board. Question is how does a surge protection circuit protect the board when it has to meet the same Hi-Pot test? In other words, when a surge comes along, which is going to break over first? The surge protection or the board? Is the purpose of surge suppression is to keep the clamped voltage below a problem level? What am I missing in this? Thanks... - Bill - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Joe: Very quickly... SPDs are not considered reliable components or assemblies. The safety standards anticipate a failure -- anywhere from open-circuit to short-circuit. In the event of an open-circuit, there is no indication of such a failure. And, of course, all transients then pass through the open SPD. Consequently, the equipment safety insulations will be called upon to withstand the expected transient overvoltages. So, the standards require performing the voltage withstand test without the SPD in place. Best regards, Rich On 5/20/2013 1:40 PM, Joe Randolph wrote: Hi Rich: I'm hoping that you can provide one of your straightforward Rich Nute Explanations for the apparent contradiction behind the rationale that allows a surge protection component to be placed across a required safety isolation barrier, and then removed for the purpose of performing the hipot test. I have been involved with safety compliance for over 30 years, and this concept is one that has never made complete sense to me. On one level, I can just bump along and limit my attention to what the safety standard actually says, but I would like to understand what the thinking is behind that. This allowance (removing surge protection components for the hipot test) appears in a variety of standards and clauses within those standards, such as EN 60950-1, clauses 5.2.2, 6.1.2, and 6.2.2. If you could help clarify the thinking behind this allowance, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com/ Hi Bill: SPDs, regardless of configuration, are notorious for being prone to failure, either short-circuit or open-circuit or any value of resistance between those two extremes. (One cannot predict the energy the SPD will be required to dissipate.) From a safety point of view, all such failures must be accounted for such that the safety of the equipment is not compromised by any failure of the SPD. If the SPD should fail open-circuit, then expected transients that are therefore not attenuated, must not cause the insulation to fail. Hence, the insulation must pass the hi-pot test without the SPD in place. As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. Best regards, Rich On 5/10/2013 10:11 AM, Bill Owsley wrote: I'm running into a dilemma. Not being a Safety Engineer myself, but rubbing elbows with them... On a piece of ITE equipment, I need some surge suppression for worldwide markets with one annoying requirement for 4 kV, otherwise just 2 kV line to earth, and using either plugable cords or permanent connection, whichever is worse. Now the Safety guys tell me that MOV's alone cannot bridge the insulation (Basic or Functional, I forget.) between primary and earth, when using one of power cable options mentioned above. But a proper qualified (GDT) gas discharge tube can do the bridging. So we figured to use them in series. On a quick and dirty bench test it works to 4 kV. Then the Safety guys pull out the rest of the story and point out 5.2.2 which seems to indicate that the GDT is to meet the Hi-Pot test, 1500 vac. Previously, section, 1.5.9.4 (?) indicates that the surge protection devices can be removed during the Hi-Pot test. But now I have a Surge suppression circuit that has to withstand the same Hi-Pot as the rest of the board. Question is how does a surge protection circuit protect the board when it has to meet the same Hi-Pot test? In other words, when a surge comes along, which is going to break over first? The surge protection or the board? Is the purpose of surge suppression is to keep the clamped voltage below a problem level? What am I missing in this? Thanks... - Bill - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Bill: SPDs, regardless of configuration, are notorious for being prone to failure, either short-circuit or open-circuit or any value of resistance between those two extremes. (One cannot predict the energy the SPD will be required to dissipate.) From a safety point of view, all such failures must be accounted for such that the safety of the equipment is not compromised by any failure of the SPD. If the SPD should fail open-circuit, then expected transients that are therefore not attenuated, must not cause the insulation to fail. Hence, the insulation must pass the hi-pot test without the SPD in place. As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. Best regards, Rich On 5/10/2013 10:11 AM, Bill Owsley wrote: I'm running into a dilemma. Not being a Safety Engineer myself, but rubbing elbows with them... On a piece of ITE equipment, I need some surge suppression for worldwide markets with one annoying requirement for 4 kV, otherwise just 2 kV line to earth, and using either plugable cords or permanent connection, whichever is worse. Now the Safety guys tell me that MOV's alone cannot bridge the insulation (Basic or Functional, I forget.) between primary and earth, when using one of power cable options mentioned above. But a proper qualified (GDT) gas discharge tube can do the bridging. So we figured to use them in series. On a quick and dirty bench test it works to 4 kV. Then the Safety guys pull out the rest of the story and point out 5.2.2 which seems to indicate that the GDT is to meet the Hi-Pot test, 1500 vac. Previously, section, 1.5.9.4 (?) indicates that the surge protection devices can be removed during the Hi-Pot test. But now I have a Surge suppression circuit that has to withstand the same Hi-Pot as the rest of the board. Question is how does a surge protection circuit protect the board when it has to meet the same Hi-Pot test? In other words, when a surge comes along, which is going to break over first? The surge protection or the board? Is the purpose of surge suppression is to keep the clamped voltage below a problem level? What am I missing in this? Thanks... - Bill - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
In message 518feba9.7000...@ieee.org, dated Sun, 12 May 2013, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes: As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. If its seal was broken, letting the magic gas out, would it arc over at a lower voltage? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk They took me to a specialist burns unit - and made me learn 'To a haggis'. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
On 5/12/2013 12:39 PM, John Woodgate wrote: In message 518feba9.7000...@ieee.org, dated Sun, 12 May 2013, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes: As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. If its seal was broken, letting the magic gas out, would it arc over at a lower voltage? Depends on what's left in the GDT, if anything. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Assuming no tracking from impurities, GDT failure mode is typically open. And personal (anecdotal) experience bears this as correct. But have seen test reports where simulated lightning strikes with enough energy cause failure of body such that CTI adversely affected enough to stay lo-Z. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:40 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits In message 518feba9.7000...@ieee.org, dated Sun, 12 May 2013, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes: As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. If its seal was broken, letting the magic gas out, would it arc over at a lower voltage? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk They took me to a specialist burns unit - and made me learn 'To a haggis'. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits - GDTs
John, It is true that people used to worry about GDTs venting. In venting the GDT sparkover voltage greatly increased. In fact, there was a US trend to include a Back-Up (air) Gap (BUG) across the GDT component in case this happens. In fact, due to contamination, these BUGs were more unreliable than the GDTs they protected. UL came to the rescue and came up with a standard and expensive testing so that a BUG was unnecessary. Although the term is not much used today, these qualified components were known as Bugless GDTs. I've worked with many major GDT manufacturers and the main life concern these days is voltage degradation with surging. The so-called fast GDTs do degrade in sparkover voltage a lot faster than (well made) standard GDTs. One service provider was replacing SPDs using fast GDTs every two years because of this problem. Surge Protective Devices (SPDs) are complete assemblies made up from terminals, bases, housings and surge protective components (SPCs - GDTs, MOVs, ABDs etc.). I've notice that people wrongly use SPD when they are really talking about a surge protective component, SPC. Regards Mick On 12/05/2013 20:39, John Woodgate wrote: In message 518feba9.7000...@ieee.org, dated Sun, 12 May 2013, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes: As for the requirement for the GDT to pass the hi-pot test... ??? I don't have any rationale for this. If its seal was broken, letting the magic gas out, would it arc over at a lower voltage? - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
Hi Bill, You can use MOV (VDR) primary to PE as long as you have reliable earth. Reliable earth is considered for pluggable equipment type B or permanently connected equipment. For pluggable equipment type A, you would need additional earthing point, what is usually not acceptable for clients. Unfortunately, if you use combination VDR + GDT, GDT needs to comply with requirements for basic insulation (1500Vac) for any kind of equipment. I know the requirement is strange but also new hazard based standard 62368-1 has the same requirement. GDT alone cannot use bridge basic insulation primary to PE. But please note, this is valid for primary circuit only. For secondary circuits no such requirements are applicable. Best regards, Bostjan On 11. maj 2013, at 18:09, Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.commailto:wdows...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm running into a dilemma. Not being a Safety Engineer myself, but rubbing elbows with them... On a piece of ITE equipment, I need some surge suppression for worldwide markets with one annoying requirement for 4 kV, otherwise just 2 kV line to earth, and using either plugable cords or permanent connection, whichever is worse. Now the Safety guys tell me that MOV's alone cannot bridge the insulation (Basic or Functional, I forget.) between primary and earth, when using one of power cable options mentioned above. But a proper qualified (GDT) gas discharge tube can do the bridging. So we figured to use them in series. On a quick and dirty bench test it works to 4 kV. Then the Safety guys pull out the rest of the story and point out 5.2.2 which seems to indicate that the GDT is to meet the Hi-Pot test, 1500 vac. Previously, section, 1.5.9.4 (?) indicates that the surge protection devices can be removed during the Hi-Pot test. But now I have a Surge suppression circuit that has to withstand the same Hi-Pot as the rest of the board. Question is how does a surge protection circuit protect the board when it has to meet the same Hi-Pot test? In other words, when a surge comes along, which is going to break over first? The surge protection or the board? Is the purpose of surge suppression is to keep the clamped voltage below a problem level? What am I missing in this? Thanks... - Bill - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
LiokKKlklKMmmKrm$KmkJmM Sent from my BlackBerry From: Bill Owsley [mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 02:21 PM To: Boštjan Glavič bostjan.gla...@siq.si Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits Thanks ! A very clear answer. Not the one I wanted, but clear. From: Boštjan Glavič bostjan.gla...@siq.si To: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits Hi Bill, You can use MOV (VDR) primary to PE as long as you have reliable earth. Reliable earth is considered for pluggable equipment type B or permanently connected equipment. For pluggable equipment type A, you would need additional earthing point, what is usually not acceptable for clients. Unfortunately, if you use combination VDR + GDT, GDT needs to comply with requirements for basic insulation (1500Vac) for any kind of equipment. I know the requirement is strange but also new hazard based standard 62368-1 has the same requirement. GDT alone cannot use bridge basic insulation primary to PE. But please note, this is valid for primary circuit only. For secondary circuits no such requirements are applicable. Best regards, Bostjan On 11. maj 2013, at 18:09, Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.commailto:wdows...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm running into a dilemma. Not being a Safety Engineer myself, but rubbing elbows with them... On a piece of ITE equipment, I need some surge suppression for worldwide markets with one annoying requirement for 4 kV, otherwise just 2 kV line to earth, and using either plugable cords or permanent connection, whichever is worse. Now the Safety guys tell me that MOV's alone cannot bridge the insulation (Basic or Functional, I forget.) between primary and earth, when using one of power cable options mentioned above. But a proper qualified (GDT) gas discharge tube can do the bridging. So we figured to use them in series. On a quick and dirty bench test it works to 4 kV. Then the Safety guys pull out the rest of the story and point out 5.2.2 which seems to indicate that the GDT is to meet the Hi-Pot test, 1500 vac. Previously, section, 1.5.9.4 (?) indicates that the surge protection devices can be removed during the Hi-Pot test. But now I have a Surge suppression circuit that has to withstand the same Hi-Pot as the rest of the board. Question is how does a surge protection circuit protect the board when it has to meet the same Hi-Pot test? In other words, when a surge comes along, which is going to break over first? The surge protection or the board? Is the purpose of surge suppression is to keep the clamped voltage below a problem level? What am I missing in this? Thanks... - Bill - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats
[PSES] safety 60950 and surge suppression circuits
I'm running into a dilemma. Not being a Safety Engineer myself, but rubbing elbows with them... On a piece of ITE equipment, I need some surge suppression for worldwide markets with one annoying requirement for 4 kV, otherwise just 2 kV line to earth, and using either plugable cords or permanent connection, whichever is worse. Now the Safety guys tell me that MOV's alone cannot bridge the insulation (Basic or Functional, I forget.) between primary and earth, when using one of power cable options mentioned above. But a proper qualified (GDT) gas discharge tube can do the bridging. So we figured to use them in series. On a quick and dirty bench test it works to 4 kV. Then the Safety guys pull out the rest of the story and point out 5.2.2 which seems to indicate that the GDT is to meet the Hi-Pot test, 1500 vac. Previously, section, 1.5.9.4 (?) indicates that the surge protection devices can be removed during the Hi-Pot test. But now I have a Surge suppression circuit that has to withstand the same Hi-Pot as the rest of the board. Question is how does a surge protection circuit protect the board when it has to meet the same Hi-Pot test? In other words, when a surge comes along, which is going to break over first? The surge protection or the board? Is the purpose of surge suppression is to keep the clamped voltage below a problem level? What am I missing in this? Thanks... - Bill - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Factory Audits And Safety Don't Always Go Hand In Hand
Listen to the report: http://www.npr.org/2013/05/01/180103898/foreign-factory-audits-profitable-but-flawed-business (The accompanying text leaves out some details.) Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Copyright-free images of product safety testing needed
Colleagues, The PSES will be holding a Product Safety Engineering Workshop in Vancouver, BC, Canada in June, and I need your help. I am designing a brochure / flyer for the event, and I am in desperate need of some hi-resolution images of various kinds of product safety testing in progress. I am interested in all sectors, and any kind of testing, drop tests, impact tests, electrical tests, fire resistance tests, environmental testing (heat cold, humidity, salt spray ...). I have searched the stock photo databases extensively and come up dry. We need royalty-free images that we can use, and possibly re-use, on flyers like this for events. We would be happy to credit the source. Any images you can share would be appreciated. I can handle virtually any image format, and size. If you have images you can share, please respond to me privately and we can arrange the transfer. Thanks in advance for your help! Doug Nix VP Conferences 2013/14 PSES d...@ieee.org +1 (519) 729-5704 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Copyright-free images of product safety testing needed
Looked at the annual PSES Symposioum presentations? I remember several with these types of images. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Douglas Nix Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 12:51 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; PSES BOD Subject: Copyright-free images of product safety testing needed Colleagues, The PSES will be holding a Product Safety Engineering Workshop in Vancouver, BC, Canada in June, and I need your help. I am designing a brochure / flyer for the event, and I am in desperate need of some hi-resolution images of various kinds of product safety testing in progress. I am interested in all sectors, and any kind of testing, drop tests, impact tests, electrical tests, fire resistance tests, environmental testing (heat cold, humidity, salt spray ...). I have searched the stock photo databases extensively and come up dry. We need royalty-free images that we can use, and possibly re-use, on flyers like this for events. We would be happy to credit the source. Any images you can share would be appreciated. I can handle virtually any image format, and size. If you have images you can share, please respond to me privately and we can arrange the transfer. Thanks in advance for your help! Doug Nix VP Conferences 2013/14 PSES d...@ieee.org +1 (519) 729-5704 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society announcements
Dear List Members, A web version of this email is available at http://www.ieee-pses.org/temp/130330a.html. ### Newsletter ### The latest issue of the newsletter is now available on our website. Current issues of the IEEE Product Safety Engineering newsletters can be found in the society members only section of the web site. Membership in the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society is required to access the newsletters. See the society members only section for access instructions. See http://www.ieee-pses.org/newsletters.html. ### ISPCE 2013 ### IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering 2013 will be in Austin, Texas October 7, 8 and 9, 2013. The call-for-papers is available in the newsletter and our website, see the website for details http://www.ieee-pses.org. ### Call for Nominations for Directors-At-Large ### If you are looking to be recognized by your peers and want to make a difference in your profession, consider running for the Product Safety Engineering Society Board of directors. This is a Call for Nominations for election to a position as Director-At-Large IEEE PSES (BoD) for the term of 2014 through 2016. If you know of a good candidate, including yourself, who possesses leadership qualities, can get things done, and is looking for a challenge, please send an Intention to Nominate to a Nominations Committee member listed below and include the bio described below. The Intention should list the candidate s name, contact information and a brief description of their abilities. Directors-At-Large are your representatives to the Board of Directors of IEEE PSES. Terms of office are 3 years and the nominee must be a member of the IEEE and a member of the Society; possess technical and professional stature in the Product Safety Engineering field; have adequate financial resources, time to attend meetings, teleconferences and actively contribute in committee activities. If you are interested in applying for nomination for any of these positions, please contact the Nominations Committee and provide a one-page biographical summary by June 11, 2013. The bio should include the following: A recent photo First paragraph: Name, title, place of employment, educational background Second paragraph: Technical and professional experience Third paragraph: PSES and IEEE service and activities including officer positions, committee membership, etc. Fourth paragraph: Vision for PSES. Your mission as a director. Nominations Committee: - Murlin Marks at murl...@ieee.org, or - Jim Knighten at jim.knigh...@teradata.com, or - Jim Bacher at j.bac...@ieee.org For more details please review the society bylaws on our home page http://www.ieee-pses.org/ or contact anyone on the nominations committee. ### Prognostics and Health Management ### The 2013 IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) will take place in Gaithersburg, MD (Washington DC Metro area) on June 24-27, 2013. Registration is now open. The conference will address the broad range of PHM disciplines and topics including testability, diagnostics, prognostics, and health management across the pertinent disciplines; addressing key technologies at all levels as well as PHM Systems Engineering and Management. Brought to you by the Reliability Society and held on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) campus. Download the flyer for more information or visit www.phmconf.org. The Electrical Safety Council will stage its third Product Safety Conference at Church House, London on 16 May 2013 The conference theme - Safety of electrical products a 3600 approach - will address issues of product safety in design, recall effectiveness, and methods and processes to inform best practice to protect consumers, manufacturers, retailers and suppliers. See attached flyer for further details. The theme for the conference UK Market Surveillance overcoming the cut-backs through a combined approach recognizes the need for product safety professionals and stakeholders to actively seek opportunities for working together to help ensure that market surveillance remains effective during these challenging times. Keynote speaker Malcolm Harbour CBE, MEP and Chairman of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, will introduce a packed agenda covering product recall and traceability, safety in design and communication of risk. With speakers from across the spectrum including regulators, manufacturers, designers and consumer interest groups. Speakers/facilitators confirmed to date include: AMDEA Beko Bosch British Retail Consortium Direct Line Dyson Hogan Lovells International LLP RecallUK Register your interest now or for further information relating to the conference please visit - http://www.esc.org.uk/product-safety-conference More Information: Siobhan Doyle siobhan.do...@esc.org.uk ### Call for Contributions ### PSES is planning to bring the next issue of its Newsletter in June 2013 and would like
[PSES] Position - Product Safety Engineer at Cisco Systems in Boxborough MA USA
We have a full time position open here in Boxborough for a product safety engineer. Please see the following link for the job description: https://www.cisco.apply2jobs.com/ProfExt/index.cfm?fuseaction=mExternal.showJobRID=941165CurrentPage=1 Please enter your information there. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] UK Electrical Product Safety Conference
The Electrical Safety Council will stage its third Product Safety Conference at Church House, London on 16 May 2013. The conference theme - “Safety of electrical products – a 3600 approach” - will address issues of product safety in design, recall effectiveness, and methods and processes to inform best practice to protect consumers, manufacturers, retailers and suppliers. See attached flyer for further details. The theme for the conference “UK Market Surveillance – overcoming the cut-backs through a combined approach” recognises the need for product safety professionals and stakeholders to actively seek opportunities for working together to help ensure that market surveillance remains effective during these challenging times. Keynote speaker Malcolm Harbour CBE, MEP and Chairman of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, will introduce a packed agenda covering product recall and traceability, safety in design and communication of risk. With speakers from across the spectrum including regulators, manufacturers, designers and consumer interest groups. Speakers/facilitators confirmed to date include: AMDEA Beko Bosch British Retail Consortium Direct Line Dyson Hogan Lovells International LLP RecallUK Register your interest now or for further information relating to the conference please visit - www.esc.org.uk/product-safety-conference More Information: Siobhan Doyle siobhan.do...@esc.org.uk - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Medical Safety consultant in Seattle area.
Startup needs a little help in working with multiple input circuits for their non patient contact equipment. Medical laboratory is probably more the point of the equipment. They have been through development cycles a time or two, but are now looking at the need to switch between 120/240 for about 3.3 kw systems. They are building medical instruments - computers looking at cells (so nothing touching a patient directly). I've been through the product dev. cycle a few times now which is to say - I'm pretty sure what's needed for most implementations to pass the UL type safety issues. The system we're working on now is a little complex because it has the potential to need a lot of power from the wall. That means probably 220 power, but in many uses it doesn't need that much and we'd like to have the option to use 110V power. However, at 110V it may require two separate wall circuits. We would like to discuss our options with someone about configuration of the power entry and what we can and cannot do from a regulatory/safety standpoint. We want the system to have a single switch - which could be many switches remotely switched. Picture a system built from other peoples products and much of it placed inside a box with half a dozen different power supplies (wall wart supplies and PC boxes) used to power the individual modules. We want to make sure our AC power splitting meets regulations and also how we build this to be configurable to 220 Gary McInturff Reliability/Compliance Engineer Esterline Interface Technologies Featuring ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON products 600 W. Wilbur Avenue Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815-9496 Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX Tel: (208) 635-8 Fax: (208) 635-8 www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies Technology, Innovation, Performance... Click herehttp://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx to read disclaimer - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements
Amund, Peter is essentially correct except that he meant to say AS/NS 3820 instead of AS/NZS 3280. Best regards, Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology (Legislation/Regulations/Standards/Australian Agent Services) Ph: 02-4329-4070 (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070) Fax: 02-4328-5639 (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639) Mobile: 04-1224-1620 (Int'l: +61-4-1224-1620) Email:kevin.richard...@stanimore.comorkevin.richard...@ieee.org URL: www.stanimore.com Confidentiality This material (this email including all attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended to be read or used by the addressees only. If you are not one of the intended recipients or you have received this material in error, any copying, disclosure, distribution, use of or reliance upon this material is prohibited. Please immediately notify Stanimore Pty Limited and delete/destroy all copies (electronic and hardcopy) of this email and all attachments. While the sender tries to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this material, Stanimore take no responsibility for any actions taken as a result of receiving this material or for any consequence of its use. From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013 8:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements Is safety testing for Australian market according to AS/NZS 60950.1 mandatory, even if the product is powered with 24VDC? I have been told so .. To be more precise: The product (EUT) gets it power 24VDC/0.1A from an AC/DC (230VAC/24VDC) power supply, which is IEC60950-1 tested and approved (CB scheme). If the EUT has to be tested according to AS/NZS 60950.1, then the Australian requirements differ a lot from the LVD in Europe. Anybody who knows the Australian safety rules? .. Cheers, Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements
Kevin Thanks for the correction. Too many standards to remember and no mobile app yet to facilitate the life of a traveling regulatory compliance professional. Sent from my iPhone Peter S. Merguerian pe...@goglobalcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. www.goglobalcompliance.com (408) 931-3303 On Mar 11, 2013, at 12:36 AM, Kevin Richardson kevin.richard...@ieee.org wrote: Amund, Peter is essentially correct except that he meant to say AS/NS 3820 instead of AS/NZS 3280. Best regards, Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology (Legislation/Regulations/Standards/Australian Agent Services) Ph: 02-4329-4070 (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070) Fax: 02-4328-5639 (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639) Mobile: 04-1224-1620 (Int'l: +61-4-1224-1620) Email:kevin.richard...@stanimore.comorkevin.richard...@ieee.org URL: www.stanimore.com Confidentiality This material (this email including all attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended to be read or used by the addressees only. If you are not one of the intended recipients or you have received this material in error, any copying, disclosure, distribution, use of or reliance upon this material is prohibited. Please immediately notify Stanimore Pty Limited and delete/destroy all copies (electronic and hardcopy) of this email and all attachments. While the sender tries to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this material, Stanimore take no responsibility for any actions taken as a result of receiving this material or for any consequence of its use. From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013 8:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements Is safety testing for Australian market according to AS/NZS 60950.1 mandatory, even if the product is powered with 24VDC? I have been told so …. To be more precise: The product (EUT) gets it power 24VDC/0.1A from an AC/DC (230VAC/24VDC) power supply, which is IEC60950-1 tested and approved (CB scheme). If the EUT has to be tested according to AS/NZS 60950.1, then the Australian requirements differ a lot from the LVD in Europe. Anybody who knows the Australian safety rules? …. Cheers, Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell
Re: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements
In message 46a576a1-bb8a-4c98-a92d-ba0c691b3...@yahoo.com, dated Mon, 11 Mar 2013, Peter Merguerian pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com writes: Thanks for the correction. Too many standards to remember and no mobile app yet to facilitate the life of a traveling regulatory compliance professional. You can get a lot of information from the public part of the IEC web site (and the new site is claimed to be more user-friendly) www.iec.ch. There are lots of links to national standards committees sites as well. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk SHOCK HORROR! Dinosaur-like DNA found in chicken and turkey meals John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements
Yes indeed Peter. Best regards, Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology (Legislation/Regulations/Standards/Australian Agent Services) Ph: 02-4329-4070 (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070) Fax: 02-4328-5639 (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639) Mobile: 04-1224-1620 (Int'l: +61-4-1224-1620) Email:kevin.richard...@stanimore.comorkevin.richard...@ieee.org URL: www.stanimore.com Confidentiality This material (this email including all attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended to be read or used by the addressees only. If you are not one of the intended recipients or you have received this material in error, any copying, disclosure, distribution, use of or reliance upon this material is prohibited. Please immediately notify Stanimore Pty Limited and delete/destroy all copies (electronic and hardcopy) of this email and all attachments. While the sender tries to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this material, Stanimore take no responsibility for any actions taken as a result of receiving this material or for any consequence of its use. From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013 12:33 AM To: Kevin Richardson Cc: Amund Westin; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements Kevin Thanks for the correction. Too many standards to remember and no mobile app yet to facilitate the life of a traveling regulatory compliance professional. Sent from my iPhone Peter S. Merguerian pe...@goglobalcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. www.goglobalcompliance.com (408) 931-3303 On Mar 11, 2013, at 12:36 AM, Kevin Richardson kevin.richard...@ieee.org wrote: Amund, Peter is essentially correct except that he meant to say AS/NS 3820 instead of AS/NZS 3280. Best regards, Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology (Legislation/Regulations/Standards/Australian Agent Services) Ph: 02-4329-4070 (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070) Fax: 02-4328-5639 (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639) Mobile: 04-1224-1620 (Int'l: +61-4-1224-1620) Email:kevin.richard...@stanimore.comorkevin.richard...@ieee.org URL: www.stanimore.com Confidentiality This material (this email including all attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended to be read or used by the addressees only. If you are not one of the intended recipients or you have received this material in error, any copying, disclosure, distribution, use of or reliance upon this material is prohibited. Please immediately notify Stanimore Pty Limited and delete/destroy all copies (electronic and hardcopy) of this email and all attachments. While the sender tries to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this material, Stanimore take no responsibility for any actions taken as a result of receiving this material or for any consequence of its use. From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013 8:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements Is safety testing for Australian market according to AS/NZS 60950.1 mandatory, even if the product is powered with 24VDC? I have been told so …. To be more precise: The product (EUT) gets it power 24VDC/0.1A from an AC/DC (230VAC/24VDC) power supply, which is IEC60950-1 tested and approved (CB scheme). If the EUT has to be tested according to AS/NZS 60950.1, then the Australian requirements differ a lot from the LVD in Europe. Anybody who knows the Australian safety rules? …. Cheers, Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable
[PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements
Is safety testing for Australian market according to AS/NZS 60950.1 mandatory, even if the product is powered with 24VDC? I have been told so .. To be more precise: The product (EUT) gets it power 24VDC/0.1A from an AC/DC (230VAC/24VDC) power supply, which is IEC60950-1 tested and approved (CB scheme). If the EUT has to be tested according to AS/NZS 60950.1, then the Australian requirements differ a lot from the LVD in Europe. Anybody who knows the Australian safety rules? .. Cheers, Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] AS/NZS 60950.1 - Austrlian safety requirements
Amund Power Supply is prescribed and must undergo a certification process. EUT is not perscribed and does not have to undergo a certification process. It must however meet AS/NZS 3280 which is very similar to the LVD. One way to comply is to use a standard such as AS/NZS 60950.1 Best Regards Peter Sent from my iPhone Peter S. Merguerian pe...@goglobalcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. www.goglobalcompliance.com (408) 931-3303 On Mar 8, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Amund Westin am...@westin-emission.no wrote: Is safety testing for Australian market according to AS/NZS 60950.1 mandatory, even if the product is powered with 24VDC? I have been told so …. To be more precise: The product (EUT) gets it power 24VDC/0.1A from an AC/DC (230VAC/24VDC) power supply, which is IEC60950-1 tested and approved (CB scheme). If the EUT has to be tested according to AS/NZS 60950.1, then the Australian requirements differ a lot from the LVD in Europe. Anybody who knows the Australian safety rules? …. Cheers, Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] FW: Find Product Safety Consultant
Forwarding to the list for Mike. Please respond directly to him if you can help or have comments and not to the listserv (he is not a member of the EMC-PSTC list so he will not see your response). __ Dan Roman, N.C.E. VP of Communications Services IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society mailto:dan.ro...@ieee.org From: Michael Recker [mailto:m...@wirelessenv.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:03 AM To: admin-p...@ieee.org Subject: Find Product Safety Consultant Hello, We have a product that failed in the field in a safe way but we still cannot recreate the failure in any way that we have tested yet. How do I find a product safety consultant with the right experience in AC/DC converters, specifically a non-isolated design, that may be able to help us find the root cause of the failure? Can you direct me to one or more members in your organization that might work on a consulting basis to analyze our failure? Thank you, Michael Recker Chief Technology Officer Wireless Environment LLC e: m...@wirelessenv.com p: 216.455.0192 x5 m: 240.401.8224 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] EMC,Radio, and Safety Requirements for Brazil
Hello, Can someone point me in the right direction concerning applicable standards for Brazil for EMC, Radio and Safety testing of ITE, Medical, Industrial equipment, household appliances, etc. Thanks in advance. Regards, David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101 Mail e...@itl.co.il/dav...@itl.co.ilmailto:e...@itl.co.il/dav...@itl.co.il Web www.itl.co.ilhttp://www.itl.co.il/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] EMC,Radio, and Safety Requirements for Brazil
Based on my recent experience with Anatel. Brazil Radio standard Resolutions are in Portuguese. I tried to use Google to translate but but the meaning was not the same. In the end I called the lab in Brazil to help me understand it. certification process is a 3 month process. Christopher From: itl-emc user group itl...@itl.co.il To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:37 AM Subject: EMC,Radio, and Safety Requirements for Brazil Hello, Can someone point me in the right direction concerning applicable standards for Brazil for EMC, Radio and Safety testing of ITE, Medical, Industrial equipment, household appliances, etc. Thanks in advance. Regards, David Shidlowsky| Technical Writer Address1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel Tel972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101 mail...@itl.co.il/dav...@itl.co.il Web www.itl.co.il- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] ISTAS'13 - Smart World Product Safety Track Call for Papers
CALL FOR PAPERS - Product Safety Track ISTAS'13 - Smart World The Social Implications of Wearable Computing and Augmented Reality in Everyday Life http://veillance.me Wearable Computing and Augmented Reality is becoming reality, but little discussion on the product safety aspects of these new technologies has occurred. Product safety standards have yet to be created for these unique applications. Join in this important communication by adding your voice to the discussion in Toronto! PSES is encouraging members to develop papers for this conference focused on the product safety aspects of these new technologies, including the need for new or modified standards, test methods, and other aspects we perceive. Important Dates Papers up to 5000 words - January 31, 2013 Abstract only (presentation only) - February 28, 2013 Author notification - March 31, 2013 Final camera read copy - April 29, 2013 Paper Submission Requirements http://veillance.me/submission/ Download the CFP: http://veillance.me/s/IEEE_ISTAS13_CFP.pdf More information: Doug Nix dnix 'at' ieee 'dot' org Topics Submissions for ISTAS's Technical Program are welcomed in the following areas and not limited to: Wearable Computing cell-phone view, webcams, necklacedome, wearcams, wearcomp, wristwatch computer, point-of-view technologies, mobile CCTV, EyeTap, Google Glasses, sensors, nanotechnology, biomedical devices, implantables, skinput, affective computing, body area networks, cyborgs, interaction-design Augmediated Reality vision systems, graphical-based systems, multimedia, interactive systems, location-based services, geolocation mapping, Web 3.0, 4G, sensory inputs, biofeedback, augmented reality, diminished reality, mediated reality, reality mining, remembrance agents, humanistic intelligence, artificial intelligence The Veillances surveillance, counter surveillance, dataveillance, sousveillance, equiveillence, inequiveillence, mcveillance, uberveillance, veillance studies, obtrusive, unobtrusive, secret, covert, priveillance, uber analytics, big data Everyday Life data logging, moblogging, glogging, lifelogging, 24x7 ubiquitous audio-visual recording, state/condition monitoring, permission (opt-out/opt-in), private space, public space, transparent society Social Concerns privacy, social sorting, data-driven analytics, security, fair use/availability, equity, consent, complexity, rates, power/control, government authority, RF transmissions, resilience, regulatory issues, legislation, sustainability, autonomy, living off the grid, transhumanism Additional papers on other traditional fields of interest to SSIT also are welcome. ISTAS '13 will be a transdisciplinary event for engineers, designers, scientists, artists, researchers in the social sciences, law and humanities, decision makers, entrepreneurs, inventors, commercializers, etc., as well as polymaths, and anyone who is a DASSTEMist (Designer, Artist, Sustainist, Scientist, Technologist, Engineer, and Mathematician). Download the CFP: http://veillance.me/s/IEEE_ISTAS13_CFP.pdf - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Product Safety Job openings at Bose
Hello Everyone, The Bose Product Safety Group is growing again and I have openings for two positions in Framingham, MA. I have included a very brief description of the positions but you can view the complete job descriptions on the Bose Website using the above req#'s https://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_STATIC_PAGE_EVENTurl=/about/careers/search_jobs/index.jsp 1. Product Safety Engineer req ID# 15759BR- this is a junior position so I am looking for a recent college graduate or someone who has been out of school less than two years. You can view the job description here under req ID# i57559BR The Product Safety Group seeks an self-motivated and detail oriented engineer with a background in electrical/electronic engineering to support regulatory design evaluation and testing of Bose Consumer and Professional Audio/ Video products. 2. Product Safety Engineer req #15794BR - This is a more senior oriented position is dedicated to evaluating customer field returns for possible safety issues. The candidate must have the ability to do deep dive analysis of circuits to determine the possible cause of the field issue. Consider a career as a Product Safety Engineer with Bose's Product Safety Group. We are seeking a self-motivated and detail oriented engineer with an experienced background in electrical/electronic engineering and analog circuit design (ideally power circuitry) to support the evaluation and root cause diagnosis of customer returns for potential safety issues of Bose Consumer and Professional Audio/ Video products. In this role, you will provide support to the various Bose Product Divisions, International subsidiaries and Manufacturing There is also a position in another one of the Design Compliance groups here some might have interest in 3. International Certification Engineer req#15754BR Bose Corporation is seeking a talented individual with experience and long-term interest in International Product Compliance. As part of the Design Compliance Engineering (DCE) group you will provide support to the various Bose Product Divisions, such as Home Entertainment, Professional Systems and Noise Reduction Technology, in obtaining and maintaining International Product Certifications required for worldwide sales. These are new positions and not a replacement for people who have left Bose. Please be sure to apply officially through he Bose system so the recruiter will have a record of your interest and can begin the screening process. Any questions please feel free to contact me. John Tyra Manager Product Safety Group Bose Corporation The Mountain, MS-450 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 phone: 508-766-1502 fax: 508-518-4137 john_t...@bose.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments relate to the official business of Bose Corporation and are proprietary to Bose. This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Safety standards (UL, ...) in railway applications
Hello Michael, I believe that the U.S. requirements for railroad safety are written as Federal Regulations, Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter II, Parts 200 - 269. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b2a64dafd5d937af27f919b36bb433d0c=ecfrtpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv4_02.tpl Another version of the regulations can be found at the Federal Railroad Administration's web site. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Find#p1_z10_lCM Best regards, Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.commailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:46 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Safety standards (UL, ...) in railway applications Hello, does in the US specific or complemtary standards exists similar to EN 50126, EN 50128 or EN 50129? Product scope: Instrumentation and control systems for rail vehicles like air conditioning, ventilation, door control, traction and safety applications. Best regards Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist Globalnorm GmbH Kurfürstenstr. 112 10787 Berlin Phone +49 30 3229027-51 Cell +49 170 3229027 Fax +49 30 3229027-59 Mailmichael.loer...@globalnorm.demailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de » globalnorm.dehttp://www.globalnorm.de/ Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Safety standards (UL, ...) in railway applications
Hello, does in the US specific or complemtary standards exists similar to EN 50126, EN 50128 or EN 50129? Product scope: Instrumentation and control systems for rail vehicles like air conditioning, ventilation, door control, traction and safety applications. Best regards Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist Globalnorm GmbH Kurfürstenstr. 112 10787 Berlin Phone +49 30 3229027-51 Cell +49 170 3229027 Fax +49 30 3229027-59 Mail mailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de michael.loer...@globalnorm.de http://www.globalnorm.de/ » globalnorm.de Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
John, I never thought of it that way. Great perspective! Thanks! Doug Nix d...@mac.com “The last of human freedoms - the ability to chose one's attitude in a given set of circumstances.” Viktor Frankl Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. Mahatma Gandhi On 7-December-2012, at 02:32, John Woodgate wrote: Safety and EMC 3rd party testing costs are properly a marketing expense, because they are incurred in order to be allowed on to the market. They are not a charge on RD, because the products work perfectly OK without the testing. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
I was on contract to write a test plan for a new AED when one of the project managers complained about the cost of doing all the tests. No one else does, it's a competitive disadvantage. Why make it so difficult? Rather than fall back on Because you can't legally sell them without, I replied I don't want to kill people we're trying to save. He went away. In fact, a lot of EMI tests are not immediately critical to the life of a person being treated, but the ambulance still has to be able to hear the dispatcher. Some of them do relate to function; its radio shouldn't shut down treatment*, or an AED's processor decision be mislead by overhead locomotive power at 16 2/3 Hz.** Nor do you want to interfere with aircraft collision avoidance or its communications. So I kept it simple. *Reported to have resulted in death in either a Glen Dash column, or an EMC Club Banana Skins; I forget which. ** www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15294405 Might we have a psychologist speak at an EMC Symposium on How to talk your boss into doing the right thing? Cortland Richmond On 12/7/2012 0232, John Woodgate wrote: Safety and EMC 3rd party testing costs are properly a marketing expense, because they are incurred in order to be allowed on to the market. They are not a charge on RD, because the products work perfectly OK without the testing. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
Seems to be good design requires at least single fault tolerance - which is outside of normal functioning. Sandy CDRH/OSEL/DESE phone number : 301-796-2582 From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:06 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety I was on contract to write a test plan for a new AED when one of the project managers complained about the cost of doing all the tests. No one else does, it's a competitive disadvantage. Why make it so difficult? Rather than fall back on Because you can't legally sell them without, I replied I don't want to kill people we're trying to save. He went away. In fact, a lot of EMI tests are not immediately critical to the life of a person being treated, but the ambulance still has to be able to hear the dispatcher. Some of them do relate to function; its radio shouldn't shut down treatment*, or an AED's processor decision be mislead by overhead locomotive power at 16 2/3 Hz.** Nor do you want to interfere with aircraft collision avoidance or its communications. So I kept it simple. *Reported to have resulted in death in either a Glen Dash column, or an EMC Club Banana Skins; I forget which. ** www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15294405http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15294405 Might we have a psychologist speak at an EMC Symposium on How to talk your boss into doing the right thing? Cortland Richmond On 12/7/2012 0232, John Woodgate wrote: Safety and EMC 3rd party testing costs are properly a marketing expense, because they are incurred in order to be allowed on to the market. They are not a charge on RD, because the products work perfectly OK without the testing. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
This is a good point for discussion, but doesn't it ignore the difference between safety and compliance. You can put unsafe but compliant products on the market because compliance does not catch all safety issues. Maybe the cost of testing should be a legal expense if you believe the product is safe and you are only testing to get the appropriate legal cover. Should the added cost of the safety features be considered a marketing or legal expense? Also, I have had marketing try to dictate a less safe product because they wanted it cheaper, or didn't want all those distracting labels, or didn't want those ugly warnings in their pretty manuals, or worse, didn't want to imply that there were any hazards with the product. Jack Burns mailto:jbu...@ieee.org jbu...@ieee.org cell - 512 422 5829 From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Doug Nix Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:02 AM To: John Woodgate Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety John, I never thought of it that way. Great perspective! Thanks! Doug Nix d...@mac.com The last of human freedoms - the ability to chose one's attitude in a given set of circumstances. Viktor Frankl Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. Mahatma Gandhi On 7-December-2012, at 02:32, John Woodgate wrote: Safety and EMC 3rd party testing costs are properly a marketing expense, because they are incurred in order to be allowed on to the market. They are not a charge on RD, because the products work perfectly OK without the testing. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
In message 000c01cdd486$cdf05bc0$69d11340$@ieee.org, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Jack Burns jbu...@ieee.org writes: Should the added cost of the safety features be considered a marketing or legal expense? Well, either, because generally for those budgets USD5 is a trifle, whereas it's half the annual RD budget.(;-) Also, I have had marketing try to dictate a less safe product because they wanted it cheaper, or didn?t want all those distracting labels, or didn?t want those ugly warnings in their pretty manuals, or worse, didn?t want to imply that there were any hazards with the product. I've used that 'Do you have so many customers that you can afford to kill a few?' response to that. It doesn't make one popular but it gets the point over. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
I suppose that is more professional and demonstrative than my typical quote from Bugs Bunny, Three Stooges, or Monty Python. Perhaps someone can write a 'Compliance for Idiots and Managers' book? Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:13 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety I've used that 'Do you have so many customers that you can afford to kill a few?' response to that. It doesn't make one popular but it gets the point over. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
Years ago I had firsthand experience ( as a fledgling engineer) of a DIRECT financial impact on the company I worked for at the time due to a safety hazard in a fielded product. The product in question was an OEM PC. The company did all the due diligence with respect to the marking and safety reports to ensure compliance with the relevant standards. Regretfully - while moving said PC from one location to another- a customer got shocked by bare AC pins. The shock caused the customer to drop the PC and fall down some stairs. The ensuing publicity caused a significant impact on our sales and fundamentally we never recovered to be a serious player in the PC business after that. Analysis showed that the OEM manufacturer left out a small component - the bleed resistor across the filter caps - with massive results. Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:13 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety In message 000c01cdd486$cdf05bc0$69d11340$@ieee.org, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Jack Burns jbu...@ieee.org writes: Should the added cost of the safety features be considered a marketing or legal expense? Well, either, because generally for those budgets USD5 is a trifle, whereas it's half the annual RD budget.(;-) Also, I have had marketing try to dictate a less safe product because they wanted it cheaper, or didn?t want all those distracting labels, or didn?t want those ugly warnings in their pretty manuals, or worse, didn?t want to imply that there were any hazards with the product. I've used that 'Do you have so many customers that you can afford to kill a few?' response to that. It doesn't make one popular but it gets the point over. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
In message b8f3f23a24ba3f4688cc5275527cb98b0e500...@inwpiexc02.sats.corp, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Grasso, Charles charles.gra...@echostar.com writes: Analysis showed that the OEM manufacturer left out a small component - the bleed resistor across the filter caps - with massive results. Those resistors have been known to go open-circuit, too. However, this sort of disproportionate consequence is really out of the control of the manufacturer, who should not be held liable. Besides, it's too open to abuse. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
The counter example, maybe. Is a monitor we built some years ago was at the start of a fire. Evaluation quickly showed that the monitor was not the source but rather a bank teller full of Christmas spirit had lit a candle next to the monitor and didn't blow it out before going home. Somewhere along the line the candle flame was in contact with the monitor - 94V0 - eventually caught fire and the ignition source remained in contact so that the fire spread far enough to ignite some paper on the monitor etc. Ultimately the legal beagles didn't care it was cheaper to settle than to litigate so the claim was paid. But maybe in retrospect it also keep us out of the media rightly or wrongly. Gary -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:12 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety Years ago I had firsthand experience ( as a fledgling engineer) of a DIRECT financial impact on the company I worked for at the time due to a safety hazard in a fielded product. The product in question was an OEM PC. The company did all the due diligence with respect to the marking and safety reports to ensure compliance with the relevant standards. Regretfully - while moving said PC from one location to another- a customer got shocked by bare AC pins. The shock caused the customer to drop the PC and fall down some stairs. The ensuing publicity caused a significant impact on our sales and fundamentally we never recovered to be a serious player in the PC business after that. Analysis showed that the OEM manufacturer left out a small component - the bleed resistor across the filter caps - with massive results. Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:13 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety In message 000c01cdd486$cdf05bc0$69d11340$@ieee.org, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Jack Burns jbu...@ieee.org writes: Should the added cost of the safety features be considered a marketing or legal expense? Well, either, because generally for those budgets USD5 is a trifle, whereas it's half the annual RD budget.(;-) Also, I have had marketing try to dictate a less safe product because they wanted it cheaper, or didn?t want all those distracting labels, or didn?t want those ugly warnings in their pretty manuals, or worse, didn?t want to imply that there were any hazards with the product. I've used that 'Do you have so many customers that you can afford to kill a few?' response to that. It doesn't make one popular but it gets the point over. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
I had a similar experience years ago. Prototype power filter in a system that ran on 3 phase power. The tech who built up the filter forgot the bleeder resistors. I picked up the power cord sometime after the unit had been turned off and unplugged and got the pins of the plug across the palm of my hand. OUCH! Still showed over 100 Volts across the pins after that. Good caps in the filter. :-) We made sure the design included bleeder resistors after that. Ghery S. Pettit -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grasso, Charles Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:12 AM To: John Woodgate; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] The Cost of Safety Years ago I had firsthand experience ( as a fledgling engineer) of a DIRECT financial impact on the company I worked for at the time due to a safety hazard in a fielded product. The product in question was an OEM PC. The company did all the due diligence with respect to the marking and safety reports to ensure compliance with the relevant standards. Regretfully - while moving said PC from one location to another- a customer got shocked by bare AC pins. The shock caused the customer to drop the PC and fall down some stairs. The ensuing publicity caused a significant impact on our sales and fundamentally we never recovered to be a serious player in the PC business after that. Analysis showed that the OEM manufacturer left out a small component - the bleed resistor across the filter caps - with massive results. Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:13 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety In message 000c01cdd486$cdf05bc0$69d11340$@ieee.org, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Jack Burns jbu...@ieee.org writes: Should the added cost of the safety features be considered a marketing or legal expense? Well, either, because generally for those budgets USD5 is a trifle, whereas it's half the annual RD budget.(;-) Also, I have had marketing try to dictate a less safe product because they wanted it cheaper, or didn?t want all those distracting labels, or didn?t want those ugly warnings in their pretty manuals, or worse, didn?t want to imply that there were any hazards with the product. I've used that 'Do you have so many customers that you can afford to kill a few?' response to that. It doesn't make one popular but it gets the point over. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
The Fault Tree Analysis appears to be a decent tool for determining safety concerns with a fully compliant listed/certified product, because it makes the team address things like multiple fault scenarios and foreseeable misuse. It is subjective in nature, because many assumptions need to be made about the probability of an event happening, so it requires some conservative thinking when working with terminology like improbable, inconceivable, known to happen, etc. e.g. a Y-cap shorts chassis is left ungrounded user touches chassis (assign an approximate probability to each one of those and you get an idea of how the fault tree is assembled) It can be a real eye-opener ___ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Solar Business | CANADA | Regulatory Compliance Engineering From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, Date: 12/07/2012 08:21 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety In message 000c01cdd486$cdf05bc0$69d11340$@ieee.org, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Jack Burns jbu...@ieee.org writes: Should the added cost of the safety features be considered a marketing or legal expense? Well, either, because generally for those budgets USD5 is a trifle, whereas it's half the annual RD budget.(;-) Also, I have had marketing try to dictate a less safe product because they wanted it cheaper, or didn?t want all those distracting labels, or didn?t want those ugly warnings in their pretty manuals, or worse, didn?t want to imply that there were any hazards with the product. I've used that 'Do you have so many customers that you can afford to kill a few?' response to that. It doesn't make one popular but it gets the point over. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
Something easy to catch during Type testing but not likely something included in Routine testing, and so very difficult to catch in production. (e.g. a dielectric test on factory line wouldn't find that fault) ___ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Solar Business | CANADA | Regulatory Compliance Engineering From: Grasso, Charles charles.gra...@echostar.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, Date: 12/07/2012 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety Years ago I had firsthand experience ( as a fledgling engineer) of a DIRECT financial impact on the company I worked for at the time due to a safety hazard in a fielded product. The product in question was an OEM PC. The company did all the due diligence with respect to the marking and safety reports to ensure compliance with the relevant standards. Regretfully - while moving said PC from one location to another- a customer got shocked by bare AC pins. The shock caused the customer to drop the PC and fall down some stairs. The ensuing publicity caused a significant impact on our sales and fundamentally we never recovered to be a serious player in the PC business after that. Analysis showed that the OEM manufacturer left out a small component - the bleed resistor across the filter caps - with massive results. Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:13 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety In message 000c01cdd486$cdf05bc0$69d11340$@ieee.org, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Jack Burns jbu...@ieee.org writes: Should the added cost of the safety features be considered a marketing or legal expense? Well, either, because generally for those budgets USD5 is a trifle, whereas it's half the annual RD budget.(;-) Also, I have had marketing try to dictate a less safe product because they wanted it cheaper, or didn?t want all those distracting labels, or didn?t want those ugly warnings in their pretty manuals, or worse, didn?t want to imply that there were any hazards with the product. I've used that 'Do you have so many customers that you can afford to kill a few?' response to that. It doesn't make one popular but it gets the point over. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
Things have improve immensely since the bad old days.I vividly recall receiving a nasty shock as a child from my grandfather's a.c. power portable phonograph (about 1950 design). The head of a screw holding the metal chassis to the pressboard was easily touched or brushed against. My father had discovered that if the non-polarized plug was in the socket the wrong way around, the screw head got energized at 120V. That hurts! Since those days, product safety standards have helped eliminate many of the hazards in consumer appliances, and they're getting better at it every year. ___ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Solar Business | CANADA | Regulatory Compliance Engineering From: Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, Date: 12/07/2012 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety I had a similar experience years ago. Prototype power filter in a system that ran on 3 phase power. The tech who built up the filter forgot the bleeder resistors. I picked up the power cord sometime after the unit had been turned off and unplugged and got the pins of the plug across the palm of my hand. OUCH! Still showed over 100 Volts across the pins after that. Good caps in the filter. :-) We made sure the design included bleeder resistors after that. Ghery S. Pettit -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grasso, Charles Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:12 AM To: John Woodgate; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] The Cost of Safety Years ago I had firsthand experience ( as a fledgling engineer) of a DIRECT financial impact on the company I worked for at the time due to a safety hazard in a fielded product. The product in question was an OEM PC. The company did all the due diligence with respect to the marking and safety reports to ensure compliance with the relevant standards. Regretfully - while moving said PC from one location to another- a customer got shocked by bare AC pins. The shock caused the customer to drop the PC and fall down some stairs. The ensuing publicity caused a significant impact on our sales and fundamentally we never recovered to be a serious player in the PC business after that. Analysis showed that the OEM manufacturer left out a small component - the bleed resistor across the filter caps - with massive results. Best Regards Charles Grasso Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications (w) 303-706-5467 (c) 303-204-2974 (t) 3032042...@vtext.com (e) charles.gra...@echostar.com (e2) chasgra...@gmail.com -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:13 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety In message 000c01cdd486$cdf05bc0$69d11340$@ieee.org, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Jack Burns jbu...@ieee.org writes: Should the added cost of the safety features be considered a marketing or legal expense? Well, either, because generally for those budgets USD5 is a trifle, whereas it's half the annual RD budget.(;-) Also, I have had marketing try to dictate a less safe product because they wanted it cheaper, or didn?t want all those distracting labels, or didn?t want those ugly warnings in their pretty manuals, or worse, didn?t want to imply that there were any hazards with the product. I've used that 'Do you have so many customers that you can afford to kill a few?' response to that. It doesn't make one popular but it gets the point over. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
While I was at one now defunct computer manufacturer, our safety engineer left for greener pastures in the Persian restaurant business (honest!) and we EMC types were drafted until we could find another one. However, after I saw the AC decay voltage tester setup I yelled at them a bit, then rewired things so one didn't risk electrocution every them he did that test. It must have been good enough, because various witnessed tests were accepted. This raises the question, however, of whether such a test was done on these computers; it's pretty simple, or can be. Cortland Richmond -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles charles.gra...@echostar.com Sent: Dec 7, 2012 1:12 PM To: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] The Cost of Safety Years ago I had firsthand experience ( as a fledgling engineer) of a DIRECT financial impact on the company I worked for at the time due to a safety hazard in a fielded product. The product in question was an OEM PC. The company did all the due diligence with respect to the marking and safety reports to ensure compliance with the relevant standards. Regretfully - while moving said PC from one location to another- a customer got shocked by bare AC pins. The shock caused the customer to drop the PC and fall down some stairs. The ensuing publicity caused a significant impact on our sales and fundamentally we never recovered to be a serious player in the PC business after that. Analysis showed that the OEM manufacturer left out a small component - the bleed resistor across the filter caps - with massive results. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
In message d250d01e39356a4e9cc3b4b459d6655094d97...@ms-cda-01.advanced-input.com, dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012, McInturff, Gary gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes: The counter example, maybe. Is a monitor we built some years ago was at the start of a fire. Evaluation quickly showed that the monitor was not the source but rather a bank teller full of Christmas spirit had lit a candle next to the monitor and didn't blow it out before going home. Somewhere along the line the candle flame was in contact with the monitor - 94V0 - eventually caught fire and the ignition source remained in contact so that the fire spread far enough to ignite some paper on the monitor etc. Ultimately the legal beagles didn't care it was cheaper to settle than to litigate so the claim was paid. But maybe in retrospect it also keep us out of the media rightly or wrongly. That decision might have contributed to the jillion dollars spent on whether to include 'candle flame ignition' in IEC 60065 and IEC 60950-1. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] The Cost of Safety
I recall a marketing VP saying to me some years ago that safety is a cost without a return. Meaning we don’t want to put any more money into safety than we absolutely have to. In today’s paper, we learn that this mantra continues. “At the April 2011 meeting in Dhaka, the Bangladesh capital, retailers discussed a contractually enforceable memorandum that would require them to pay Bangladesh factories prices high enough to cover costs of safety improvements.” “Specifically to the issue of any corrections on electrical and fire safety, we are talking about 4,500 factories, and in most cases very extensive and costly modifications would need to be undertaken to some factories,” they said in the document. “It is not financially feasible for the brands to make such investments.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-05/wal-mart-nixed-paying-bangladesh-suppliers-to-fight-fire.html Then the November 24 fire. Now we find that the buyers of the goods made in that factory are not responsible because the goods had been sub-contracted and sub-contracted again to other factories without authorization. “After the Nov. 24 fire, both Wal-Mart and Sears (SHLD) said they had fired unauthorized suppliers.” Of course. (How do you fire a supplier who was not authorized in the first place?) “Bangladesh’s labor law requires safety measures such as fire extinguishers and easily accessible exits at factories. “ Of course. The buyers of the (low cost) goods expect the government to assure workplace safety. The incremental cost of safety for buyers of garments made in Bangladesh? Zero. Fortunately, this is not the case for most of us. Regulations for safety certification mean we must spend some minimal amount on safety. Richard Nute Bend, Oregon - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] The Cost of Safety
In message 388614C14BF842D68620C77DADC90DBA@RichardHPdv6, dated Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org writes: I recall a marketing VP saying to me some years ago that safety is a cost without a return. Meaning we don’t want to put any more money into safety than we absolutely have to. Safety itself is a public duty, but it makes marketing sense; no-one has so many customers that they can afford to kill a proportion. Less cynically, who will buy from a manufacturer who has a poor safety record? Safety and EMC 3rd party testing costs are properly a marketing expense, because they are incurred in order to be allowed on to the market. They are not a charge on RD, because the products work perfectly OK without the testing. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Product safety requirements
Dear Colleagues We are a manufacturer of audio mixing consoles with a range that varies from A4 size up to large 2m long 2 man lift consoles. Most have internal ac/dc power supplies. We are researching changing the way we power are future products to rationalise the psu range as worldwide approval costs increase. One of the options is to purchase 60-80W PC laptop power supplies and power the smaller mixers from the DC output of the external laptop supply. The DC output voltage from a laptop PSU is typically 19V. However; most mixers require typically +/-15V, +10V +48V internal voltage rails. We propose to buck regulate the +/-15V and +10V rails boost the +48V rail from the 19V DC input. If the total power consumption of the mixer was no more than 80W and the +48V was current limited to no more than 1 Amp, would the mixer require approval testing for north America or any other country as the input voltage would only be 19V DC. Obviously the external ac to dc laptop power supply would have all the necessary approvals; probably to IEC60950 and be class 1 construction. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thank you in advance; Ian McBurney Design Engineer Allen Heath Ltd Kernick Industrial Estate Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9LU United Kingdom +44 (0)1326 370121 ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.commailto:ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.com www.allen-heath.comhttp://www.allen-heath.com/ A DMH Pro Companyhttp://www.dmh-global.com/. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Product safety requirements
In message 7b970d3d82cee74c920c2e6b0d3b837720bdc...@sn2prd0610mb358.namprd06.prod.o utlook.com, dated Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Mcburney, Ian ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.com writes: If the total power consumption of the mixer was no more than 80W and the +48V was current limited to no more than 1 Amp, would the mixer require approval testing for north America or any other country as the input voltage would only be 19V DC. I think you would be taking a big risk that your solution would not amuse the sceptical (or even skeptical) AHJs. Obviously the external ac to dc laptop power supply would have all the necessary approvals; probably to IEC60950 and be class 1 construction. You should be looking to IEC 62368-1 for such future products. Also, the PSU input can be Class 1 but the output of these PSUs is normally SELV, which means that your mixer and all its cables and peripherals would not have a 'safety earth' unless you provided it separately. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk The longer it takes to make a point, the more obtuse it proves to be. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Product safety requirements
You would need to make sure that the output of the power supply is a Limited Power Source in order to deal with fire hazards. The nameplate output ratings are necessary but insufficient information to determine if a fire hazard may be present. Also, it is possible that your regulators (maybe just the boost) could produce voltages internally that would be considered a shock hazard, which would require evaluation of the output circuits as SELV. There are a wide variety of DC/DC converters commercially available that have SELV inputs and SELV outputs which nonetheless still have 3rd party safety certifications. You should be able to find a certified one OTS (or multiple converters) that will work for you if you don't want to deal with the certification piece yourself. Maybe that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to do since you could just as easily find OTS certified AC/DC power supplies. Technical considerations aside, you could always run into trouble with any given local authority or customs official wanting to see certification on your mixer, not just on the power supply that connects to it or that it ships with. Also, you should be aware that most notebook power supplies nowadays have more than just the power output pins - they have feedback signals that are intended to keep the supplies in a low power consumption mode when the computer is in the off state in order to comply with various efficiency regulations. If you don't provide the right signal, you won't get power out of them. Scott Aldous Compliance Engineer AE Solar Energy +1.970.492.2065 Direct +1.970.407.5872 Fax +1.541.312.3832 Main scott.ald...@aei.com 1625 Sharp Point Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergyhttp://www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mcburney, Ian Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Product safety requirements Dear Colleagues We are a manufacturer of audio mixing consoles with a range that varies from A4 size up to large 2m long 2 man lift consoles. Most have internal ac/dc power supplies. We are researching changing the way we power are future products to rationalise the psu range as worldwide approval costs increase. One of the options is to purchase 60-80W PC laptop power supplies and power the smaller mixers from the DC output of the external laptop supply. The DC output voltage from a laptop PSU is typically 19V. However; most mixers require typically +/-15V, +10V +48V internal voltage rails. We propose to buck regulate the +/-15V and +10V rails boost the +48V rail from the 19V DC input. If the total power consumption of the mixer was no more than 80W and the +48V was current limited to no more than 1 Amp, would the mixer require approval testing for north America or any other country as the input voltage would only be 19V DC. Obviously the external ac to dc laptop power supply would have all the necessary approvals; probably to IEC60950 and be class 1 construction. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thank you in advance; Ian McBurney Design Engineer Allen Heath Ltd Kernick Industrial Estate Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9LU United Kingdom +44 (0)1326 370121 ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.commailto:ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.com www.allen-heath.comhttp://www.allen-heath.com/ A DMH Pro Companyhttp://www.dmh-global.com/. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc
Re: [PSES] Product safety requirements
In America, a few years ago at Lucent, we built a DSL device that was remotely powered by a separate power supply with a NEC ANSI/NFPA 70 Class 2 DC output. The power supply had a NRTL safety marking, and as you suggest, the DSL device itself did not carry a NRTL safety mark, only EMC and Fcc approval marks. Chuck McDowell Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc. From: emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Aldous, Scott Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:36 AM To: Mcburney, Ian; emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Product safety requirements You would need to make sure that the output of the power supply is a Limited Power Source in order to deal with fire hazards. The nameplate output ratings are necessary but insufficient information to determine if a fire hazard may be present. Also, it is possible that your regulators (maybe just the boost) could produce voltages internally that would be considered a shock hazard, which would require evaluation of the output circuits as SELV. There are a wide variety of DC/DC converters commercially available that have SELV inputs and SELV outputs which nonetheless still have 3rd party safety certifications. You should be able to find a certified one OTS (or multiple converters) that will work for you if you don't want to deal with the certification piece yourself. Maybe that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to do since you could just as easily find OTS certified AC/DC power supplies. Technical considerations aside, you could always run into trouble with any given local authority or customs official wanting to see certification on your mixer, not just on the power supply that connects to it or that it ships with. Also, you should be aware that most notebook power supplies nowadays have more than just the power output pins - they have feedback signals that are intended to keep the supplies in a low power consumption mode when the computer is in the off state in order to comply with various efficiency regulations. If you don't provide the right signal, you won't get power out of them. Scott Aldous Compliance Engineer AE Solar Energy +1.970.492.2065 Direct +1.970.407.5872 Fax +1.541.312.3832 Main scott.ald...@aei.commailto:scott.ald...@aei.com 1625 Sharp Point Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergyhttp://www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy From: emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mcburney, Ian Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Product safety requirements Dear Colleagues We are a manufacturer of audio mixing consoles with a range that varies from A4 size up to large 2m long 2 man lift consoles. Most have internal ac/dc power supplies. We are researching changing the way we power are future products to rationalise the psu range as worldwide approval costs increase. One of the options is to purchase 60-80W PC laptop power supplies and power the smaller mixers from the DC output of the external laptop supply. The DC output voltage from a laptop PSU is typically 19V. However; most mixers require typically +/-15V, +10V +48V internal voltage rails. We propose to buck regulate the +/-15V and +10V rails boost the +48V rail from the 19V DC input. If the total power consumption of the mixer was no more than 80W and the +48V was current limited to no more than 1 Amp, would the mixer require approval testing for north America or any other country as the input voltage would only be 19V DC. Obviously the external ac to dc laptop power supply would have all the necessary approvals; probably to IEC60950 and be class 1 construction. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thank you in advance; Ian McBurney Design Engineer Allen Heath Ltd Kernick Industrial Estate Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9LU United Kingdom +44 (0)1326 370121 ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.commailto:ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.com www.allen-heath.comhttp://www.allen-heath.com/ A DMH Pro Companyhttp://www.dmh-global.com/. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy
Re: [PSES] Product safety requirements
If the product powered from a certified SELV, power limited supply will be used or installed in a workplace in the US, then it is subject to OSHA NRTL approval requirements and the mixer would be required to be certified by an NRTL. OSHA regulations do not provide an exception to the approval requirements based on the voltage/current from an external power supply. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly. Kevin Robinson Engineer Senior Auditor OSHA NRTL Program 202-693-1911 robinson.ke...@dol.gov On Nov 16, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Chuck McDowell chu...@meyersound.com wrote: In America, a few years ago at Lucent, we built a DSL device that was remotely powered by a separate power supply with a NEC ANSI/NFPA 70 Class 2 DC output. The power supply had a NRTL safety marking, and as you suggest, the DSL device itself did not carry a NRTL safety mark, only EMC and Fcc approval marks. Chuck McDowell Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Aldous, Scott Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:36 AM To: Mcburney, Ian; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Product safety requirements You would need to make sure that the output of the power supply is a Limited Power Source in order to deal with fire hazards. The nameplate output ratings are necessary but insufficient information to determine if a fire hazard may be present. Also, it is possible that your regulators (maybe just the boost) could produce voltages internally that would be considered a shock hazard, which would require evaluation of the output circuits as SELV. There are a wide variety of DC/DC converters commercially available that have SELV inputs and SELV outputs which nonetheless still have 3rd party safety certifications. You should be able to find a certified one OTS (or multiple converters) that will work for you if you don’t want to deal with the certification piece yourself. Maybe that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to do since you could just as easily find OTS certified AC/DC power supplies. Technical considerations aside, you could always run into trouble with any given local authority or customs official wanting to see certification on your mixer, not just on the power supply that connects to it or that it ships with. Also, you should be aware that most notebook power supplies nowadays have more than just the power output pins – they have feedback signals that are intended to keep the supplies in a low power consumption mode when the computer is in the off state in order to comply with various efficiency regulations. If you don’t provide the right signal, you won’t get power out of them. Scott Aldous Compliance Engineer AE Solar Energy +1.970.492.2065 Direct +1.970.407.5872 Fax +1.541.312.3832 Main scott.ald...@aei.com 1625 Sharp Point Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mcburney, Ian Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Product safety requirements Dear Colleagues We are a manufacturer of audio mixing consoles with a range that varies from A4 size up to large 2m long 2 man lift consoles. Most have internal ac/dc power supplies. We are researching changing the way we power are future products to rationalise the psu range as worldwide approval costs increase. One of the options is to purchase 60-80W PC laptop power supplies and power the smaller mixers from the DC output of the external laptop supply. The DC output voltage from a laptop PSU is typically 19V. However; most mixers require typically +/-15V, +10V +48V internal voltage rails. We propose to buck regulate the +/-15V and +10V rails boost the +48V rail from the 19V DC input. If the total power consumption of the mixer was no more than 80W and the +48V was current limited to no more than 1 Amp, would the mixer require approval testing for north America or any other country as the input voltage would only be 19V DC. Obviously the external ac to dc laptop power supply would have all the necessary approvals; probably to IEC60950 and be class 1 construction. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thank you in advance; Ian McBurney Design Engineer Allen Heath Ltd Kernick Industrial Estate Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9LU United Kingdom +44 (0)1326 370121 ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.com www.allen-heath.com A DMH Pro Company. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online
Re: [PSES] Product safety requirements
Dear All I agree with Kevin and would like to add that many States have regulations requiring all electrical/electronic products irrespective of voltage be Listed. Sent from my iPhone Peter S. Merguerian pe...@goglobalcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. www.goglobalcompliance.com (408) 931-3303 On Nov 16, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Kevin Robinson kevinrobinso...@gmail.com wrote: If the product powered from a certified SELV, power limited supply will be used or installed in a workplace in the US, then it is subject to OSHA NRTL approval requirements and the mixer would be required to be certified by an NRTL. OSHA regulations do not provide an exception to the approval requirements based on the voltage/current from an external power supply. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly. Kevin Robinson Engineer Senior Auditor OSHA NRTL Program 202-693-1911 robinson.ke...@dol.gov On Nov 16, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Chuck McDowell chu...@meyersound.com wrote: In America, a few years ago at Lucent, we built a DSL device that was remotely powered by a separate power supply with a NEC ANSI/NFPA 70 Class 2 DC output. The power supply had a NRTL safety marking, and as you suggest, the DSL device itself did not carry a NRTL safety mark, only EMC and Fcc approval marks. Chuck McDowell Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Aldous, Scott Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:36 AM To: Mcburney, Ian; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Product safety requirements You would need to make sure that the output of the power supply is a Limited Power Source in order to deal with fire hazards. The nameplate output ratings are necessary but insufficient information to determine if a fire hazard may be present. Also, it is possible that your regulators (maybe just the boost) could produce voltages internally that would be considered a shock hazard, which would require evaluation of the output circuits as SELV. There are a wide variety of DC/DC converters commercially available that have SELV inputs and SELV outputs which nonetheless still have 3rd party safety certifications. You should be able to find a certified one OTS (or multiple converters) that will work for you if you don’t want to deal with the certification piece yourself. Maybe that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to do since you could just as easily find OTS certified AC/DC power supplies. Technical considerations aside, you could always run into trouble with any given local authority or customs official wanting to see certification on your mixer, not just on the power supply that connects to it or that it ships with. Also, you should be aware that most notebook power supplies nowadays have more than just the power output pins – they have feedback signals that are intended to keep the supplies in a low power consumption mode when the computer is in the off state in order to comply with various efficiency regulations. If you don’t provide the right signal, you won’t get power out of them. Scott Aldous Compliance Engineer AE Solar Energy +1.970.492.2065 Direct +1.970.407.5872 Fax +1.541.312.3832 Main scott.ald...@aei.com 1625 Sharp Point Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mcburney, Ian Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Product safety requirements Dear Colleagues We are a manufacturer of audio mixing consoles with a range that varies from A4 size up to large 2m long 2 man lift consoles. Most have internal ac/dc power supplies. We are researching changing the way we power are future products to rationalise the psu range as worldwide approval costs increase. One of the options is to purchase 60-80W PC laptop power supplies and power the smaller mixers from the DC output of the external laptop supply. The DC output voltage from a laptop PSU is typically 19V. However; most mixers require typically +/-15V, +10V +48V internal voltage rails. We propose to buck regulate the +/-15V and +10V rails boost the +48V rail from the 19V DC input. If the total power consumption of the mixer was no more than 80W and the +48V was current limited to no more than 1 Amp, would the mixer require approval testing for north America or any other country as the input voltage would only be 19V DC. Obviously the external ac to dc laptop power supply would have all the necessary approvals; probably to IEC60950 and be class 1 construction. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thank you in advance; Ian McBurney Design Engineer Allen Heath Ltd Kernick Industrial Estate Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9LU United Kingdom +44 (0)1326 370121 ian.mcbur...@dmh-global.com www.allen-heath.com A DMH Pro Company
Re: [PSES] Product safety requirements
Do not necessarily disagree, but there are some problems. Am guessing that this is referencing 29CFR1910.303. Also have this excerpt from an OSHA memo in my database: The testing standard will typically specify how the product is to be marked or labeled and what instructions for installation and use must be provided. Thus, an employer would be in violation of 29 CFR 1910.303(b)(2) if its installation or use of equipment, such as energy management equipment, is not consistent with the NRTL-required markings and labeling or the installation and use instructions required for that equipment. So herein lurks a common problem - NRTL writes ITE report for Class III equipment where conditions of acceptability indicate use of a source certified as an inherently limited Class 2 'LPS'(probably UL1310/CSA 223 source). NRTL says no agency mark needed. But administrative law can be interpreted for mandatory 'mark', but the government has, on several instances, say that marking requirements are the scope of the NRTL. Also note that article 725 of NEC is oft used by an AHJ inspector to determine if the voltage/power/energy level indicates that no further consideration for safety of equipment is necessary, where the install is not permanent and not part of building wiring. Choose your poison. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kevin Robinson Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 5:34 PM To: Chuck McDowell Cc: Mcburney, Ian; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Product safety requirements If the product powered from a certified SELV, power limited supply will be used or installed in a workplace in the US, then it is subject to OSHA NRTL approval requirements and the mixer would be required to be certified by an NRTL. OSHA regulations do not provide an exception to the approval requirements based on the voltage/current from an external power supply. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly. Kevin Robinson Engineer Senior Auditor OSHA NRTL Program 202-693-1911 robinson.ke...@dol.gov On Nov 16, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Chuck McDowell chu...@meyersound.com wrote: In America, a few years ago at Lucent, we built a DSL device that was remotely powered by a separate power supply with a NEC ANSI/NFPA 70 Class 2 DC output. The power supply had a NRTL safety marking, and as you suggest, the DSL device itself did not carry a NRTL safety mark, only EMC and Fcc approval marks. Chuck McDowell Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Aldous, Scott Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:36 AM To: Mcburney, Ian; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Product safety requirements You would need to make sure that the output of the power supply is a Limited Power Source in order to deal with fire hazards. The nameplate output ratings are necessary but insufficient information to determine if a fire hazard may be present. Also, it is possible that your regulators (maybe just the boost) could produce voltages internally that would be considered a shock hazard, which would require evaluation of the output circuits as SELV. There are a wide variety of DC/DC converters commercially available that have SELV inputs and SELV outputs which nonetheless still have 3rd party safety certifications. You should be able to find a certified one OTS (or multiple converters) that will work for you if you don’t want to deal with the certification piece yourself. Maybe that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to do since you could just as easily find OTS certified AC/DC power supplies. Technical considerations aside, you could always run into trouble with any given local authority or customs official wanting to see certification on your mixer, not just on the power supply that connects to it or that it ships with. Also, you should be aware that most notebook power supplies nowadays have more than just the power output pins – they have feedback signals that are intended to keep the supplies in a low power consumption mode when the computer is in the off state in order to comply with various efficiency regulations. If you don’t provide the right signal, you won’t get power out of them. Scott Aldous Compliance Engineer AE Solar Energy +1.970.492.2065 Direct +1.970.407.5872 Fax +1.541.312.3832 Main scott.ald...@aei.com 1625 Sharp Point Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.advanced-energy.com/solarenergy From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mcburney, Ian Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Product safety requirements Dear Colleagues We are a manufacturer of audio mixing consoles with a range that varies from A4 size up to large 2m long 2 man lift consoles. Most have internal ac/dc power supplies. We are researching changing the way we power are future products to rationalise the psu range as worldwide approval costs increase. One
Re: [PSES] IEC 60320 Outlet Safety
Did anyone reply? How about a socratarian reply (a la Gary Tornquist)? For 'safety' relay - do you need EN954 conformity? Is there an implied requirement for a lock-out/positive power control function? SSRs are easy to use, but can be leaky. Is that an issue? Current interrupt devices can be considered mandatory where equipment intended to be powered has no protection - rated for the fault current of the intended operating mains OV class? Read where 1010 and 950 talk about equipment with mains receptacles? Probably should consider switching both poles. There can be problems with some Class II equipment and the way that some national code does wiring, and the way that some peoples' brains are wired. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 10:25 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: IEC 60320 Outlet Safety I'm working on a device (laboratory equipment) which will have a standard 10 amp IEC 60320 Inlet connector. We also want to supply AC Mains power to an external device through an IEC 60320 OUTlet connector. We want to control (switch) the OUTlet connector with a relay so we can turn the external device on and off. Questions regarding safety IEC/EN 61010-1: 1. Does the relay have to be double pole or will a single pole relay be ok (the device can operate at either 115VAC or 230VAC in different power systems around the globe). 2.Does the relay have to be a safety relay or can we just control one pole using a solid state relay which could fail open or closed? Either condition is not likely to cause a hazard within the external device. 3.Does power to the OUTlet connector have to be removed with the ON/OFF switch (disconnect device) within the main instrument? Can this outlet always be HOT or at least one leg be HOT assuming a single pole relay is open? Are there international symbols that explain switched or unswitched outlet connectors? 4.If the OUTlet connector and wiring is rated to handle the same current from the Mains Inlet, do we have to have a circuit breaker or fuse on the Outlet? And if so, does it have to be a double pole breaker/fuse or just a single pole ok? As you can guess, my questions are related to there being Mains Voltages on the Outlet connector relative to PE or Neutral when the control relay is open, circuit breaker or fuse is open, or even when the instrument is turned off. Are any of these conditions prohibited? The external device we are powering (external stand-a-lone pump) has warning labels about disconnecting power cord prior to servicing. We have been told in the past that switching and protection of an Outlet Connector has to be double pole for safety, but I do not see anything specific in the standard and this device we are working on is to be a low cost device so we are trying to save money on the components if we can and maintain a safe product. Thanks for any input. The Other Brian
[PSES] IEC 60320 Outlet Safety
I'm working on a device (laboratory equipment) which will have a standard 10 amp IEC 60320 Inlet connector. We also want to supply AC Mains power to an external device through an IEC 60320 OUTlet connector. We want to control (switch) the OUTlet connector with a relay so we can turn the external device on and off. Questions: 1. Does the relay have to be double pole or will a single pole relay be ok (the device can operate at either 115VAC or 230VAC in different power systems around the globe). 2.Does the relay have to be a safety relay or can we just control one pole using a solid state relay which could fail open or closed? Either condition is not likely to cause a hazard within the external device. 3.Does power to the OUTlet connector have to be removed with the ON/OFF switch (disconnect device) within the main instrument? Can this outlet always be HOT or at least one leg be HOT assuming a single pole relay is open? Are there international symbols that explain switched or unswitched outlet connectors? 4.If the OUTlet connector and wiring is rated to handle the same current from the Mains Inlet, do we have to have a circuit breaker or fuse on the Outlet? And if so, does it have to be a double pole breaker or just a single pole ok? As you can guess, my questions are related to there being Mains Voltages on the Outlet connector relative to PE or Neutral when the control relay is open, circuit breaker or fuse is open, or even when the instrument is turned off. Are any of these conditions prohibited? The external device we are powering (external stand-a-lone pump) has warning labels about disconnecting power cord prior to servicing. Thanks for any input. The Other Brian LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
[PSES] IEC 60320 Outlet Safety
I'm working on a device (laboratory equipment) which will have a standard 10 amp IEC 60320 Inlet connector. We also want to supply AC Mains power to an external device through an IEC 60320 OUTlet connector. We want to control (switch) the OUTlet connector with a relay so we can turn the external device on and off. Questions regarding safety IEC/EN 61010-1: 1. Does the relay have to be double pole or will a single pole relay be ok (the device can operate at either 115VAC or 230VAC in different power systems around the globe). 2.Does the relay have to be a safety relay or can we just control one pole using a solid state relay which could fail open or closed? Either condition is not likely to cause a hazard within the external device. 3.Does power to the OUTlet connector have to be removed with the ON/OFF switch (disconnect device) within the main instrument? Can this outlet always be HOT or at least one leg be HOT assuming a single pole relay is open? Are there international symbols that explain switched or unswitched outlet connectors? 4.If the OUTlet connector and wiring is rated to handle the same current from the Mains Inlet, do we have to have a circuit breaker or fuse on the Outlet? And if so, does it have to be a double pole breaker/fuse or just a single pole ok? As you can guess, my questions are related to there being Mains Voltages on the Outlet connector relative to PE or Neutral when the control relay is open, circuit breaker or fuse is open, or even when the instrument is turned off. Are any of these conditions prohibited? The external device we are powering (external stand-a-lone pump) has warning labels about disconnecting power cord prior to servicing. We have been told in the past that switching and protection of an Outlet Connector has to be double pole for safety, but I do not see anything specific in the standard and this device we are working on is to be a low cost device so we are trying to save money on the components if we can and maintain a safe product. Thanks for any input. The Other Brian LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
Now it is a little more work than that. Last one I was involved in we did a quick and dirty temperature test, dielectric, ground bond and visual inspection to ensure proper fusing, the power switch breaks line, PE is green yellow/green, etc. The inspection takes about 2 hrs then the report is a short report that goes with it. This inspection is called a Special Inspection and it is performed to SPE-1000, we would also include portions of the product standard for limits and construction requirements. Not sure if this is the same as the Hydro inspection but it sounds like it could be. Josh From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:19 PM To: Wiseman, Joshua E; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG' Subject: RE: Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? Hydro – inspections I believe they are called. It’s been awhile, but commercial businesses etc were awfully careful about making certain there were certifications marks on equipment before they were turned on. I had to make a few trips into Canada for trade shows on equipment that had complete the process. The hotel’s that trade shows were being held at would not allow us to even move the equipment to the show floor without the hydro authority inspections, and paperwork. It wasn’t a very detailed inspection, about I all I can remember is making sure there was a ground connection and that the power switch was on the hot side of the outlet. It only took about an hour and I don’t really know what the inspector did other than those two tests. This was many years ago so maybe they’ve changed except I still see references to Hydro Authority inspections. Last point the inspection was provincial only, move the same equipment with the hydro sticker on it to another province and it required a new inspection. Was all that bad. Lots of slack time and I still wish I could get some Ontario Smoke meat – it was pretty tasty Gary From: Wiseman, Joshua E [mailto:joshua.e.wise...@carrier.utc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 1:46 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? Jim, Yes, I don’t remember what code or regulation this is stated in, but when I was working at an NRTL occasionally we would have a customer asking how to get items through customs because it was not approved. Canada has a Special Inspection program that is similar to field evaluations in the US and it is fairly well regulated by the SCC. There are many manufacturers who ship products in to the country and get away with it, but occasionally customs will stop shipments until you can provide evidence of compliance or have a special inspection performed. Josh From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA’s Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL’s). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used
Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
Thank you for responses I've received. They've been very helpful. Jim Hulbert From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Hulbert Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA's Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL's). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
The amount of time required and the specific tests that would be involved in the special inspection, which would typically be for a single product or system (or a small very small number) would depend greatly on the type of product it is, and is similar to an electrical inspection - the intent is the same - to make sure that once power is applied to the product that the product is safe to operate. If the product has the certification from a recognized certification body (i.e. CSA, UL, NEMKO, Intertek, etc.) then the special inspection is not required. It would be required only if the product to be installed is not previously approved for use in Canada. If you have a specific need in this regard, please give me a call - whether the product requires certification or special inspection. Once I have the details, I can tell you if we can assist and if we can't I can point you to someone who can. Tom Smith, P.Eng Product Safety and Approvals Consultant TJS Technical Services Inc. Tel: +1 403-612-6664 Email: tsm...@tjstechnical.com http://tjstechnical.com http://tjstechnical.com/ Follow us on Twitter: TJS_Technical From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Wiseman, Joshua E Sent: November-02-12 6:46 AM To: McInturff, Gary; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG' Subject: RE: Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? Now it is a little more work than that. Last one I was involved in we did a quick and dirty temperature test, dielectric, ground bond and visual inspection to ensure proper fusing, the power switch breaks line, PE is green yellow/green, etc. The inspection takes about 2 hrs then the report is a short report that goes with it. This inspection is called a Special Inspection and it is performed to SPE-1000, we would also include portions of the product standard for limits and construction requirements. Not sure if this is the same as the Hydro inspection but it sounds like it could be. Josh From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:19 PM To: Wiseman, Joshua E; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG' Subject: RE: Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? Hydro - inspections I believe they are called. It's been awhile, but commercial businesses etc were awfully careful about making certain there were certifications marks on equipment before they were turned on. I had to make a few trips into Canada for trade shows on equipment that had complete the process. The hotel's that trade shows were being held at would not allow us to even move the equipment to the show floor without the hydro authority inspections, and paperwork. It wasn't a very detailed inspection, about I all I can remember is making sure there was a ground connection and that the power switch was on the hot side of the outlet. It only took about an hour and I don't really know what the inspector did other than those two tests. This was many years ago so maybe they've changed except I still see references to Hydro Authority inspections. Last point the inspection was provincial only, move the same equipment with the hydro sticker on it to another province and it required a new inspection. Was all that bad. Lots of slack time and I still wish I could get some Ontario Smoke meat - it was pretty tasty Gary From: Wiseman, Joshua E [mailto:joshua.e.wise...@carrier.utc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 1:46 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? Jim, Yes, I don't remember what code or regulation this is stated in, but when I was working at an NRTL occasionally we would have a customer asking how to get items through customs because it was not approved. Canada has a Special Inspection program that is similar to field evaluations in the US and it is fairly well regulated by the SCC. There are many manufacturers who ship products in to the country and get away with it, but occasionally customs will stop shipments until you can provide evidence of compliance or have a special inspection performed. Josh From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA's Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL's). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail
Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
Jim, In addition to the electrical code requirements under the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), CSA C22.1, and the applicable parts of the CE Part 2 standards (CSA C22.2 #X), the Field Evaluation (sometimes called Special Inspection) can be done by an SCC Accredited Inspection body under CSA SPE-1000 as mentioned by another list member. FE inspections are only suitable for small volumes of products, say 1-200 pieces per year at most. Beyond that you will find it is more economical to have the product certified by an SCC accredited Certification Body. If you are selling the product to industry in the Province of Ontario, there may also be the requirement for a Pre-Start Health and Safety Review under Ontario Regulation 851, Section 7. This does not apply in any other Province or Territory. Links: CEC Part 1: http://shop.csa.ca/search?q=C22.1categoryPathRefs=shopsearchsubmit=Search CEC Part 2: http://shop.csa.ca/search?q=C22.2categoryPathRefs=shopsearchsubmit=Search SPE-1000: http://shop.csa.ca/search?q=SPE-1000categoryPathRefs=shopsearchsubmit=Search Ontario Regulation 851: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900851_e.htm SCC Accredited Inspection Body List: http://www.scc.ca/en/accreditation/inspection-bodies/directory-of-accredited-clients SCC Accredited Certification Body List: http://www.scc.ca/en/accreditation/product-process-and-service-certification/directory-of-accredited-clients Regards, Doug NIX Compliance InSight Consulting Inc. Know Risk... Design Safety Office: +1 (519) 650-4753 Mobile: +1 (519) 729-5704 Skype: cic-inc email: d...@complianceinsight.ca Want to meet? On 1-November-2012, at 16:34, Jim Hulbert wrote: In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA’s Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL’s). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA's Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL's). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
Jim, Yes, I don’t remember what code or regulation this is stated in, but when I was working at an NRTL occasionally we would have a customer asking how to get items through customs because it was not approved. Canada has a Special Inspection program that is similar to field evaluations in the US and it is fairly well regulated by the SCC. There are many manufacturers who ship products in to the country and get away with it, but occasionally customs will stop shipments until you can provide evidence of compliance or have a special inspection performed. Josh From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA’s Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL’s). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
Hydro - inspections I believe they are called. It's been awhile, but commercial businesses etc were awfully careful about making certain there were certifications marks on equipment before they were turned on. I had to make a few trips into Canada for trade shows on equipment that had complete the process. The hotel's that trade shows were being held at would not allow us to even move the equipment to the show floor without the hydro authority inspections, and paperwork. It wasn't a very detailed inspection, about I all I can remember is making sure there was a ground connection and that the power switch was on the hot side of the outlet. It only took about an hour and I don't really know what the inspector did other than those two tests. This was many years ago so maybe they've changed except I still see references to Hydro Authority inspections. Last point the inspection was provincial only, move the same equipment with the hydro sticker on it to another province and it required a new inspection. Was all that bad. Lots of slack time and I still wish I could get some Ontario Smoke meat - it was pretty tasty Gary From: Wiseman, Joshua E [mailto:joshua.e.wise...@carrier.utc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 1:46 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? Jim, Yes, I don't remember what code or regulation this is stated in, but when I was working at an NRTL occasionally we would have a customer asking how to get items through customs because it was not approved. Canada has a Special Inspection program that is similar to field evaluations in the US and it is fairly well regulated by the SCC. There are many manufacturers who ship products in to the country and get away with it, but occasionally customs will stop shipments until you can provide evidence of compliance or have a special inspection performed. Josh From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA's Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL's). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE
Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
I believe that this is the relevant portion of the Ontario regulations. http://www.esasafe.com/pdf/Ontario_Regulation_438_07.pdf Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.commailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:19 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? Hydro - inspections I believe they are called. It's been awhile, but commercial businesses etc were awfully careful about making certain there were certifications marks on equipment before they were turned on. I had to make a few trips into Canada for trade shows on equipment that had complete the process. The hotel's that trade shows were being held at would not allow us to even move the equipment to the show floor without the hydro authority inspections, and paperwork. It wasn't a very detailed inspection, about I all I can remember is making sure there was a ground connection and that the power switch was on the hot side of the outlet. It only took about an hour and I don't really know what the inspector did other than those two tests. This was many years ago so maybe they've changed except I still see references to Hydro Authority inspections. Last point the inspection was provincial only, move the same equipment with the hydro sticker on it to another province and it required a new inspection. Was all that bad. Lots of slack time and I still wish I could get some Ontario Smoke meat - it was pretty tasty Gary From: Wiseman, Joshua E [mailto:joshua.e.wise...@carrier.utc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 1:46 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? Jim, Yes, I don't remember what code or regulation this is stated in, but when I was working at an NRTL occasionally we would have a customer asking how to get items through customs because it was not approved. Canada has a Special Inspection program that is similar to field evaluations in the US and it is fairly well regulated by the SCC. There are many manufacturers who ship products in to the country and get away with it, but occasionally customs will stop shipments until you can provide evidence of compliance or have a special inspection performed. Josh From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 3:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA's Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL's). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp
Re: [PSES] Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada?
The answer is yes - each province has an electrical code mandated by law and a set of the certification marks which are recognized within that province. In additional, Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations SOR/86-304, Clause 8.3 mandates compliance of electrical equipment with the Canadian Electrical Code. In Canada the number of the electrical equipment safety standards is C22.2 Part. which refers to the Canadian Electrical Code Part 2 (Part 1 being the equivalent of the NEC in the US). The specific regulation / legislation mandating the marks which are acceptable would vary from province to province but in effect the same agencies are generally accepted across all provinces of Canada. Prior to being accepted as a certifying agency in any province, the organization would have to be accredited either by SCC or by an equivalent agency deemed acceptable to the provincial authorities. Tom Smith, P.Eng Product Safety and Approvals Consultant TJS Technical Services Inc. Tel: +1 403-612-6664 Email: tsm...@tjstechnical.com http://tjstechnical.com http://tjstechnical.com/ Follow us on Twitter: TJS_Technical From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Hulbert Sent: November-01-12 2:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Are Product Safety Certifications Mandatory in Canada? In the U.S., there are OSHA regulations that require electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified to U.S. standards by one of OSHA's Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL's). Is there a similar regulation in Canada that requires electrical apparatus used in the workplace be certified by one of the Standards Council of Canada approved test laboratories to Canadian standards? Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes _ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society Announcement
The 2012 Symposium SPECIAL EDITION of the newsletter is available at http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/newsletters.html#Current. You will find a preliminary schedule, tracks, and summary of presentations and papers being presented at the conference. Details about the event are also provided. See http://www.psessymposium.org/ for registration and venue information. __ Dan Roman, N.C.E. VP of Communications Services IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society mailto:dan.ro...@ieee.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] OSHA concerning working safety, which might result in necessary changes in documentation
Requirements added for documentation and training per Hazards Communication Standard. Mostly to harmonize with international stuff. For your viewing pleasure: osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index.html Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Michael Loerzer Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 11:49 AM To: IEEE PSES Subject: OSHA concerning working safety, which might result in necessary changes in documentation Hi, I have received the information that there is an additional requirement in US due to demands of OSHA concerning working safety, which might result in necessary changes in documentation. Does anybody confirm that? In which regulation is that new requirement published? Best regards Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist _ Globalnorm GmbH Kurfürstenstr. 112 10787 Berlin Fon +49 30 3229027-51 Mobile +49 170 3229027 Fax +49 30 3229027-59 Mailmichael.loer...@globalnorm.de - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] OSHA concerning working safety, which might result in necessary changes in documentation
Hi, I have received the information that there is an additional requirement in US due to demands of OSHA concerning working safety, which might result in necessary changes in documentation. Does anybody confirm that? In which regulation is that new requirement published? Best regards Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Managing Director Regulatory Affairs Specialist _ Globalnorm GmbH Kurfürstenstr. 112 10787 Berlin Fon +49 30 3229027-51 Mobile +49 170 3229027 Fax +49 30 3229027-59 Mail mailto:michael.loer...@globalnorm.de michael.loer...@globalnorm.de http://www.globalnorm.de/ www.globalnorm.de _ Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Commercial Safety Requirments
I am looking for suggestions for commercial (UL, CSA, etc) standards that might apply to ITE RF rack mounted equipment, antennas, all mounted on a flatbed trailer. As mentioned most of the hardware is ITE with the more typical safety standards applied. Once those products get hard mounted to a trailer and are now in a mobile mode what other standards are applicable. For the record this devices utilized commercial power 208/120V and as such NEC rules should also apply, or do they? At this time my primary focus is not the RF safety but rather the safety of a mobile trailer. Thanks Rick Busche - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Commercial Safety Requirments
I have not do not have experience with rolling-stock ITE. But have done power converters for trailer-mounted ITE systems for semi-permanent static installs. NEC would apply if the intended end-use is a static install at fixed site. NFPA, so far, has only published stuff for EVs and HEVs. In general 49CFR571 is vehicle safety, where a few paragraphs may apply depending on how the trailer sources power to ITE. Assuming that the trailer is for ITE at fixed site, building code=NFPA70E, standard=60950-1. Note that there are SAE and NHTSA and DoT standards for emergency response vehicles. Per the 'CE' thread - NHTSA is a self-certification system, and DoT is for commercial, and 49CFR571 is yet another evil Administrative Law code. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of rick.m.bus...@l-3com.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 6:48 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Commercial Safety Requirments I am looking for suggestions for commercial (UL, CSA, etc) standards that might apply to ITE RF rack mounted equipment, antennas, all mounted on a flatbed trailer. As mentioned most of the hardware is ITE with the more typical safety standards applied. Once those products get hard mounted to a trailer and are now in a mobile mode what other standards are applicable. For the record this devices utilized commercial power 208/120V and as such NEC rules should also apply, or do they? At this time my primary focus is not the RF safety but rather the safety of a mobile trailer. Thanks Rick Busche - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Commercial Safety Requirments
Rick PSNet, This has been a topic of discussion in the US/TAG TC108 sessions recently. In addition to the usual ITE requirements, there are many Code issues that apply to such a trailer load of equipment which will be directly powered. Perhaps one of the members who is active in that type of work would respond - either directly to you or to the list. Or you might contact Tom Burke of UL, a 108 member. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Fwd: Sr Compliance/Safety Engineer position, laser equipment company, Portland area
Fellow EMC-PSTC listers: Below is a job opening I heard about through the grapevine that you may be interested in. I have nothing to do with the employer or any recruiters, asn I ask that you cpntact Gerry Mohr, +1 (503) 226-3777, ge...@lightsourceconsulting.co, http://www.lightsourceconsulting.com, directly. I am cross-posting this to the LinkedIn and IEEE Online Communities groups as well. Good luck and good hunting! Best regards, Doug Nix, VP Conferences, PSES Managing Director, Compliance InSight Consulting Inc. +1 (519) 729-5704 d...@ieee.org Begin forwarded message: Senior Product Safety Compliance Engineer: Senior Product Safety Compliance Engineer with advanced knowledge of product safety, machinery, and industrial systems design, design for safety, and design for compliance requirements. Must work well with engineering teams and contribute as a team member to the overall design process to achieve goals for time to market, cost, and enable global market access. This position helps define, interpret, and facilitate the use of appropriate test standards and regulatory requirements that apply to a large scale industrial machinery, laser and semiconductor manufacturer (ISO, NFPA, SEMI, EN, CE, FDA, UL, CSA) and serves as the focal point for New Product Development Sustaining Compliance programs. Works on assignments that are complex in nature where considerable judgment and initiative are required in resolving problems and making recommendations. Creates formalized risk assessments that identify scope and impact of design modifications to the appropriate standards baseline of the system impacted by the design, process, or procedural change. ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS: Major responsibilities: Interpret evolving safety and global market access requirements and their impact on company's products. Develop Product Safety and Compliance plans that align with New Product Development plans. Work with Development Engineering teams on design for safety/compliance throughout the development phase. Conduct safety/compliance assessments and develop gap closing recommendations. Plan and execute safety/compliance testing using a combination of in-house and external agency testing. Collect all needed collateral for Technical Construction Files to support self declaration compliance schemes. Works with Advanced Manufacturing Engineering teams to identify issues and drive solutions for EMC General Machinery Directive Safety during initial beta and pilot manufacturing builds. Skills Required: Experience in Mechanical and electronic design for safety compliance. Strong ability to manage multiple projects in parallel and work collaboratively to support aggressive product launch schedules. Solid working knowledge of relevant product safety standards and compliance requirements E.g. The harmonized standards used to meet the European Machinery, Low Voltage, EMC and RoHS directives. Will have strong interpersonal and influencing skills and a demonstrated track record of contributing constructive ideas/solutions a technical level to development teams. Must be well organized with solid technical writing skills required to produce technical reports and interface with external agencies. ESSENTIAL POSITION REQUIREMENTS: Education: Bachelors in Electrical / Electronics Engineering with 7+ years relevant experience in Product Safety and Compliance preferably within the large scale fixed industrial capital equipment industry. Experience Training: Approximately 7+ years experience in Product Safety Engineering covering Electromagnetic Conformance, safety testing and evaluation, system and Technical Construction File documentation. The incumbent will have a proven track record in both interpretation of and solution development for evolving global market access requirements and successful preparation of new products for entry into diverse regions. Must be willing to take ownership of issues and drive projects to completion. Willingness to travel 10 percent of the time. Other Skills/Characteristics: Candidate should possess strong technical writing and communication skills. Knowledge of Windows, MS Office, Sharepoint and Siemens Teamcenter highly desirable and a willingness to learn specific software applications is essential. The individual should have a technical preferably EE background and the ability to work independently as well as have strong project management skills. The candidate should have a strong work ethic, be innovative, possess initiative, be positive, and be people oriented. Competitive compensation and benefits package including, generous PTO, 401k plan, ESPP participation and an annual bonus opportunity. Gerry Mohr T 503-226-3777 http://www.lightsourceconsulting.com
[PSES] Canceled - Northeast Product Safety Society Meeting Wednesday, June 27th
All, The scheduled June 27th NPSS meeting is canceled. If you or anyone you know would like to give a product safety technical presentation, please contact Steve Brody by email at steven.br...@brooks.com or Tony Nikolassy by email at a.nikola...@yahoo.com). A technical presentation should be 45 to 60 minutes in duration and be related to product safety. Although the presentation may reference your company and it’s services, the presentation must not be simply company advertising. We would also appreciate any slides or handout materials be made available for posting on the NPSS web site. Releasing presentation materials for posting is desired but not a requirement to make a presentation. We hope you can join us at our scheduled NPSS meeting on Wednesday, September 26th. Further information about the Northeast Product Safety Society and how to become a member is available at http://www.nepss.net. You can also contact one of the NPSS officers via links on the NPSS web site. Regards, Matt Campanella matt.campane...@att.net email - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Thailand EMC, Safety Regulatory Compliance
Hi, I've always done this through a third party agent, but the last time I checked EU reports should suffice. Also, yes, I believe you will need RF Exposure (SAR) reports in your submission package depending on what type of radio(s) are present in your handheld device. My experience on timeframe has been 1-2 months from the date of submission. I don't know the line voltage in Thailand off hand, but Google should be able to answer that quickly. Best Regards, -Dave Heald On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM, FW Miller f_w_mil...@yahoo.com wrote: emc-p...@ieee.orghttp://us.mc1617.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=emc-p...@ieee.org Am looking for Thai standards for EMC, Safety, RF, SAR. Of interest: 1. Safety: Voltage: what is the voltage on the distribution poles? Is the AC 2 Volts? If not what? Is the voltage the same for both MEA PEA? 2. Will other test reports for safety be accepted (if so what have you had success with), or is in country testing the only option? If yes, is TISI the agency reviews the foreign lab report? RF: 1. Is SAR testing required for hand helds? Will they accept other reports? 2. What is the time element for an RF grant? 3. Do you have a good contact name/address at the Ministry? [Too many questions for this forum.] Many thanks in advance for your response. FW Miller f_w_mil...@yahoo.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to LT; emc-p...@ieee.orgGT; All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas LT;emcp...@radiusnorth.netGT; Mike Cantwell LT;mcantw...@ieee.orgGT; For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher LT;j.bac...@ieee.orgGT; David Heald LT;dhe...@gmail.comGT; - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
