Ned,
See EN61010-1:20001, 6.5.1.1.d...
Movable conductive connections, for example, hinges, slides, etc., shall not
be the sole PROTECTIVE BONDING path unless they are specifically designed
for electrical inter-connection and meet the requirements of blah...blahhh
There are similar provisions,
Dear group
A client located outside the EU has a large number of IEC standards. They
would like to determine the differences between their IEC standards and the
equivalent EN standards.
I was told by BSI that if the BSEN60xxx number is identical to the IEC60xxx
number, the standards are the
John Woodgate wrote:
Telling us here won't have any effect. If you are concerned about
violations, tell the regulatory authority.
This is worth some discussion, I think.
Most of the time, EMC engineers are not cops. Among other things, we want
to be sure our OWN employers are regulation
Hello,
Anybody have any experiance with this box that
they would be willing to share?
This is a 9 Khz to 1.2 Ghz emi receiver that is
fully CISPR 16-1 compliant.
Thanks,
dave garnier
David Garnier
e GE Medical Systems
John,
There are not always technical deviations between IEC and EN standards, for
instances there are no differences in the body of the standard between the
latest versions of IEC 60825-1 and EN 60825-1. Of course, CENELEC standards
have a Date of Withdrawal of conflicting standards which IEC
Thank you for the update, John. I didn't plan to look it
up; it's kind of you to do so for us.
The document contains a number of other items, not related
to reliance on enamel magnet wire as insulation. Could've
bounced on any or all accounts.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com
wrote (in 67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB60581A444@BCMAIL1) about 'IEC
and EN standard relationships' on Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
What would be an example of a Common Deviation?
Common Modification.
An example from BS EN
I read in !emc-pstc that Ablewisp - Compliance Engineers
s...@ablewisp.com wrote (in ncbbihmocpcglbmhbpkpmeeedeaa...@ablewisp.co
m) about 'IEC and EN standard relationships' on Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
A client located outside the EU has a large number of IEC standards.
They would like to determine
What would be an example of a Common Deviation?
thanks,
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.
From: John Allen [mailto:ja014d7...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: November 14, 2003 12:13 PM
To: Ablewisp - Compliance Engineers; Emc-Pstc
Subject: Re: IEC and EN
At 9:03 -0800 14/11/03, Peter L. Tarver wrote:
Thanks to the responders to my query.
SNIP
I know I must purchase some standards, but I'd like to
minimize the financial hit. I'd appreciate opinions
regarding these three standards in particular:
EN ISO 4871:1996 [Acoustics - Declaration and
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
wrote (in nebbkemlgllmjofmopleaeilenaa.peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com)
about '10/100 Ethernet transformers meeting IEC60950 Basic insulation'
on Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
FWIW, there is a proposal in TC108 (108/69/CD) to permit limited
I know I must purchase some standards, but I'd like to
minimize the financial hit. I'd appreciate opinions
regarding these three standards in particular:
That's one...two...thr...FOUR standards...yeah
four... (whudduh week)
EN ISO 4871:1996
EN ISO 9614-1:1995
EN ISO
I read in !emc-pstc that Grasso, Charles charles.gra...@echostar.com
wrote (in DEDA59C30D344E4182D1A4DAB86C5B78082868C2@riv-
exch2.echostar.com) about 'Does anyone system test PCs anymore? - Q on
new procedures' on Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
If I understand the new methodology then I
(a mnaufacturer)
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
wrote (in nebbkemlgllmjofmopleceimenaa.peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com)
about 'Machinery Directive acoustic requirements' on Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
There are 23 standards containing acoustic requirements called out in
the 14AUG2003
Stuart,
Technically, BS EN 60xxx is the same as NF 60xxx with the exception that the BS
version is in English and the NF version is in French. All language variants
of an EN contain all national differences and Common Modifications.
If you look at the listing of standards in the OJEC you will
Stuart
As many people in this group can tell you, when CENELEC adopts an IEC as an EN
(almost always under the same numeric reference) it declares any Common
deviations in an annex at the back of the EN version - hence the need to (in
theory, at least) buy the EN!
However, any deviations in
John,
You are correct, but you have just presented the conundrum of the
thread.
Reliably grounded can be determined through test - 25 or 30 amps
for a minute. A new hinge will likely pass that test. A used one may
likely fail because of the corrosion and wear discussed by others.
There is such beast made by pca electronics (www.pca.com). The part number
is EPF819 SL. I have the datasheet if anyone wants it.
Doug
Thanks to the responders to my query.
There are 23 standards containing acoustic requirements
called out in the 14AUG2003 list of harmonized standards.
Some of these standards clearly don't apply in this
particular instance (those related to ducting or
workstations that would apply to the final
2.6.1 of IEC 60950-1 refers to parts of equipment shall be reliably
connected to the main protective earthing terminal.A hinge would
certainly not be regarded as a reliable connection.
As far as your door is concerned, is there any single insulated hazardous
voltage wiring likely to contact
Hinges will likely meet the 0.1 ohm criteria when new but fail over time.
They typically don't have enough contact pressure to insure any type of EMC
grounding/bonding and could potentially be a bigger problem.
Gary
From: drcuthb...@micron.com [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com]
Sent: Friday,
Ned,
You are right, I could not find anything in recent ITE standards specifically
stating that hinges are not allowed. Older standards like UL1459 did
specifically state that bearings and hinges can not be used. I believe
however that the onus would be on the manufacturer to prove that the
Scott,
I agree, but why is it not in the standard?
Thanks to Bill and Dave, I now know it is in IEC/EN 61010-1 (See
IEC/EN61010-1:20001, 6.5.1.1.d.). So, why not in IEC 60950-1 and IEC
60601-1?
Ned
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdoug...@ptcnh.net]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:43 AM
Ned,
I had this discussion with a TUV engineer way back in time. It is not in
the UL or IEC standards specifically AFAIK. What the TUV guy asked me to
do was consider the life of the product. The door hinge may have good
(low) resistance today, but what will it be like in a few years? Hinges
Ned,
I know this isn't the standard you are using but I happen to have been using
it lately and quickly found a similar situation. EN61010-1:2001, 6.5.1.1
Integrity of protective bonding:
d) Movable conductive connections, for example, hinges, slides, etc., shall
not the sole PROTECTIVE BONDING
On the same, bigger than a breadbox, piece of equipment I ran a test
in both a reverberating chamber and sweeping the microphone around the
equipment - as described in the ETSI 300-019 (I think) tests, and those
described in the NEBS suite using a hand held sound meter.
The
Hi,
I need some help. I told someone that you can not depend on mechanical
contact only (i.e. in this case a door hinge) for protective earth. Even if
it passes the test, it would still not be acceptable because it does not meet
the construction requirements. He then asked me to show him were
Dear Wan Juang Foo,
That's a very good question! AFAIK FCC + FCC does NOT = FCC
and systems integrators are bound to test. However, I am
not sure of this anymore as there has been
changes to the FCC Class B certification procedures (for PCs).
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Senior Compliance
John et al.
Thanks for your observations. If I understand the new methodology
then I (a mnaufacturer) can market as a SYSTEM two pieces
of hardware that are independently certified without a retest?
Don't I become a systems integrator? In the old days the systems
integrator was responsible for
All
I wish to provide a safety barrier between the User connecting to the 10/100
RJ45 Ethernet port and the TNV3 circuitry within my unit.
Can anyone recommend a suitable Ethernet transformer that is a UL recognised
component and meets the Creepage and clearance distances for Basic insulation?
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:38:01 +0100 (CET),
r...@rpgarner.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Be warned, something like this was tried by a UK manufacturer.
They failed the tests, then persauded a Competent body to sign off
a TCF stating that the failed tests were not applicable or were
unpassable by
I have the version dated 1996 and it does explain which directives apply to
various types of alarms. The report is intended as a guide for the various
standards committees. Also check out ETSI TR 102070-1 -2 which provides
guidelines for the integration of radio devices with other devices. You
John et al
Yes - ISO 37xx not IEC.
Sorry for the confusion.
Ian Gordon
_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian ian.gor...@bocedwards.com wrote
(in E1BA0362B28ED211A1E80008C71EA3060206FE62@z-
160-100-30-252.est.ibm.com) about 'Machinery Directive acoustic
requirements' on Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
The tests required therein will undoubtedly be based
on the IEC 37xx series and
Peter,
It's not quite true to say 'this is a nightmare' but it's certainly a
pain to deal with! Over a period of years, I have ended up buying
most of the noise standards just so that I can answer this question,
but frankly I'm still not much the wiser. Our experience is that you
can use the
A limited amount of information may be found in CENELEC Report R079-001:1998
Guide to achieving compliance with EC directives for alarm systems
I don't have a copy, however.
Regards,
John Crabb, (Product Safety) ,
NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Discovery Centre,
3 Fulton Road,
Tom,
Be warned, something like this was tried by a UK manufacturer. They failed
the tests, then persauded a Competent body to sign off a TCF stating that the
failed tests were not applicable or were unpassable by their equipment. They
then CE marked and placed on the market. Within their
Peter
You need to see if there is a relevant product standard which will detail
the required uncertainty of measurement e.g. do you need a fully anechoic
room etc. The tests required therein will undoubtedly be based on the IEC
37xx series and IEC 3744 in particular.
My understanding is as
I read in !emc-pstc that Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com
wrote (in 200311131630_mc3-1-5a13-7...@compuserve.com) about 'Does
anyone system test PCs anymore? - Q on new procedures' on Thu, 13 Nov
2003:
Can a monitor purchased from an OEM have a company label slapped on it
and sold
I read in !emc-pstc that Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com
wrote (in 200311131630_mc3-1-5a13-7...@compuserve.com) about
'opinions, please' on Thu, 13 Nov 2003:
I will note that the marketing rationale for placing a CE mark on
components which may be installed by the public could well
Hi Peter,
The CEI Standards you mention are Italian National security standards. In
Europe most individual member states do have their own national requirements
(standards). There are a few harmonized published standards in Europe i.e. the
EN 50131-1 (general requirements on alarm equipment) but
41 matches
Mail list logo
