Alex,
Check this one http://www.cclab.com/europe/tbr21.htm
They might help you.
Best regards
Amund Westin, Oslo, NORWAY
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av Alex McNeil
Sendt: 19. juni 2002 08:08
Til:
All:
You are correct, but this is generally due to the cost of the TVS diode and
the MOV, not the capability.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Peters, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:51 PM
To:
Chris,
As I recall Laser Notice 50 does not exempt you from the record keeping and
report of the CFR 21, only the qualification aspects.
Regards,
Josh
-Original Message-
From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:24 PM
To: John Juhasz;
I want to thank all those who replied for their responses. We have a lot to
think over.
To answer questions posed:
The concept is to find an alternative to MOVs for surge protection.
The attraction to the Transient Voltage Suppressors is their reliability and
current clamping characteristics.
As a follow up to John's reply below:
If you are considering taking some kind of class or hiring a consultant for
laser safety; you may want to consider buying a copy of the latest version of
EN 60825-1. The standard is very thorough, providing methods to determine the
class of laser devices
500 VA (and greater) is used for TYPE TESTING only.
Any kind of breakdown that pulls more than 5 mA is potentially lethal and
non-compliant.
There is good reason for limiting the EOL hot-pot current (dynamically - or
even with a trip) as low as possible.
Best regards
Gregg
Gregg
Greetings,
To meet immunity requirements I will get a line filter which will include
three line-ground MOV's, (275V).
To my opinion this may be a safety issue due to the danger to increase the
leakage current especially after an overload of the MOV's.
Am I in the right or is this not an issue
Chris,
Not sure what you may be experiencingas far as I know the site is public
access.
Another way to get there:
1) go to the UL homepage www.ul.com
2) select the link titled certifications on the left hand side of the
page
3) use the keyword search or other tools available.
JPR:
But remember Energy is the factor of Current, Voltage, and Time. From a
protection stand-point, TVS components divert currents and clamp voltages.
It is for this reason that they are used in the circuit, system. Of course
for best results lower clamping voltage is desired. If the current
Kazimier,
I tried the website in your reply below and got You are not authorized to view
this site.
Is there some kind of login method that must be used?
Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division
email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024
NetTest |
Hi Group,
Looking through the OJEC LVD Standards list, I could not find under EN 60335
and its many parts a particular part that covered a juicer.
Does anyone know which particular part of this standard this product falls
under?
Also, not having seen this device, if it has blades like a
In a message dated 6/19/2002, Dave Hutchins writes:
Energy has nothing to do with the capability of the TVS device. It is also
proven that the energy in the transient threat is not the energy dissipated
in the TVS component, just ask any old timer even those at Harris.
Hi Dave:
I'm not
Hello:
The question is not the energy handling capability, it is a matter of cost.
You can purchase a TVS diode that has the same energy handling capability of
the MOV, but the cost is much different. By the way, energy is not a good
measure of the capability of a TVS component. The TransZorb
Mike -
See below.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
-Original Message-
From: Davis, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:59 AM
1.Are manufacturers required by the FDA to
Michael:
I worked at General Semiconductor for about 25 years. I do not know of any
specific component safety standard for TVS diode components. The one that
we, when at General Semiconductor, had to meet was the UL 497B for
telecommunications. Generally, there is no safety standard for
Agreed. But not all the devices you mention operate in the same way. In
particular, Sidactors get their high apparent energy absorption because
they crowbar the line being protected, to relatively near ground
potential. They are basically energy-rated bidirectional breakover
diodes (acting like
Scott,
Not knowing how your system is exactly built makes it difficult to second
guess the lightning.
However, here is one way to protect your amplifiers: Move the protection
interface out to the edge of your building. Use rod located there with all
referenced to ground. At this same
Alex,
In our (painful) experience of transfering a product from the US to Europe,
the main sources of FCC Part 68 vs. TBR21 compliance problems have been:
1) TBR21 Subclause 4.7.1 - DC Characteristics
Equipment designed for sale in the US is not likely to comply with the 60mA
current limit
Mike,
Go to the following link of the CDRH (Center for Devices and Radiological
Health). They're the ones to whom the
reports will be sent. There are further links to information that will be
very useful to you and should answer most
of the questions you posed below.
In a message dated 6/19/2002, Bob Wilson writes:
Transzorbs (or TVSs) are basically zener diodes that are rated for
their energy absorption capability.
Hello All:
One thing to keep in mind is that the energy handling capability of a
TransZorb is generally not very high compared to other
Michael,
I maters if you are trying to place suppressors across the line or from line to
chassis. Here is a copy of something you might find useful.
Brian Kunde
LECO Corp.
Transient Suppressors
according to EN60950 CCA doc section 1.5
ACROSS THE MAINS Transient suppressors can be connected
Michael,
No ready to go answer for you but a suggestion as to finding a supplier.
Pick some company names off the UL Certifications on-line directory and
search the web for their sites...might be product offerings with European
approvals as well as North American. Go to the link below and
In a message dated 6/19/2002, Alex McNeil writes:
For the PSTN analogue modems I am not so sure:
FCC Part 68 vs CTR21 (TBR21)?
Can anyone offer some advice here?
I assume if the product meets CTR21 then the modem should function OK in
Italy?
Does Italy have other modem details that I
Transzorbs (or TVSs) are basically zener diodes that are rated for
their energy absorption capability. Since they are polar devices (i.e.
diodes) they are useless on an AC line. Well, I suppose you could put
two of them back to back, but this is not at all common. Typically,
these devices are
1. Are manufacturers required by the FDA to record serial numbers of
Laser modules. Where is this requirement located? Does this apply to
photodiodes also?
2. I have a concern of what I need to know about Laser safety but was
afraid to ask (because it would cost more than my compliance
Greetings,
Is anyone aware of Transient Voltage Suppressors (General Semiconductor
calls them TransZorbs) with any European safety approvals (Semko, Demko,
VDE, etc.,)? They would need to be rated for mains voltage.
Thanks,
Michael Peters
---
This
Alex,
On the FCC vs EN 55022 testing: Review the radiated emissions data. If any
of the emissions from 88 MHz to 216 MHz are within 4 dB of the limit or if
emissions from 216 to 230 MHz are within 7 dB of the limit, you probably
fail the EN 55022 emissions requirements. Otherwise, you should
Dear Amund,
Did someone around here say the US system is easy to figure out?
There are differences between ANSI and NIST. To put it as simply as
possible, NIST traditionally controls weights and measures, while ANSI deals
primarily with product standards. There is overlap, but the core
Hi,
Sorry for the deliberate(!!) mistake, the subject heading should read as
above per my previous query
-Original Message-
From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: 19 June 2002 07:08
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: FCC part 15 vs TBR21
Greetings,
Hi all,
From the NIST and ANSI web-sites, I quote:
NIST:
Technology Services (TS) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) provides U.S. industry, government, and the public with
measurements, standards, and information services that promote innovation,
increase
Greetings,
I wish to market a North American ITE product in Italy based on the product
already approved to:
* FCC Part 15 Class A (EMC)
* FCC Part 68 (Analogue modem, PSTN)
I know I have to CE mark the product, so I intend to:
* Review the FCC part 15 emissions report and determine if I need to
Martin,
The key issue is the competence of the testing and demonstration of
compliance to both EMC and Product Safety requirements.
The standard to use is ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the
Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories.
This is the foundation for acceptance of
Greetings,
Several years ago most manufacturing companies were getting evaluated to
ISO 9000 standards. Since that time, there have been some revisions to the
standards. Does your company still spend time and money dealing with ISO
9000 and it's revisions. If so, why. If not, why not?
I
33 matches
Mail list logo
